Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Btcd - a Bitcoind Alternative Written In Go!

timothy posted about a year ago | from the bang-for-the-buck dept.

Bitcoin 150

An anonymous reader writes "The folks at Conformal have announced btcd, an alternative full-node implementation to bitcoind, written in Go! They have released the first of their core packages, btcwire, available for download at GitHub. As a bitcoin user myself, I love the idea of a full alternative. It will only make bitcoin stronger and more independent. This will be great for the Go community, too!"

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is good for Bitcoin (3, Funny)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#43672715)

...in world full of banking problems, banking crises and eroding trust in fiduciary money. Way to go !

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43672725)

Yep. What the world really needs right now is a new currency whose value fluctuates like a share price.

(Because it's based on the same premise - that it's only worth what people are willing to pay for it).

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1, Interesting)

Linsaran (728833) | about a year ago | (#43672741)

Cash is only worth what people are willing to trade for it, I fail to see how Bitcoin is inherently any different.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672817)

While technically true, have you seen any major currency fluctuate over >1000% within a month lately? Ignoring what actually happens in real life does not help your argument.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672875)

USD does not really fluctuate - it actually only depreciates slowly to zero

btw, in weimar republic they also thought their fiat is safe...

i think its better to have multiple competing currencies than to rely on one manipulated currency

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43673443)

I'm not sure that anybody, possibly aside from poor suckers in no position to do anything about it, had the slightest confidence in the Weimar republic's fiat currency...

You don't think that the Versailles reparations were due in goldmarks rather than papiermarks just because the winning side liked shiny things, do you?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year ago | (#43673239)

You're extrapolating from a month in which the entire worlds media decided on saturation coverage for Bitcoin, simultaneously. Go back and look at the prices throughout 2012 and you'll see long periods of stability.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43673291)

have you seen any major currency fluctuate over >1000% within a month lately? Ignoring what actually happens in real life does not help your argument.

Bitcoin has not fluctuated anywhere near 1000% in the past month. At most you could say 530%, comparing the low of 50 on April 16 to the high of 266 on April 10th. And excluding that bubble-and-pop (which very much still happens in USD-denominated assets), the exchange rate has remained relatively stable in the 90-120 range.

However, even in making that 530% point, you've overlooked the opposite side of the coin - Bitcoin has whatever value people will pay for it, as does the US dollar. If people will pay $266 US dollars for one Bitcoin, not only has Bitcoin shot up in relative value, but the US dollar has shot down at the same time.

Only the size of the USD vs BTC economies hides that fact. But when people will pay $266 for what most of the haters call a scam currency, that doesn't reflect well on the overall confidence in what they've traded for that "scam" currency.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673313)

If people will pay $266 US dollars for one Bitcoin, not only has Bitcoin shot up in relative value, but the US dollar has shot down at the same time.

That explains why a loaf of bread suddenly jumped 530% up in price in April - Bitcoin shot up and dollar shot down! I'm sorry, but does anyone (outside of BTC community) value dollar relative to Bitcoin?

Pretty sure dollar's value depends on many things - oil, inflation, banks, bread, stocks, tanks and everything, but MtGOX is far from being one of those.

Kinda like "It's not me drunk and fallen, it's the floor suddenly standing up!"

You? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673501)

" but does anyone (outside of BTC community) value dollar "
Well you for one, you seem to be completely aware of it!

We're well past the 'first they ignore you' stage here, the reason I can poke fun at you and the other Bitcoin attackers, is because your here, attacking it.

Then they attack you, then you win.

"Pretty sure dollar's value depends on many things - oil, inflation, banks, bread, stocks, tanks and everything, but MtGOX is far from being one of those."

'Everything' includes MtGOX and Bitcoin. Any transfer of value from dollar to bitcoin, necessarily moves value from one to the other.

Re:You? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673597)

People saying something is a bad idea does not automatically make it a good idea, and your delusions aside, I think you know that.

Re:You? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673781)

Yes, yes, you've told us that the bar and the floor is now vertical and we're all horizontal.

No, we're not "attacking" your new and better coordinate system, we just find it silly and funny (and hope nobody lets you drive).

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43673899)

I can't pay my taxes in BTC and even with that "relatively stable" 90-120 range you're still talking about a 30% fluctuation, which is both unpredictable and dangerous for people who are trying to use it for normal currency stuff.

As for overall confidence, there's a sucker born every minute, as long as there are suckers having confidence in it, it will remain, until such a time as it becomes so mind blowingly obvious that even the most idiotic supporter can't deny it.

In the long term it will deflate out of existence, I just hope that there are some criminal prosecutions for the folks that are boosting the currency for personal gain.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673355)

I guess the difference is wether it takes off or not, and in what manner.
There are worlds of differences, but of course, anything traded, is traded.
So you can also say there's no difference, but it's really disingenous and providing nothing of value about the subject matter at all.

It's like saying fracking is fracking, wether it causes water table pollution and earthquakes or not.
The devil lies in the details, but some people are too intellectually dishonest and lazy to bother.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (3, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43674117)

At least it only fluctuates. When a major currency *does* change value by that much, that fast, it's always been part of an inflationary spiral - the value goes down, and never comes back up.

And I think it's a bit unfair to judge Bitcoin against major currencies just yet. Even the most ardent supporters of Bitcoin don't claim it's on par with the Euro or Dollar. It's perhaps on par with certain small countries' currencies - and yes, those experience changes in value relative to other currencies as well, even when "pegged" to a larger currency. Not quite to the degree of the Bitcoin Bubble, but that was a pretty rare circumstance.

PS: How are you figuring that 1000% figure? It peaked almost exactly a month ago at 235$/BTC, crashed at its lowest to 25$/BTC, and currently seems fairly stable around 120$/BTC. I can't see a sane way to get 1000% out of those numbers.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43674149)

How are you figuring that 1000% figure? It peaked almost exactly a month ago at 235$/BTC, crashed at its lowest to 25$/BTC

(235/25)*100%?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43672989)

Which makes you a target for such scams :(
Schools used to have subjects called things like "social studies", "civics" or something similar to try to give kids a rudimentary bullshit detector to protect against bent politicians, naturopaths and pyramid schemes. Whatever happened to those?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43673081)

Back when you was in school there still was a gold standard?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673093)

Back when you was in school there still was a gold standard?

Yes, it was called an A at A-Level.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673109)

But the GP is true.

What, you are so naive that you believe the money you have has any value? How much are you willing to bet on that?
Have you ever seen a country collapse before?
Perhaps those guys in Greece and, oh I forgot the other one recently that had its banks crash and burn, should say how they feel about their backed money?
I'm sure they thought their cash would have been free from damage, free from losing worth. They thought they would live like kings.
Its okay, we can just get out money out the bank if there are problems, that won't worsen things at all, that is what they are there for.

What do you think would happen to gold if it started being used as a currency because people never trusted the standard note and coin?
It isn't a good outlook at all.

Physical money is just as broken as bitcoin is. It is just more stable because there are hundreds of currencies that bounce off each other daily.
The decay rate of these currencies are far far slower because of that. And sometimes they recover before things go pear-shaped without doing too much damage, if any at all to the general population. (usually traders, bankers and other types that profit on these changes, just like crypto-currency miners are doing here)
If there were the same number of crypto-currencies as there are fiat, it would be FAR more stable because it isn't in the hands of anyone but its users.
And as more are added, they will be goldmines for a short period before they lose their mining worth for profit, then it will just be used by those who don't care for getting pure profit.
A lot of money can be made in crypto-currencies and it will likely grow with time as more companies and people accept them.
But as a stable currency, now, it isn't something you can depend on. Maybe in 10 years of work and new currencies might it be worth it. Maybe.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (2)

Edzilla2000 (1261030) | about a year ago | (#43673157)

Actually, in Greece, they use the Euro, so... Their money has not lost value...

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about a year ago | (#43673897)

Actually, in Greece, they use the Euro, so... Their money has not lost value...

Which is one of the problems of euro, since it means that neither industry nor tourism get a boost from prices effectively falling. Euro will eventually collapse, of course, once enough countries have gone bankrupt that the rest can't carry it anymore, but it'll be too late for Greece.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673813)

The value of money is the trust of the issuing authority. This is why the dollar doesn't fluctuate much w.r.t. the good/services it can buy onshore. This is why bitcoin is crap.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#43674015)

The value of money is the trust of the issuing authority.

Actually, its the demands of the taxation authority that give currency value.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43673915)

It's not just as broken as BTC. The Federal Reserve has engaged in incompetent management over the last 30 or so odd years, but that can still be fixed. With BTC, there's nothing anybody can do to fix that, because the curve at which new BTC come into existence is defined and the maximum number is also defined. If they need more coins, because people are hoarding them, they can't create new ones. Whereas with USD, or any other paper currency, they can print more or print less, the fact that the current Federal Reserve is so incompetent as to think long term inflation is acceptable does not mean that somebody competent to run the reserve couldn't be appointed at some point.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43674139)

I would be quite happy to bet all of my money that my money has any value.

You're welcome.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43673447)

Sigh.

Yet again it is not a pyramid scheme.

Under some operating modes, it shared some similarities, but it does not share others. If the amount of money circulating round the system is much greater than the total amount of money in the system, then the "sucker" left at the end holding the bag will not loose out nearly to the same extent that you are making out my claiming it is a pyramid scheme.

 

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43673927)

What you're arguing there is semantics. It's got far more in common with a pyramid scheme than any other currency I've ever heard of.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673991)

I think it's wrong to call it a pyramid scheme.

It's more of an MLM in my eyes. I mean, even lower rungs make _something_ on all that Avon and Amway stuff, right? And it's cemented even more by the fervor in those "I've cashed out to buy an ASIC rig, now the money'll get rolling in!" posts.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43674029)

It's got far more in common with a pyramid scheme than any other currency I've ever heard of.

Tell me, which other pyramid schemes out there allow me to trad them for goods and services?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673999)

Ahh, Servitroll_major! So nice of you to take a break from trolling Mir/Wayland articles and remind us of what we already know. Indeed, Nerdcoin is not a true pyramid scheme, rather it shares some amusing similarities. Just calling it such pisses off the "True Believers", though the OP wasn't exactly making that declaration. Nice troll attempt, but seems this is out of your league.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43674119)

Ahh, Servitroll_major!

You know you've achieved some sort of slashdot goal when you have your very own AC stalker!

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43674065)

When did you go to school? When I went to civics class it was nothing but indoctrination. I didn't hear anything about the problems with our system, just how important it was for us to vote for one of the puppets chosen for us. Somehow all our problems would be solved if we got 100% voter turnout... voting for the same damn Democrats and Republicans we get anyway.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673015)

Bitcoin existence depends on real cash... Without real cash you won't have electricity, computers, phones, internet, etc... So, how good will a virtual currency be then? You won't be able to mine, receive or spend this or any other virtual currency...

Bitcoin starts to seem a real pyramid scheme, where the early adopters (who cleverly invested time and real money to start mining on the good old days) are now eager for fresh cash to come in, to allow them to trade all those bitcoins to real cash again (but with 100x or more increase in value)... They are the ones who will stand in the end, at the cost of all those that didn't mine, but rather invested in bitcoins with real money at the current trade value...

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

pmontra (738736) | about a year ago | (#43673041)

In another age somebody would have said that banknotes are a virtual currency dependent on real gold. Well, maybe banknotes are really a pyramidal scheme with somebody at the top printing as much as they wish when it's more convenient to them and people at the bottom getting with nothing in their end if inflation kicks in too much or if somebody decides to confiscate the bits in their banking accounts.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

jonjon12 (2918889) | about a year ago | (#43673059)

Real cash still depends on gold. But now we a have a new player called bitcoins that depends not only on gold but also on cash, so... gold -> cash -> bitcoins. Without gold and\or cash bitcoins are simply useless. But not only, even with gold and cash, if there is a power grid black-out your bitcoin wallet or brainwallet is useless. Remember Katrina or sandy?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673091)

You need to learn a bit about economics. Cash doesn't depend on gold; that's why it's called fiat currency. Look it up. And bitcoins don't depend on gold or cash for value. They depend only on the ability to trade them. In practice, bitcoins are dependent on electricity, but that's not the source of its value.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

daveime (1253762) | about a year ago | (#43673479)

They depend only on the ability to trade them

Let me know when I can exchange a Bitcoin for a McDonalds.

Right now, the only thing it is being exchanged for is illegal drugs / services, virtual services such as server hosting etc, and exchanges into a REAL currency such as USD, which can be used for myriad legal purposes not tied to an online realm - such as buying a burger.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about a year ago | (#43673303)

With real money when I take your wallet you have no way to prove it was your money. Its created this whole class of criminal called "thieves". A currency with traceable transactions eliminates that class and replaces it with smarter criminals.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673345)

Do tell how you're supposed to prove this was your wallet and your Bitcoins if someone makes away with them?

If someone has your Bitcoin wallet, only thing traceability adds to it is that now you can watch how your money went into a tumbler and disappeared, or how your money were all spent on Silk Road.

So, just like cash, but with more frustration.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

daveime (1253762) | about a year ago | (#43673483)

What good are traceable transactions, if you don't know WHO made them.

A hashed address doesn't identify anybody, that's kind of the point of Bitcoin. You know exactly which transactions were made, but not who owns them.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about a year ago | (#43673337)

I'm assuming this is a joke given what happened to gold prices lately.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673083)

True. Not to mention then when bitcoins attract to mush attention the regulatory agencies will find a way to either control or close it. Even with electricity, but without internet, bitcoins are useless.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (2)

gmclapp (2834681) | about a year ago | (#43673419)

You might be interested in reading the history of the foreign exchange to better understand why the Bitcoin is different. I don't think that Bitcoin is necessarily a bad thing. But it certainly is not a currency and is very different than the US dollar. We use a system of floating exchange rates now in which the US Dollar is "backed" by the British pound, the Yen, the Australian dollar and many more. this system ensures that the value of the US dollar, as well as the others mentioned are relatively stable with respect to commodities. (Like Bitcoin)

Long story short, the Bitcoin is a commodity. Not a currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fxtrademaker.com/forex_history.htm [fxtrademaker.com]

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (3, Informative)

usuallylost (2468686) | about a year ago | (#43673625)

Cash is only worth what people are willing to trade for it, I fail to see how Bitcoin is inherently any different.

I do not think it is inherently different. I think the volatility comes in because Bitcoin is a tiny market compared to say the US dollar or the Euro. So transactions that wouldn't impact those larger currencies at all can have a major impact on the value of Bitcoin. Things like currency sell offs happen all the time in the world market. The major government currencies are so large that we hardly notice them. Smaller currencies, those from smaller economies and Bitcoin, get hit with things like that and it has a large impact on the value of those currencies. So people have to realize if they are dealing in Bitcoins it is a smaller more volatile market than say the one for dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't, assuming we haven't already, start seeing things like currency speculators operating in the Bitcoin market. The danger will be is if those speculators find ways to artificially manipulate that market.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672831)

That's funny. I see it as the value of a dollar fluctuates and bitcoin is constant. I guess it's all a matter of perspective. ;)

Not just perspective (4, Insightful)

ebcdic (39948) | about a year ago | (#43672889)

What have you bought over the last year? How has their price varied in dollars and in bitcoins? No currency's value is constant, but some are a lot more constant than others.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43672905)

The price of food can double in a single day and you think it's normal? Luckily your wages do the exact same thing, right?

Very glass half empty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672957)

"The price of food can double in a single day and you think it's normal?"

Today it can buy 120 chickens, yesterday, sure it could buy 200, but you know what, the day before yesterday it bought 110 chickens, so I could ignore the trend, and just focus on yesterday, but I'd be dumb to.

Hows the dollar trend doing? Is it up? Did you fix that deficit problem? I didn't follow the news, did you all get together and agree to cut the budgets and increase the taxes, and balance the spending? Oh right... no. Congress Republicans won't increase taxes unless rich people are protected, won't cut spending unless its on poor people and education, and so Obama is lame duck as long as they control Congress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/markets-forex-dollarindex-idUSL2N0DH1R120130430

Time to buy bitcoins.

Re:Very glass half empty (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43672987)

The value of bitcoin is tied to the disposable income of the people who live in that country.

If the dollar crashes, so will Bitcoin.

Re:Very glass half empty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673105)

Er, which country? You are aware that BTC is not a national currency, right?

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (2)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43673099)

Could happen with fruits ;)

I guess what matters in the end is how much real world stuff you can acquire / have.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673679)

Except, like, The price of a loaf of bread at the local store has been the same in USD for the last 6 months. So, um, you're retarded.

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673861)

Are you retarded?

Better than fiat currencies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672881)

"(Because it's based on the same premise - that it's only worth what people are willing to pay for it)."

Better than fiat currencies, because they're worth what people are willing to pay for them, then less, then a bit less and some more dilution and some more and more and more and more. Bitcoin has a finite limit on the number of coins and thus hits a limit making it better for trade.

And before anyone pipes and whines about deflationary currency, it's not deflationary. It's finite. Big difference.

A finite currency is only deflationary if the value it represents increases, so that each coin becomes more valuable. So the critics of Bitcoins by saying its deflationary, are really saying they expect the Bitcoin economy to grow in value!

Bitcoins have gone from worthless in 2010 to $120 a coin in 2013.

Re:Better than fiat currencies (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43673187)

Bitcoins have gone from worthless in 2010 to $120 a coin in 2013

$120 is only today's price. It can go down.

“...the system is secure as long as the honest nodes collectively control more [computing] power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin.

ie. If governments or bot-herders want to destroy Bitcoin, they can.

In fact, if I was a bot herder I'd be busy working on a way to manipulate the price of bitcoin for fun and profit.

Re:Better than fiat currencies (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43673487)

Given the (currently tiny) market for goods buyable with bitcoins, their 'value' is heavily dependent on the health of the exchanges where you can cash out into some other currency.

Incidentally, those exchanges appear to get hacked and/or DDsSed every couple of months...

With the GPU, FPGA, and ASIC miners either online or coming-real-soon-now, bot-herding in order to outcompete honest nodes is a substantial computational challenge, CPU miners are just too pitiful; but it would seem that the real weakness to exploit is the (much softer) underbelly of conventional web infrastructure and the price swings that attacks on that part of the bitcoin economy can create.

The trade between bitcoins and USD looks sort of like the buying and selling of stock, in a world where it's totally normal for the NYSE to be firebombed multiple times per year...

Re:Better than fiat currencies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673273)

Bitcoin is still utterly worthless actually. It's a fucking Dutch Tulip and if you dont understand that, your opinion on finance is worthless as well

Re: This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672921)

the ven currencu frok hubculturebis somthing like that

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

pantaril (1624521) | about a year ago | (#43673259)

Yep. What the world really needs right now is a new currency whose value fluctuates like a share price.

No, we don't need new, volatile currency, we need proven stable currency with world-wide scope, limited supply and no central authority. Is bitcoin there yet? No, but it's best candidate. Unfortunately, no one has invented new currency with the good properties of bitcoin which would be stable from day one. I doubt it is even possible. The volatile phase and wild growth is IMO inevitable

Re:This is good for Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673089)

Sure! Change nothing, nothing changes! Because WE LOVE BANKING PROBLEMS, WE GONNA DO JACK SH** ABOUT IT!

Current currency schemes are foobar. Everywhere you look issue with inflation. Now fight with only currency that has inheritent protection against it.

Go! or Go? (5, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43672739)

TFS mixes the two: written in Go! and great for the Go community
TFA says: it's Go [wikipedia.org] not Go! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Go! or Go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672753)

It's called an exclamation mark and it indicates an exclamation!

Re:Go! or Go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673111)

Indeed, if they'd meant Go! they would have said Btcd - a Bitcoind Alternative Written In Go!!!

Re:Go! or Go? (2)

Svippy (876087) | about a year ago | (#43672757)

According to the source, it is Go, not Go!. But yes, the summary was confusing.

Re:Go! or Go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672867)

The exclamation point is end of sentence punctuation. Jeez, get off my lawn, and off my planet.

Re:Go! or Go? (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43673021)

This is precisely why including punctuation marks in product names is UTTERLY FUCKING STUPID. It's right up there with naming your product something funny from today's news (*cough* The GIMP *cough*) when the joke stops being funny about ten minutes after the project goes live.

Re:Go! or Go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673497)

This is precisely why including punctuation marks in product names is UTTERLY FUCKING STUPID.

Yeah... not punctuation marks, I know... but come to think... C#, C++... ah, yes, ObjectiveC [wikipedia.org] (link included for reference to the correct orthography of the language name).

Re:Go! or Go? (2)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year ago | (#43674031)

If the creators of Go! had called their language Go, then Google *might* have chosen another name for Go. Apparently Goo [wikipedia.org] was already taken. Maybe they could have used (their ticker symbol) Goog. Of course they might have just used Goo!.

Re:Go! or Go? (1)

pmontra (738736) | about a year ago | (#43673045)

I wish I had a bitcoin for every go stone I played!

Re:Go! or Go? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43673511)

I wish I had a bitcoin for every go stone I played!

Ko's would be a fortune, isn't it?

Re:Go! or Go? (1)

pmontra (738736) | about a year ago | (#43674087)

Of course, but I'd agree with my opponent to setup a molasses ko [xmp.net] :-)

omg that's the stupidest thing I ever heard! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43673071)

omg that's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

and to think that Go! was first.

Why so serious ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672747)

No need to use exclamation points, really !

Re:Why so serious ! (1)

Sussurros (2457406) | about a year ago | (#43672793)

It was a glottal stop and not an exclamation mark. He had the hiccups when he wrote the summary.

No crashing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672851)

How are people gonna short this?

It's not a full node (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672933)

All they have released is a handler for the network protocol. This doesn't verify blocks, send transactions or anything else. Are the other parts closed source or do they just not exist?

Re:It's not a full node (1)

seventy-nine (2761533) | about a year ago | (#43673097)

From the end of TFA:

Most of the code is in pretty good shape however some pieces are incomplete. Within 2 weeks we should have enough core functionality written and at that point we are going to release parts of the code to the general community.

But I agree that there is not a lot available to play with yet.

Re:It's not a full node (5, Informative)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year ago | (#43673229)

A full node is a really, really large amount of work. I feel that lots of people don't realise this, get enthusiastic and think, "I love Bitcoin! I love Go! I'll write Bitcoin in Go" where for Go you can substitute basically any language that's fun or popular. Then they write the easy bits (like wire marshalling) and eventually the project dies around the time that it's time to implement the wallet or Bloom filtering or robust test suites. Possibly Conformal is different, we'll have to wait and see, but the feature set they advertised in their blog is very much what has been seen many times before. In particular there's no handling of the block chain, re-orgs, no wallet and they haven't got any infrastructure to test edge cases.

One reason implementing Bitcoin properly is not fun is an entire class of bugs that doesn't exist in normal software - chain splitting bugs - which can be summed up as "Your software behaves how you thought it's supposed to work rather than how the original bitcoind actually does work". Bitcoin is highly unusual in that it implements group consensus - lots of nodes have to perform extremely complicated calculations and arrive at exactly the same result in lockstep, to a far far higher degree of accuracy than other network protocols. This means that you have to replicate the same set of bugs bitcoind has. Failure to do so can lead to opening up security holes via consensus failure which can in turn lead to double spending (and thus your users lose money!).

Being compatible with the way bitcoind is written (bugs and all) may require you to break whatever abstractions you have introduced to make the code cleaner or more elegant or whatever reason you have for reimplementing Bitcoin. Here's a trivial example - signatures in Bitcoin have an additional byte that basically selects between one of a few different modes. It's actually one of three modes plus a flag. So a natural way to implement this is as an enum representing the three modes plus a boolean for the flag. But that won't work. There is a transaction in the block chain which has a sighash flag that doesn't fit any of the pre-defined values (it's zero) and because Satoshi's code uses bit testing it still works. But if you turn the flag into an enum, when you re-serialise the mode flags you'll re-serialise it wrong and arrive at an incorrect result. So you have to pass these flags around as integers and select via bit testing as well.

Bitcoin is full of these kinds of weird edge cases. Eventually you come to realise that reimplementing it is dangerous and probably whatever benefits you thought it had, it probably doesn't. Some people believe there should be independent reimplementations anyway and I can understand and respect that, but doing it safely is an absolutely massive piece of work. You have to really, really, really believe in diversity to do it - the features of language-of-the-day aren't good enough to justify the effort.

Re:It's not a full node (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673453)

The new kids no longer have the patience and dedication needed to make a complete and fully functional application rather than a incomplete and shoddy piece of code.

Re:It's not a full node (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673949)

So glad you pointed this out - bitcoind's complexity isn't well understood by the masses(but the masses think otherwise unfortunately).

I conclude the opposite (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43674099)

Your post is extremely interesting, but the mandatory conclusion I make from it is the exact opposite of yours. If the original code is so full of idiosyncracies and gotchas then it's an extreme liability to everyone who values Bitcoin, and quite likely contains backdoors or deliberate weaknesses that are hidden by the obscurity.

There can be no more important task for the Bitcoin community I think than to specify all elements of the static protocol and dynamic behavior of all parts, and reimplement them in other languages, especially safe languages.

Go is certainly a good candidate for this large body of work, safe, clean, and fast.

Re: It's not a full node (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673827)

they exist but are being polished up before released to public.

This is not good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672961)

Since 90% of people don't understand Bitcoin articles that don't explain anything more than this
will confuse people and add to their belief that Bitcoin is nothing more than a fiat currency.

GO. GO. GO. Go Where?

Namecoin (2)

guises (2423402) | about a year ago | (#43672965)

As Bitcoin alternatives go, I really liked the idea behind Namecoin [bluishcoder.co.nz] . Not that it's likely to go anywhere, but it's something that puts some real backing, value, to the currency while simultaneously doing something to address the piss poor domain name allocation system that we have right now. Bitcoin is currently just floating on enthusiasm and greed, this would actually have some worth if people got behind it.

Re:Namecoin (1)

daveime (1253762) | about a year ago | (#43673505)

Isn't this just destined to go the same way as any popular movie torrent ? An initial flurry of peers and seeds, with the seeds pumping out tons of bits, 99% of peers leeching and giving nothing back, and after a couple of weeks the torrent is good as dead, because there's one seed left who's never online, and only has 99% of the movie anyway ?

With bitcoin, I can understand the incentive, however small, of winning the lottery and actually mining a coin. With a system with is a glorified DHT for DNS addresses, what exactly is the incentive for users to contribute ? Or is it going to be yet another onion / I2P thing, full of "hype" but no substance because there simply aren't enough users to support the thing ?

Open-Dollar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672977)

How about the Open-Dollar? Bitcoin is based on a scarcity paradigm much like Gold. The Open-Dollar is a full Virtual Fiat Currency where the you create money by issuing the notes yourself Open-Dollar [indiegogo.com]

Re:Open-Dollar (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year ago | (#43673177)

Doesn't pass my sniff-test.

I get suspicious any time someone is selling $1000 for $1.

shi7! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43672981)

Software lawyErs

Krayon Kash!! (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43673165)

My 6 year old loves to doodle with his crayons. Lately, I've been having him draw money. So far, the good ones are really rare. So I figure they are probably worth a substantial amount of money. I'm going to start releasing them as currency soon. I'm also working out a deal with Paypal to accept them.

Re:Krayon Kash!! (2)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#43673875)

Try to sell them all before the Krayon Kash Krash.

alternatives = it's broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673171)

Does no one see the problem with this?
Bitcoin appears to have value because bitcoins are scarce.

If everyone and their dog has there own bitcoin-style protocol with it's own coin pool, the scarcity is gone, and none of them are worth anything.

Of course, this was the reality all along, just it'll be obvious now. The bubble is about to pop. Prepare to short-sell some bitcoins.

Re:alternatives = it's broken (1)

BanHammor (2587175) | about a year ago | (#43673409)

It's an alternative to the client, written in the same protocol, and thus compatible. Hurr durr durr.

cool! (1)

cas2000 (148703) | about a year ago | (#43673197)

using this software, I can set up my own BitPonzi<tm> money scheme.

i'll make squillions, sell it all to buy gold, and then go retire in some libertarian utopia like Somalia, where wealth rules and i can even own other people if i want without evil socialist rules against perfectly legitimate sales contracts.

Re:cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673249)

Go forth and enslave, oh paragon of liberty!

captcha: private

What programming language? "Go" or "Go!"??? (2)

lucag (24231) | about a year ago | (#43673455)

Please: observe that "Go!" and "Go" are two quite different programming languages.
The client appears to be written in "Go" which is the language by google, but the headline would suggest "Go!" by McKabe & Clark.
I find the same ambiguity in the text... still, I am looking forward to the time we shall use the full unicode range in order to have
similar looking, yet entirely different, names. That shall be fun!

Bank killer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43673619)

With a mathematically fixed number of bitcoins, and no need for any central authority, Bitcoin is immune from a large number of the scams the world banking cartel use to maintain population control on the planet. Usury crime is much more difficult to wield as a means of control because everybody knows you can't create more bitcoins than are in existence once the mines are all dried up.

That's great!

The downside I see is that an alternative system implemented by governments would lead to a means of completely controlling everybody. I see Bitcoin potentially being used as a market softener, getting people excited about the idea so that they accept a single planetary currency controlled digitally, completely traceable and able to be turned on or off depending on an individual's compliance with the authoritarian regime.

I also think it's highly unlikely that one mysterious Japanese genius created Bitcoin. I think it might have been a consortium with a hidden agenda.

Maybe that agenda was a good one; kill the banks. Maybe it wasn't. Time will tell.

Bad Name (1)

mlosh (18885) | about a year ago | (#43673881)

They chose a bad, confusing name: btcd. It is only nmemonic for the thing for which they want to provide an alternative. Some people will wonder "Is it Bitcoin or not?"

Why not choose "Gocoin" or something more distinct?

Re:Bad Name (2)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year ago | (#43674069)

They chose a bad, confusing name: btcd

Imagine if bitcoins were instead called x-Koins. What would this project be called?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?