What does HackerNews think of bitcoin?

Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree

Language: C++

#1 in Bitcoin
#15 in C++
#9 in P2P
libbitcoin isn't a company. It's an alternative C++ implementation (https://github.com/libbitcoin) to the Bitcoin Core (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin) implementation. Bitcoin Core is the one originally from Satoshi. Libbitcoin came in like 2011 or so iirc and was led by Amir Taaki. Libbitcoin is a lot less popular than Bitcoin Core, as you can see on the github stats.
By the same measure, Linux's future "depends" on only one mysterious coder (Linus Torvalds).

Evidently, the author of this ridiculous article doesn't seem to understand that a vast number of developers around the planet have cloned the original Bitcoin core code hundreds of thousands to millions of times, and have publicly forked it 34K times.[a] The author also doesn't seem to understand that any changes accepted by the repo's maintainers are visible to everyone, and become effective only if nodes representing at least half of the computing power adopt them. Regardless of what the WSJ's editors think about Bitcoin, they should be embarrassed by the low quality of this piece.

[a] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

> The moment that reward becomes a currency, and is traded for U.S. dollars, it leaves the domain of just being software. Banning that is quite different from banning the software per se.

That would make Eve online, Second Life, and other games illegal since people trade their digital assets all the time

>Comparing Bitcoin to free software seems similarly disingenuous.

Bitcoin is free software. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

If your position is that digital assets should be banned, you're a little late for that. Digital assets are defined in the US as property by the IRS since about 2014, and a commodity by the CFTC.

Furthermore, giving someone US dollars for something doesn't make that thing a "currency."

> Comparing Bitcoin to free software seems similarly disingenuous.

Bitcoin is literally FOSS.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

> But the problem is more fundamental than losing a bit of money. Crypto was built on the idea that you shouldn’t have to trust banks with your money, that people should be able to hold it themselves, hopefully somewhere a little more secure than a mattress.

Yes, and some of these tokens, like BTC, allow this since "crypto was built". You can clone and build https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin and set up your own wallet. Noone will touch coins in it if you're careful. They can lose their value but they will still be there.

If you trust someone else to hold your wallet, which is more or less a necessity when you trade/exchange your coins, that's whole other ball game. But having all your money in bunch of wallets kept by a single entity that is not you, is just plain stupidity.

> Bitcoin is often touted as a fungible and private asset [skipped]

By whom? There's nothing like that here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

> and digital cash alternative

That was the case from the beginning but it hasn't worked out.

> Each bitcoin in circulation has a distinct history attached to it ensuring that 1BTC != 1BTC.

What? The value is the same. Paper bills also have a distinct history.

> While coin histories can be somewhat ofuscated with tools like CoinJoin, the fungibility of Bitcoin remains distinctly lacking.

What? How's 1 BTC is not fungible [to another BTC] unless you're wanna hide your bitcoin transaction history? Is this what it's all about? Sorry to break it to the author but he seems to imply that Bitcoin is a privacy oriented electronic currency. It has never been "private". The whole ledger is public. If you don't like it, don't use it. You have Monero, Dash and Zcash and Bitcoin mixers if you wanna deal with ecurrencies without anyone being able to trace you.