Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[psionl0]

I still think the whole thing is a ponzi;

That is an ancient and discredited argument. It can be applied to every tradeable asset (digital or otherwise) including gold.

a slow append-only database is the solution to no interesting problem. Real fraud happens by putting bad data into the ledger, not by altering the ledger.

What is this nonsense? The only data that gets put into the ledger is wallet to wallet transfers. The nature of the algorithm is such that it is pretty much impossible to get a fraudulent transaction into the block chain.

Are you saying that after all these years, you still haven't bothered to learn anything about this technology?

 

[jeremyp]

That is an ancient and discredited argument. It can be applied to every tradeable asset (digital or otherwise) including gold.

Most tradable assets have some intrinsic value, including gold. However, you are correct that this is not a literal Ponzi scheme - it's a greater fool scam.

What is this nonsense? The only data that gets put into the ledger is wallet to wallet transfers.

Which makes it a database of transactions. It's also definitely an append only database and it's also really slow. "Slow append only database" accurately defined the block chain.

The nature of the algorithm is such that it is pretty much impossible to get a fraudulent transaction into the block chain.

So, if I offer to give you my Porsche in exchange for one BTC [checks price, oh wow, it's dropped $15k since Friday] ... two BTC and you transfer the two BTC to me but I don't give you the Porsche - in fact it turns out I don't own one - that's not a fraudulent transaction? Knowing you've been duped, how would you reverse the transaction?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There's someone at the door.

 

[psionl0]

Most tradable assets have some intrinsic value, including gold. However, you are correct that this is not a literal Ponzi scheme - it's a greater fool scam.

Wow. That is the first time I have ever seen this crap! "Intrinsic Value" huh? Is that some kind of magic?

Which makes it a database of transactions. It's also definitely an append only database and it's also really slow. "Slow append only database" accurately defined the block chain.

Yeah. That's all that Almo posted on the matter.

So, if I offer to give you my Porsche in exchange for one BTC [checks price, oh wow, it's dropped $15k since Friday] ... two BTC CASH and you transfer the two BTC to me give me the CASH but I don't give you the Porsche - in fact it turns out I don't own one - that's not a fraudulent transaction? Knowing you've been duped, how would you reverse the transaction?

ftfy.

Of course, Almo was referring to "putting bad data into the ledger" and not fraudulent sales.

Wake up! It is not 2011 any more.

 

[Almo]

What is this nonsense? The only data that gets put into the ledger is wallet to wallet transfers. The nature of the algorithm is such that it is pretty much impossible to get a fraudulent transaction into the block chain.

Are you saying that after all these years, you still haven't bothered to learn anything about this technology?

It looks like after all these years you have not bothered to learn about this technology.

 

[psionl0]

It looks like after all these years you have not bothered to learn about this technology.

"I know you are but what am I?" passes for an intelligent argument in this thread.

 

[dann]

Bitcoin briefly tumbles below $50,000 for the first time since February (CNBC, Aug 5, 2024 - updated Aug 6)

The price of bitcoin was last lower by 8% on Monday at $53,996.70, according to Coin Metrics. At one point, it fell to $49,111.10, its lowest level since Feb. 13. Just seven days prior, on July 20, it climbed as high as $69,982.

 

[jeremyp]

Wow. That is the first time I have ever seen this crap! "Intrinsic Value" huh? Is that some kind of magic?

It's not crap and you know it. People use gold for stuff other than just trading it.

Yeah. That's all that Almo posted on the matter.

As long as you agree that your statement that the blockchain is not an append only database was false.

ftfy.

So BTC and cash have a flaw in common. This is not the flex you think it is.

Of course, Almo was referring to "putting bad data into the ledger" and not fraudulent sales.

A fraudulent transaction is still bad data. How are you going to correct it?

Wake up! It is not 2011 any more.

Yes it's 2024 and interest in the crypto fad is waning in the face of all the scams, the environmental cost and its absolute uselessness for anything except crime.

 

[psionl0]

It's not crap and you know it. People use gold for stuff other than just trading it.

Why are you repeating this ancient special pleading argument yet again?

As long as you agree that your statement that the blockchain is not an append only database was false.

Lie.

So BTC and cash have a flaw in common. This is not the flex you think it is.

A fraudulent transaction is still bad data. How are you going to correct it?

Redefining "fraudulent transaction" won't help you. You can't blur the distinction between a transaction that was not entered by the wallet holder and somebody who was conned out of whatever asset they are holding (the transaction itself is still valid).

And if you want to guard against con jobs then do what you would do with cash transactions - establish a paper trail (get receipts etc).

 

[gnome]

And if you want to guard against con jobs then do what you would do with cash transactions - establish a paper trail (get receipts etc).

It seems to me the problem with that defense against cons is that cash accounts are more collectible in a judgment. Accounts can be frozen, income can be garnished, if a losing defendant fails to pony up. With crypto it seems like you can win the case but find it impossible to collect the judgment.

 

[psionl0]

It seems to me the problem with that defense against cons is that cash accounts are more collectible in a judgment. Accounts can be frozen, income can be garnished, if a losing defendant fails to pony up. With crypto it seems like you can win the case but find it impossible to collect the judgment.

That sounds like a question of law.

I don't know if the legal system would treat cryptos the same way as other assets/property but, if so, then there must be plenty of precedents that handle cases where a defendant has been ordered to return an asset but fails to do so.

 

[gabeygoat]

That is another one of those arguments that has been made ad-nauseam over the years: "Only a bitcoin lover would point out when somebody else is posting BS about bitcoin".

I have said it before. I have no particular interest in bitcoin. I just find the types of arguments used against bitcoin to be offensive considering that this is supposed to be a forum that values critical thinking.

Jesus, man, I just think it's funny/sad that ASTROLOGERS are pretending to predict bitcoin by the motion of planets. I think many skeptics would take issue with the idea of astrological predictions of bitcoin, but who knows?

 

[jeremyp]

Why are you repeating this ancient special pleading argument yet again?

Why are you still avoiding addressing it?

Lie.

You can call your statement a lie if you like. I was happy just to claim you were saying something that you were unaware was false.

- The blockchain is a database of Bitcoin transactions.

- The blockchain is append only.

These two statements are undeniably true.

- The blockchain is slow by comparison to other append only databases.

This statement is true, but, perhaps, not important in context

Redefining "fraudulent transaction" won't help you. You can't blur the distinction between a transaction that was not entered by the wallet holder and somebody who was conned out of whatever asset they are holding (the transaction itself is still valid).

And if you want to guard against con jobs then do what you would do with cash transactions - establish a paper trail (get receipts etc).

The transaction is valid in the sense that it accurately describes what happened. It's still fraudulent. If you transfer $100k from your bank to my bank for my Porsche I I don't give you my Porsche, it's a fraudulent transaction even though the owner of the account initiated it and the electronic records all accurately describe what happened.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Jesus, man, I just think it's funny/sad that ASTROLOGERS are pretending to predict bitcoin by the motion of planets. I think many skeptics would take issue with the idea of astrological predictions of bitcoin, but who knows?

That's problem of astrologers, not bitcoin. Astrologers no doubt predict stock market as well.

 

[psionl0]

Why are you still avoiding addressing it?

I have addressed the nonsense that gold gets its value from its use in jewelry or electronics and not speculation countless times before. I don't need to point out that this is just special pleading yet again.

You can call your statement a lie if you like. I was happy just to claim you were saying something that you were unaware was false.
- The blockchain is a database of Bitcoin transactions.

- The blockchain is append only.

These two statements are undeniably true.

- The blockchain is slow by comparison to other append only databases.

This statement is true, but, perhaps, not important in context

The lie is in saying that I denied these things.

The transaction is valid in the sense that it accurately describes what happened. It's still fraudulent. If you transfer $100k from your bank to my bank for my Porsche I I don't give you my Porsche, it's a fraudulent transaction even though the owner of the account initiated it and the electronic records all accurately describe what happened.

So you admit that it is not "bad data" getting into the block chain.

 

[jeremyp]

I have addressed the nonsense that gold gets its value from its use in jewelry or electronics and not speculation countless times before. I don't need to point out that this is just special pleading yet again.

You attempted to, but your attempts proved to be wrong.

The lie is in saying that I denied these things.

Somebody said (correctly) that the blockchain was a slow append only database. You said it wasn't. That counts as a denial.

So you admit that it is not "bad data" getting into the block chain.

A fraudulent transaction is bad data - maybe not bad in the narrow sense in which you want to define it, but it is bad data.

 

[psionl0]

You attempted to, but your attempts proved to be wrong.

No they didn't.

Somebody said (correctly) that the blockchain was a slow append only database. You said it wasn't. That counts as a denial.

No I didn't. I merely denied that "bad data" (ie an unauthorized transaction) can be put into the blockchain.

A fraudulent transaction is bad data - maybe not bad in the narrow sense in which you want to define it, but it is bad data.

No it isn't.

 

[gabeygoat]

That's problem of astrologers, not bitcoin. Astrologers no doubt predict stock market as well.

well, yeah
maybe I put it in the wrong place

 

[jeremyp]

No they didn't.

Still no actual argument then.

No I didn't. I merely denied that "bad data" (ie an unauthorized transaction) can be put into the blockchain.

OK I'll concede that you didn't deny the blockchain is an append only database. However, you certainly can put bad data into it. A fraudulent transaction is bad data. It's a transaction that should not have happened. I can't think of worse data than that.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Still no actual argument then.


OK I'll concede that you didn't deny the blockchain is an append only database. However, you certainly can put bad data into it. A fraudulent transaction is bad data. It's a transaction that should not have happened. I can't think of worse data than that.

Do you claim standard bank won't accept fraudulent transaction of this kind ?