That was also what I had heard. I never understood how 51% could control the blockchain. But I am keen to learn.
Merged Bitcoin - Part 3
- Thread starter Dr.Sid
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bitcoin cryptocurrency
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Yeah, lets not only argue about bitcoin, lets also argue about arguing.
It's not true. It's consensus of NODES in the network. Not bitcoin holders.
So not a race after all? Or is it the consensus that determines the winner? What happens if some nodes are offline?
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
As far as I understand it when the node gets online, it checks other nodes it remembers from the last time, and it starts to compare and verify their ledgers. It's up to the new node at what point it will accept those ledgers and will start to work on them. It's in the node's interest to be part of the correct group, as if it starts to publish wrong ledger, other nodes will quickly notice the difference and will blacklist the node.
Typically the longest ledger is the correct one, as it's computationally hard to create it. So any smaller group of nodes would be unable to create longer ledger. That alone is simple majority mechanism. I'm just not sure if it's the only such mechanism.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
You are misapplying the word "consensus". "Consensus" is limited to verifying that each transaction in a node's broadcast block is valid and that the nonce is correct. If either of these fail then the other nodes won't add the block to their copy of the blockchain.
You are right that the "longest chain wins". If a node receives a block whose block number is higher than the one it is currently working on then it has to find the missing blocks on the network and update its own copy of the blockchain. It is misleading to call this a "consensus" since there is no "voting" involved.
Where the 51% comes in is when a group of nodes has more than 50% of the power used in mining. Since in all probability, one of these nodes will generate the next valid block, they could collude to determine which transactions get added to the next block.
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Thanks for clarification.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
You presumed right.
Happy to debate. Happy to change my mind even, if warranted, why not. What we're here for. ...But are you so far gone that you cannot recognize the halfwittery, the sheer bizarreness, of your exchanges with me, even when it's clearly presented to you?
Only a true delusional can turn around and project their refusal to answer coherently, neither directly nor even when asked, and their general bizarreness, as my "fixation". Legacy accounts would mean legacy accounts. When you asked me if I was using it differently, I asked you differently than what. Reasonable question. Which is when you went off the deep end with bizarre accusations of lying to disagree with you, when I hadn't even engaged with anything of substance with you.
Do you really not see why you come across as a crazy person? Not everyone haunts this thread, hanging onto every post, and is aware of every argument made here since 2010. Some of us only visit occasionally, and engage with what catches our interest.
If you wish to engage with my post addressed to Gulliver Foyle, then happy to, but you'll have to do that with more than long-drawn out moans and groans, and reminiscences of this thread back in 2010, and random craziness. Rein those instincts in when with me, and behave sensibly; and we're good.
About my post responding to Gulliver Foyle, that sent you into extended groaning and moaning, as far as the substance of it:
1. Like I asked, is it true more than half BTC are owned by just five accounts, like he says?
2. Is it true that those are legacy accounts?
Those are the factual questions here. If you've anything of substance to contribute there, then go ahead, just do that.
If both those are true, then I agree with GF that it's a scam right there. Certainly in terms of the technicalities of vetting being discussed here. But that I'm not familiar with, and am happy to go with what's said here. But at a more fundamental level, and using the reference of stock, that I am familiar with, a promoter holding on to half the stock and making a killing by IPO-ing the rest would be a scam, but for the fact of the fundamental business itself. When there's no underlying business to this scam, then a scam is exactly what it is, quite apart from this technical aspect being discussed here. Whether the law treats it as such, is of course a separate matter, a matter of regulation. If this were stock, selling real estate on the Kuiper Belt, and sans any real business plan or execution beyond that, and stock prices based solely on trade of the stock itself, then a very strong case could actually be made to put its perpetrators away.
So yeah, happy to talk with you if you like on those three substantial points. As long as you leave you physical and mental ailments and you vocalized expressions thereof out of it, cause I just don't care about those.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
I am not interested in debating your claims about my "halfwittery" and "sheer bizzarreness".
That doesn't explain why it makes a difference whether an account is a "legacy" account or not.
Your comment about "IPO-ing" makes a lot of this paragraph irrelevant. There is no IPO with bitcoin. Every coin in existence was mined. Similarly, bitcoin is not a business. It is an inaminate (digital) object. It is created by an algorithm and not by some shyster trying to fleece the gullible public.
In spite of this, the distribution of btc has some relevance to this debate but only in that unequal distributions of any commodity is not a good thing. The early miners got a lot of btc but there is no evidence that they did so because they were planning to fleece the public. They just happened to get in at a time when nobody else thought that btc would be of any use to anybody.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Nor me. But given you started this, completely unprovoked, by refusing to answer simple straightforward requests for clarification of what you meant by your question to me, and compounded that with bizarre and indeed random accusations of “lying” in aid of supporting my “disagreement” with you --- when I’d not even said anything at all to you, that might amount to either agreeing or disagreeing with you, or that might be seen as either true or untrue --- then that’s completely, 100% on you and you alone.
No one is interested in your bizarreness. No one at all. If you aren’t either, then just refrain from descending into such in the first place. You cannot act like an ass, and then complain when your extraordinary conduct is clearly shown up by having it demonstrated back to you, by directly quoting your own posts --- regardless of whether such demonstration of your bizarre behavior “interests” you.
It would actually make a very substantial difference. Here’s why:
If a company is floated with a business that has zero intrinsic value to the business itself, but the promoters make lots of money simply off of appreciation of the stock price, that and nothing else --- in other words, distilled speculation value, with the intrinsic value of the underlying business that has always been and still is zero --- well then, while that would be actionable in and of itself, but still, if there are five large financing companies that specialize in high-risk speculative ventures, that were early buyers, and subsequently profited from their speculation: then that would amount to speculation, gambles, that have done well, is all, as far as these early investors. They couldn’t personally be held liable for the scam, even if the business is shown to be a scam --- not simply basis their having bought in early, and their gamble having paid off, not if they’ve not done anything else that is questionable. But if there are five individuals or entities that have themselves promoted that stock, and held on to half of it, before IPO-ing it off and that 51% stockholding has appreciated substantially off of nothing more than stock price appreciation: well then, when that business is pronounced a scam, then those individual promoters will definitely be candidates for personal liability for their role in this whole enterprise. Likewise this thing here.
Same principle. An IPO lets an enterprise’s stock be available for investing in, to the public at large --- both during the IPO, and subsequently when it is traded. While in this case, BTC is made available for investing in, to the public at large --- whether directly by purchasing it, or indirectly by putting in the money and time and effort and expertise to mine it.
Not what I meant. I wasn't referring to the early miners, or indeed the early purchasers (or early pizza sellers). Analogous to founder equity stock here, would be the crypto stock and the wallets belonging to or substantially associated with the founder/s of BTC. (Satoshi N, I guess, if that's clearly established --- I add this qualification because I understand there was some secrecy involved here, and I'm not fully clued in to those details. As well as any other person or entity or organization he may have been associated with, in connection with BTC.)
Last edited:
Isn’t it also the case that the early miners got a lot of btc because in the beginning it didn’t take much effort to mine them?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
This is the corner stone of your entire post and it is totally false. Bitcoin was never "floated". The source code was placed in the public domain and anybody was free to download it and start mining. Markets for trading bitcoins didn't appear until much later when people started seeing a potential profit in mining/trading bitcoin.
And please stop using the term "intrinsic value". It is totally meaningless. Bitcoin has "utility" and that is worth something to some people.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
I would agree with this, if it is the case that the source code was placed in the public domain completely untouched, completely un-mined. That is, if Satoshi Nakamoto did not enjoy any advantage by virtue of creating the code, when compared with others who might want to mine or trade.
That would be analogous to the promoters not keeping back any stock for themselves at all, but instead IPO-ing it all out at near-zero price, and so enjoying no benefit over other speculators.
Is that the case? Should that be the case, then my analogy still works, but the specifics would then point to this not being a scam per those terms.
Happy to take that onboard, if that is the case.
So: Is it the case that everyone got to start mining at the same time, and after this thing was publicly announced? Without Satoshi Nakamoto (and whatever others he may have been associated with) having already mined some for themselves before having made this freely available to the public, to mine and/or trade as they liked?
A clear unequivocal answer to that question of factuality would settle the issue.
You don't seem to understand elementary investing terms. An equity stock, for instance, has an intrinsic value that represents the actual worth of that scrip, even in the absence of trading, even if the value it derived from speculation were zero.
It is true that BTC has no intrinsic value. But that is not because intrinsic value is a meaningless term. That is because BTC is intrinsically worthless. (Which is not a pejorative statement, but one of factuality. I'm not using the term "worth", or "value", or indeed "intrinsic value" in any moral or judgmental sense here.)
Please don't ever again say that, that intrinsic value is a meaningless term.
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Yes. The history of bitcoin is well documented.
Bitcoin - Wikipedia
Sorry, NCD. Something has value only if people are willing to pay for it. If bitcoin had no utility whatsoever then few people would have had any interest in it for long.
An income producing asset (eg shares in a farm or shares in a factory) or an asset that has practical applications other than as money means means that people are automatically going to value it but nothing has value in the absence of anybody willing to pay for it.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
That seems clear. White paper released, made public, end 2008. And code released early 2009. Per my analogy, and the specific argument I’d initially implied and later on spelled out, that’s like the promoter keeping zero stock, and then buying it up from the market like anyone else might, that was so inclined. (Except here it’s mining, to begin with.)
Agreed, then. No scam, not per the specific argument I’d put forward. Happy to take this information onboard, that I hadn’t been aware of.
This matter is moot, as far as the specific we were discussing. And this is OT as well. But perhaps a brief post in clarification may not be out of place. This is a basic misapprehension you seem to be laboring under.
It might make sense, in this context, to think of intrinsic value, or fundamental value, of a scrip as the value it might derive completely independent of trading. So that, if you have a dividend paying stock, then the dividend payouts will form a floor for its intrinsic value, no matter what else. Of course, that’s just the floor, and there’s many other elements that go into making your valuation model --- as you’re no doubt aware --- but ultimately, it boils down to this: Should all trades cease tomorrow, then what will be the worth of my scrip? That’s kind of the bedrock of value investing. (Again, I’m pontificating on basics, but given that it is a basic misapprehension you’ve put forward, that may not be out of place.)
Should trades stop in BTC, then BTC will not have any value at all. By definition, then, it has no intrinsic value. Again, not in the judgmental sense, or a moral sense.
Sure, it has utility. But the point is, this utility is predicated squarely on its being traded. BTC is not a sovereign backed promissory note --- at least not so far, even despite Trump and Musk, not yet --- so that, should trades stop, its value plummets to zero.
I think the argument you put forward here, about BTC's utility, is best exemplified by the Pizza sale, which I think happened before BTC started being traded. If that is correct, that is to say if, in general, there’s enough people willing to use this as currency, even in the absence of trading per se: well then, its wide acceptance and usage (should that be the case) might give it an intrinsic value, completely as a function of that acceptability and that usage. Much like gold.
I don’t actually agree with that argument myself, not for BTC. But leaving that disagreement aside, what you seem to arguing for would, even if it did work --- and I don’t think it does, but regardless of that --- even if it did work, even so, what that would argue for is an intrinsic value at this point for BTC. In no case can you argue that intrinsic value is meaningless.
That statement, that intrinsic value is meaningless, is …well, it simply makes no sense. It’s so wrong that it’s nonsensical.
(In any case, though, and like I said: given the perfectly satisfactory resolution to our actual argument, basis which this sidebar came up, this question itself is moot now.)
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
This is probably just a matter of POV. To me, "intrinsic value" means that something can be given a monetary value even if it is never bought or sold. Something may have value based on its utility (as distinct from its speculative value) but even then, it needs to be traded so that its utility value can be established.
That was the case with bitcoin. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to measure the value of its utility since (like gold) endless speculation has driven its price far beyond what it would be worth based on its utility value alone.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
As I keep telling you, that POV is so very wrong as to be actually nonsensical.
That is, the first part of it is obviously true. The part where you essentially say what I'd myself said to you, in my last few posts: that intrinsic value means something can be given a monetary value even if it is never bought or sold. It is the second part of your argument, only part of which you spell out here, that comes up short. This is the part where you reason not like a rational person but like an ideologue. Because your reasoning leads you to conclude that BTC is intrinsically worthless, and the BTC phenomenon no more than a bubble, therefore, to paraphrase you, "Please stop using the term intrinsic value, because that term is meaningless." ...Heh, now when I play back your reasoning to you, can you now recognize your so-wrong-as-to-be-actually-nonsensical reasoning?
Your gold analogy is a fail, as well. Here's why:
The exchange utility of gold is established across literally millennia. It is the fact of its long-accepted usage that lends it its exchange value. If gold is a bubble, then it is a bubble grown strong over thousands of years of usage.
BTC is 100% a bubble. Will the bubble pop? That is the question. Earlier I'd have said 100% yes, only a matter of when, whether today or next week or next month or in a couple years. Now, frankly, I'm not so sure. With Trump and Musk rampaging around, for the next four years certainly --- and, more importantly, and more worryingly, with us living in an insane world where people let his kind in, and cheer him on as he goes around doing that --- well you never know. Also, I believe there's some places, countries, where they've actually made BTC their sovereign currency when they were in economically dire straits, and presumably they're doing well now off of BTC's rise. Therefore, now, now with Trump's second coming, who knows, the BTC bubble may well gain real traction.
If the above is what you want to argue, then fair enough. Now, in the last few months, that argument might sound somewhat credible, in this insane orange world.
But that isn't what you're actually arguing. You're claiming that intrinsic value itself is meaningless. Because gold.
That is ...so wrong as to be nonsensical. I think I've spelled out why, above. If you need more graphic demonstration, then try out the oldest argument in the book, and repeat your argument substituting BTC with tulips. It'll work just as well. Which is to say, not at all.
...If you've still not seen why your POV about intrinsic value is "so wrong as to be nonsensical", then turn now to very short bottom section of this post.
--------------------
Yeah? And what exactly would be its worth based on its utility value alone?
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
This is sheer and utter nonsense!
Special pleading.
Wishful thinking. There isn't a single fact to establish that this is true.
Can you establish what exactly gold would be worth based on its utility value alone? (Not that "utility value" doesn't mean that it can be used as money).
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,240
16 states have introduced bitcoin strategic reserves. under what circumstances having a strategic reserve of bitcoin would be useful are unclear. maybe state governments could rug pull taxpayers to try and pay off the national debt? that’s all assuming this isn’t some giant scam by a bunch of crypto scammers. but, let’s face it.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
If there is a "bunch of crypto scammers" I guess that state governments would fit the bill.