https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Kell-Brook-vs-Terence-Crawford-En-Vivo--c4a983a7bc4044dd90a0af9597ab5c05
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Terence-Crawford-vs-Kell-Brook-En-Vivo--d04c77f237b54230b27d5a54009e1448
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Brook-vs-Crawford-En-Vivo--34fd1e6d365648ec9708cf2f0b1cfaf0
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Crawford-vs-Brook-En-Vivo--1c1c81a1780c4682b0072b43ee914ed8
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Kell-Brook-vs-Terence-Crawford-Live-Stream--2c81723ac8574f3a940c124c06a83fc9
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Terence-Crawford-vs-Kell-Brook-Live-Stream--b6e3c0246a804297a8fbc12885fd1d8c
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Brook-vs-Crawford-Live-Stream--179b840f018b4d74ac47a61aac127c7f
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Crawford-vs-Brook-Live-Stream--94148490a7ce45ac8198fff58444e5af
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430259
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430260
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430261
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430262
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430264
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430265
https://mindferrs.substack.com/p/wegewd
https://blog.goo.ne.jp/yiuyuig/e/93ae62a3669612045a5f50deacf3b2fd
https://caribbeanfever.com/photo/albums/svasvase
http://officialguccimane.ning.com/photo/albums/asvsavsae
http://network-marketing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/savsavasve
http://www.onfeetnation.com/profiles/blogs/savsavsave
http://facebookhitlist.com/profiles/blogs/egewewd
http://recampus.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rejerjerfasv
http://millionairex3.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rtktrggg
http://beterhbo.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ykythhf-1
http://korsika.ning.com/profiles/blogs/krtrktrg-1
http://sfbats.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ttrkrfg-1
http://summerschooldns.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tyltylyt
http://zacriley.ning.com/profiles/blogs/egwehgew
http://divasunlimited.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ehwrehwf
http://www.4mark.net/story/2802675/wegewd
https://dgdsg36f643.hatenablog.com/entry/2020/11/15/104628
https://resembleautocraticparties.tumblr.com/post/634813161504227328/avaveew
https://www.peeranswer.com/question/5fb0871af67cda5211f06c58
https://www.posts123.com/post/877574/weghewhewewhew
https://www.topfind88.com/post/877579/wewehwedasfsafas
https://www.88posts.com/post/259653/dgdshsdhsdtjtrrrff
https://www.topfind123.com/link/821059/ewgewgweg
https://www.1upfun.com/post/1319155/savsavase
https://www.mydigoo.com/forums-topicdetail-197559.html
http://www.clashofclans-tools.com/Thread-32953/kjhjjdiuiud
https://www.dancehalldatabase.com/forum/Dancehall-Reggae/kjhjjdiuiud/fe9de7041388eb8ed9ed759a00b3809c/8215
https://lemon.shivtr.com/forum_threads/3269881
http://world-surf.com/forum/projects/257585/kjhjjdiuiud/
https://note.com/avegewgew/n/nba6d8441439d
https://www.peeranswer.com/question/5fb089f9a1d393d94e5e1525
https://jsfiddle.net/5z0kteLp/
https://paiza.io/projects/64qpbcqIYMxXQoaw_-kVRw?language=php
https://paste.tbee-clan.de/yFs5R
https://friendpaste.com/1chEHebWRXmNbGW9KmGhvo
https://onlinegdb.com/BJo66bCKv
https://paiza.io/projects/o0gdliqanliyznzwI0HqKg?language=php
https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/0240521cc9f30c4315d28910a187f1d62d326c619c66754f1347d3dd6cced949
http://world-surf.com/forum/worldsurf-talk/257605/where-to-find-kell-brook-vs-terence-crawford-how-to-watch/
https://www.nairaland.com/6256755/where-find-kell-brook-vs
http://minimore.com/b/0wdTt/1
https://www.milesplit.com/discussion/170144
https://bpa.st/J3FQ
https://p.teknik.io/33SvK
https://paste.in/9RvN7q
https://pasteio.com/xgsgFrGnFZDH
https://paste.ee/p/s8hZI
https://paste.centos.org/view/e187a5bc
https://pastebin.com/6VQBtJ2w
https://slexy.org/view/s2fz5GVDCe
https://paste.feed-the-beast.com/view/764942af
https://paste.tbee-clan.de/dGTgb
https://rentry.co/x6of3
https://paste.by/xYCFfR1tEQ
https://www.page2share.com/page/498955/ewgewhwehweh
https://freetexthost.net/ZokRcykt
http://fireblade.ru/index.php?showtopic=65065
http://www.themiddleclassalliance.com/forums/showthread.php?52419-ytiuyuuffy&p=58531#post58531
http://www.arcoastur.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=123469#123469
https://kazan.ros-spravka.ru/forum/messages/forum9/message59544/21102-ytiuyuuffy/?result=new#message59544
https://www.43ft.com/43FT/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=2014727
http://forum.lilithgame.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=97358
Topic: Are blockchains truly distributed systems? (Read 862 times)
It feels like we're looping the discussion again and again. I'll just quote my older posts.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best.
Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc. 
I honestly can't tell if hv_ is simply ignorant or just trolling at this point.
it is neither, they (and by them i mean all the idiots following Craig Scammer Wright) are trying to convince people with a dishonest narrative that users not only don't need to but also they shouldn't run full nodes. basically it tells them that they should rely on centralized services only. the purpose is to justify the ridiculous block size of bcashsv (2GB) that is a fundamental flaw, and prevent any argument against it such as "users can't run full nodes if blocks were that big" before it starts.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best.
--snipped--
Stopped you there.
Of course non-mining full nodes process/validate. They validate that everything is in order/follows the rules BEFORE propagating/relaying.
Some miners don't even run their own nodes. Are you saying they don't process/validate?
I honestly can't tell if hv_ is simply ignorant or just trolling at this point. This is basic stuff that anyone who has been around for more than 5 minutes should be able to understand. The whole idea of running a full node is that you don't rely on trusting others like SPV users do. If full node software wasn't validating the info it is receiving, you would have to blindly trust that it was correct. Maybe that's how faketoshi vision works, heh.
And as the popular idiom around here goes: "Don't trust. Verify."
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best.
--snipped--
Stopped you there.
Of course non-mining full nodes process/validate. They validate that everything is in order/follows the rules BEFORE propagating/relaying.
Some miners don't even run their own nodes. Are you saying they don't process/validate?
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best. Compare as open banking api clients, consuming what banks / payment processors create ( mine ) for them. With those consuming clients you might just be out of sync with the mining network if you store some account data and find out later in the process, that sth went 'wrong' with what the mining processors produced for you ( new block / new longer chain / rewrite a lot what consumer nodes have stored before). But nothing you can do here, except try to mine a correct block on top and claim that your process chain is the correct one.
So only miners keep it up and running
Like banks/ swift/ ach network.
Those are the processors, the trusted parties.
Your home non mining hobby node does nothing in terms of trust
Huge processors wont never ever trust those data, they run bigger ones, higher connected (to other strong miners prior), fast and expensive - cause their profits depend on that
The world is not equal, esp when there is profit. PoW is such
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Whichever source your client connects to and starts pulling data from, you know it's going to be the same information everyone else has, because that source would be forked off the network if they attempted to alter the data in their copy of the blockchain.
you don't know this and the node you connect to could actually be on a fake fork. in fact this is a known attack vector. it is trivial to mine a huge number of blocks on top of genesis block in this day and age with a single ASIC since the difficulty was the minimum. so if you simply trust the first node you connect to and start downloading blocks from it you could waste your time and traffic by downloading a ton of data (the fake blocks could be big too) until at some point your node realizes it is on a fork and has to re-download everything from block 1.
this was mitigated by introduction of headers-first IBD in bitcoin core 0.10
I would avoid applying ideas of morality to the words "honest" and "attack". Morality does not apply here.
I also would like to point out that we have seen many examples showing that a "51% attack" is not necessarily fatal. That means that Bitcoin is much more susceptible to a 51% attack than people believe because the idea that the attacker loses everything is simply not true.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
I also would like to point out that we have seen many examples showing that a "51% attack" is not necessarily fatal. That means that Bitcoin is much more susceptible to a 51% attack than people believe because the idea that the attacker loses everything is simply not true.
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
I kinda see what you're getting at. But if you are syncing a full node for the first time, you don't need to place trust in any particular node or miner in order to obtain your copy of the blockchain. Whichever source your client connects to and starts pulling data from, you know it's going to be the same information everyone else has, because that source would be forked off the network if they attempted to alter the data in their copy of the blockchain. So in that sense, is it not a distributed system? Just because your client is checking the information it receives to ensure it conforms to certain rules, that doesn't mean your node can operate entirely on its own. It needs to connect to a network of other peers in order to function.
If you went down a different route and remotely downloaded a copy of the blockchain as a compressed file via torrent or some other means, then there is always the potential that, while your node might not find any data in that copy of the blockchain that breaks any validation rules, if someone has tampered with or falsified a transaction in that version you've downloaded, then you won't sync with the correct network. Verification alone is not always sufficient to guarantee consensus.
See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest.
why go that far, the bcashsv's parent shitcoin called bcash was also 51% attacked last year in May because it is centralized and one mining cartel controls more than 90% of its hashrate.https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack
True enough. My recollection is somehow more vivid for the BTG one. I had a vague memory it happened to BCH as well, but wasn't 100% sure. BCH is definitely a much better comparison, though, since the estimated cost of attack is very similar to BSV. Arguably, it's only a matter of time before someone decides the "vision" isn't panning out and does something naughty. That said, would any BSV users even notice if their chain got attacked? They all seem to be too blinded by fiction to see clearly.
They're not blinded. They are scamming, and shilling "Satoshi's Vision" and then try to get what they actually want from you. Your Bitcoin in exchange for their shitcoin.
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest.
why go that far, the bcashsv's parent shitcoin called bcash was also 51% attacked last year in May because it is centralized and one mining cartel controls more than 90% of its hashrate.https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack
True enough. My recollection is somehow more vivid for the BTG one. I had a vague memory it happened to BCH as well, but wasn't 100% sure. BCH is definitely a much better comparison, though, since the estimated cost of attack is very similar to BSV. Arguably, it's only a matter of time before someone decides the "vision" isn't panning out and does something naughty. That said, would any BSV users even notice if their chain got attacked? They all seem to be too blinded by fiction to see clearly.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
really everyone ?
Why long term investing miners ? Big enough to really do sth bad ?
Who's good to you, would not be good to me. Who's good for Core, would not be good for the big blockers. Who's good to Faketoshi Wright, would definitely good for Roger Ver.
Should we trust the miners to hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited evsn though there's a technical debate that it's bad for the network? What would happen if the mining cartel was co-opted by the Chinese government? What would be the last line of defense to secure Bitcoin? FULL NODES.
See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest.
why go that far, the bcashsv's parent shitcoin called bcash was also 51% attacked last year in May because it is centralized and one mining cartel controls more than 90% of its hashrate.https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
really everyone ?
Why long term investing miners ? Big enough to really do sth bad ?
Bitcoin is perfectly done, including its implemented game theory
Miners are the makers - for the incentives - long term
everyone else just cannot do any harm, even 1000s of following Sybil nodes, cause they can only update what miners make or be out of sync - do harm for other Sybils
so better have only few powerful ones those to get paid for stay honest
You don't appear to grasp the concept behind the alignment of incentives. Any given blockchain should offer greater benefit in securing the chain than it does to cheat. Coins which get the balance wrong have already been attacked. See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest. Part of that largely unseen equation comes from the cost of sustaining such an attack for a prolonged period.
You can see the cost of maintaining a hashrate attack for a few coins here. Of the SHA256 coins that are listed, you might notice yours is the cheapest to attack. You can keep relying on trust and fanciful notions such as "honest miners" , like someone who is totally ignorant of the consequences, but we're not doing that.
You need to stop pretending you can come in here and lecture us because you've been duped by a second-rate copy of a white paper. All you have are wild theories and gross misconceptions. You clearly don't understand how any of this works in practice. Nor does Faketoshi for that matter. If you're going to be a mouthpiece for someone, at least make sure they're not a technologically-illiterate clown.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
really everyone ?
Why long term investing miners ? Big enough to really do sth bad ?
Bitcoin is perfectly done, including its implemented game theory
Miners are the makers - for the incentives - long term
everyone else just cannot do any harm, even 1000s of following Sybil nodes, cause they can only update what miners make or be out of sync - do harm for other Sybils
so better have only few powerful ones those to get paid for stay honest
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
Yes, network is secure as long as honest miners control most CPU power of the network. You say that you have to trust honest miners, that's not necessarily true. You would have to trust them if they would "carry" your money, but they're not banks. You trust them your transaction's confirmation, but even if someone had the power to reverse your transaction that is more than 6 blocks deep, he wouldn't use it to reverse anything. He would use it to generate new blocks, because it would be more profitable.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ? And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?
Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?
Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?
it is not about hiding, it is about not being able to do anything about it. for example in a scenario where there isn't any nodes and there is a mining cartel, they could be bribed by some shitty exchange that got hacked to reverse a bunch of blocks just because that shitty exchange was incompetent and insecure and got hacked. there would be nothing anybody could do since there is no node in that scenario to reject their "less work" chain. this is not even hypothetical, it happened a while ago when Binance got hacked and tried bribing miners but wasn't successful.
the distribution of hash power and the authority of full nodes spread across the globe enforcing the rules prevents that.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
The globe reads that and trust that.
There is no way anything else is trustworthy and compliant with what Bitcoin defines from the start
bad things happened already and we are in the middle to watch how that plays out
Jump to: