Topic: Banks have bought the Core Team - page 3. (Read 5088 times)

That's usually what they do I think.  So whats the prob?

I meant first one in miner's mempool deemed legal and the 2nd one (possible double spend) deemed illegal. I wasn't talking whether it is legal or illegal from the recipient's point of view.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

Very right.

In fact, there isn't even a way to distinguish a legal from an illegal transaction if you receive two unconfirmed double spends.   And miners are just as well non-trustworthy players in the system as users are untrustworthy (and can emit double spends).  The whole idea of bitcoin was to oblige a group of cheating untrustworthy antagonists to come to a consensus, by using their mutual antagonism.  This is what was brilliant in this invention, and also why you cannot change it.

You keep using the word "should".

Yes, they "should"... but how do make sure they actually do?  (think about it) 

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

Satoshi payed by Rotschild made a decentralized currency to promote centralization? You really are a payed shill arent you?

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

That is generally how things are done but because the goal here is distributed consensus, we have to rely on the miners to decide what goes in the blocks and when.  There is no way to force them.  This is the entire mechanism that solves the double spend problem.

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

To the OP: there's no need for tin foil hats.   The fundamental problem with bitcoin and its block chain technology (like most alts BTW), is that there's no simple, fluid way for it to become a mainstream payment system.  That was pointed out to Satoshi very early in the discussion, and he waved that away, but the fact is that a system that needs everybody to know, in a cryptographically secured way, all transactions by everybody else, world-wide, before being able to accept a payment, is bound to be "computationally heavy" to say the least.

Satoshi's initial view on that problem was re-centralization: a few big data centres/centralized miners, which are the few big nodes in the network, no more P2P network, and those few data centres with those few big nodes (the "bitcoin facebook servers") are then connected to directly by all users.

In other words, those few data centres are then the "unique world bank".

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

So in a way, Satoshi realized that bitcoin was, finally, not going to get rid of centralized banking, only, those banks would now be the few full nodes/miners.  In a way, he admitted, without saying so, that bitcoin's invention was doomed not to succeed in what its outlined purpose was: a P2P "people's own money" system.  Nevertheless, he might have considered that those few data centres/miners/full nodes/world banks would at least be bound to something (even though they would have all the power needed to, for instance, increase the total amount of bitcoin, give themselves all the rewards they'd like, change the PoW or whatever.... if bitcoin were the unique world currency, people wouldn't have any recourse either).

So, Satoshi's long term vision of bitcoin was in any case a centralized banking/mining/node system, and not a P2P network.  I don't think that it is because he was paid by the Rothschilds, but simply because at a certain point he realized that his invention wasn't going to live up to the goal he set about: namely a peer-to-peer money for the people.  That was only sustainable on smaller scales, but not on world scale.

Is this the reason why he introduced the 1 MB limit, to keep bitcoin from becoming that horrible world bank unique money, and keep it small scale enough ?

That said, whatever is bitcoin, its basic idea is too heavy to become a light-weight P2P worldwide universal payment system.

When there is a valuable payment system that has some friction in "paying for coffee", then it is a NORMAL EVOLUTION that a banking layer is put on top of that, that fluidizes the underlying asset, with all that comes with it (fees, fractional banking, ....).  This is how normal banking got running on top of gold, which also had a fluidizing problem (security, weight, ....).  It was more practical to leave one's gold in the bank, and have paper substitutes, because the gold itself couldn't always be used easily.

In the same way as bitcoin cannot be used easily enough to pay coffee to anyone everywhere, a banking layer will naturally get on top of that.  LN is such a banking layer.

-->  banking is unavoidable in monetary affairs, until we invent something that is less clunky than bitcoin.

 

but how would you know.

for instance i could make a tx at 11:10:01 but by the time it relays around the nodes it hits a pool at 11:10:05
yet someone else who was only one hop away makes a tx at 11:10:04 gets to the pools milliseconds meaning its still 11:10:04
so mine wont be first even if i sent it first

also because other tx's have been sat in mempool for a while my 11:10:01 and the other persons 11:10:04 are gonna wait for the others that got seen sooner.

then ofcourse people can fake the time..
.. inevitably making the first seen first entered unprovable and a useless technique.

it could be first seen first entered.
Should be.

pools can put transactions in, in any order they please.

you would never know the order.
it could be first seen first entered.
it could be more mature (older first)
it could be highest fee first.

all that really matters is if they have time to add tx's (ovr 1min since last block solved) then there should be tx's in a block

Nope. Fact.

Shouldn't be happening.