Topic: Bitcoin: TRIPLE ENTRY CROWD ACCOUNTING - page 2. (Read 11228 times)

The efforts of mining aren't to check against double spending, particularly since most double spending attempts are unlikely to ever be relayed to a miner, they are far more likely to be rejected by non-mining nodes before they ever arrive.  While miners are nodes too, and miners also perform the same check, the bulk of miners' efforts - the efforts that create gigajoules of heat good for drying strawberries - is to create a record that allows others to define and reject double spending.  The verification step doesn't create enough heat to even make a raisin.

Compare to a county recorder's office.  The job of a county recorder's office isn't to prevent real estate fraud, it's to record things in a journal.  Of course, that journal can be used to avoid fraud, but the job of the recorder is to record.

You have highlighted part of the Wikipedia article, but seem to have underrepresented what it says after the highlighted part: making sure the balances end at the end of a particular accounting period.  That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the things that what we call "miners" do.  The SHA256 algorithm doesn't help "balance" accounts - it helps create a strong permanent record.



All nodes do this, whether or not they are "mining".  If all nodes verify, then what do miners do?

Excellent thread. I would like to see a few sentences at the end that also explain the initial creation of the supply.  Whenever I try to explain Bitcoin along the lines of what is attempted here, I get asked about the origin of Bitcoins in circulation. Any suggestions?

But the record they are competing to create is a record of valid transactions.  Any invalid transactions are ignored, so they are performing verification.

No.
If we use auditors instead of miners then reconciling is the perfect addition.

I agree, it should sound like they are working and getting paid to perform a useful service, rather than pulling valid money out of their butts. Then it would make sense to people why they are doing it and why it is valuable, instead of suggesting they are getting something for nothing.

That could work

tbh I'd be happy with anything that's not "mining", but if we're going to change, we better do it right.

I would almost like "blocks" to be called "pages".

Miners are competing to create the next block in the chain.  They must solve a complex mathematical problem to solve a block.

Transaction confirmers are competing to record the next page in the public ledger.  To be accepted into the ledger, their page must include the solution to a difficult mathematical problem.  The mathematical problem is specific to each page and is based on all of the transaction entries they are trying to record on that page.

The second one makes more sense to the uninitiated, I hope.

I suppose we need some way of saying they are writing the ledger then… Nothing catchy springs to mind just yet though.

Not sure I like verifying or reconciling. These mean things that have absolutely nothing to do with what miners do.

Verifying means checking to see if something is valid.  It is sort of like asking a question and seeking either "valid" or "invalid" as an answer. For example, nodes verify digital signatures before deciding whether to relay transactions.  On the other hand, miners are competing to create a record, not competing to see if something is valid or true. Verifying in Bitcoin is a quick process, miners are doing work towards confirming, recording, logging transactions that were already valid the moment they were created.

Reconciling is a misuse of an established accounting term. The established meaning has nothing to do with what miners are doing. Reconciling is like checking to see if two sums balance and, if not, explaining why.  Miners don't do this.

 +1 on the verifying change.

  I believe they would want to stick with the 'triple entry' term because it is an already reconized accounting terminology.

Why not "reconciling"? And instead of triple-entry, if it is a crowd, why not use multi-entry accounting?

I like it. It makes obvious the fact that Bitcoin, despite being anonymous (when used correctly) is completely transparent and it keeps normal people's brains from exploding.

This is how I explain it to people unfamiliar with accounting or computing...

a) Single entry accounting: Single transaction record
e.g I bought a loaf of bread for $1

b) Double entry accounting: Double transaction record describing input and output
e.g I bought a loaf of bread for $1.  I took the $1 from my saving account.

c) Triple entry accounting: Double transaction record WITH a validation record.
e.g I bought a loaf of bread for $1.  I took the $1 from my saving account.  The seller of the loaf of bread and I agree the transaction was legitimate and here is a signed paper saying so.

For most people, Bitcoin would have introduced them to the concept "triple entry accounting".  

To the OP, I would drop the word "crowd" and replace it with nothing.
Bitcoin has a chance to be the THE definition of triple entry.  

"verifying" gets my vote.  indicates a "truth" to the matter whereas secure could indicate even a hiding of the truth.

someone get 2112 in here.  i'm sure he'll have alot to say about this.

Hmm, fair enough, I think that could work.

That all sounds like it would work. Basically anything but "mining". I hate the term "mining", and never mention it in explanations to new people.

I would address this concern by calling it a magic documented process, as documented magic is more appealing than "technology".  Magic "just works" and is scary, but documented magic not only "just works", it just works for a reason.  I updated the OP just to see how it looks.

I say that because people throw around the word "technology" nowadays to mean the most trivial things.  It seems anyone who buys gadget X and puts it in place Y where it has never been before, is said to have invented a new technology.  Anyone with a soldering iron can produce technology.  Apple soared to where it's at by selling magic.


The word that comes to mind for me to describe the process as I visualize it, is "recording", "hardening", or "memorializing" the transactions to the public ledger.  I think of it as the same thing the local County Recorder does, to make a real estate transaction permanent on public records.

Replace "magic" with "technology" and you've got my vote. I know you want to capture the magic of bitcoin, but if I were a banker, I'd stay the hell away from anything that "magically worked".

Yes.

And as long as we're renaming anyway:
Please, please rename "mining" to "securing". As far as I can tell, people are saying "What, computers do some calculation, and then mine bitcoins out of nothing? Lol, what a joke!"
By naming it securing, or maybe "verifying", it signifies useful work being done.

  I see your point in that my offered terms don't do enough to motivate a more personalized and independent intrepretation of Bitcoin. I still think 'crowd' is not sensational enough either in that respect.

  Maybe, 'Triple Entry World Accounting', or 'Triple Entry Global Accounting', or 'Triple Entry Fiscal Accounting', or 'Triple Entry Universal Accounting'? shrug

That's exactly what these people are though... people you don't know, don't trust, and who aren't your peers, reliably processing your personal finances in a way you can trust more than your bank.  That's the part that should be embraced.  The whole Satoshi magic is getting the crowd to do something that crowds just don't do.  Without that, we're just another Beenz or Flooz.  There is nothing interesting about relaying (e-mail does that) or being distributed (the whole Internet is that, as is Google, as is Amazon).

That magic is what I am trying to capture.

The word "Bit" does it for us geeks - those of us who know the power of BitTorrent.  Something else must do it for the financial types.