Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 86. (Read 378993 times)

So what if a given version of bitcoin software is obsoleted by evolution of the network?  The "core" developers have done this themselves several times.  Arguments along the line of "longest valid chain" do not resolve the issue under debate. They just move the debate to the meaning of the word "valid".

Despite some advertising claims, the security of bitcoin does not depend on mathematics alone, it depends upon running software, which intern depends on running hardware which is supported by the economic majority. Any other way of defining "valid" necessarily requires the argument from authority, which ultimately results in a debate over who is the authority.  With this, any hope of a decentralized system goes out the door.

And i'm feeling like the whole thread because of the ammount of the posts should be checked from a mod because is going crazy the whole thing.

you and veritassapere the only one really keeping this thread active every 5-10 minutes... both of you notice this or not? Let's stop this useless debate about a dead fork and let's go to talk about other things.... Maybe the hype of 0.12 or what really is needed to do about btc at the moment instead of this block debate went out of binares....

I'm definitely getting trolled right now.

That is quite a 180 from your previous argument. Shall I remind you?


So basically now you're saying if every node and miners update to a bigger block software then that will become the longest valid chain...

Wow you're some kind of genius aren't you?

There is no such thing as "the software".  This concept is inoperative, because every node potentially runs different software, e.g. different software bases, different software versions, node specific configurations or patches, or in some cases different operating system and network environments which determine how the software behaves.

You're asking to let the users play with any underlying parameter or constant of the system that they so choose, "because liberty". The equivalent argument transposed to the original hard money, gold bullion, you'd be making your case to the underlying nature of the universe. Not so easy to address.

In computing, you're literally creating your own little universes every time you write some new applications. You decide all the rules, how many dimensions there are, which way's up etc. The idea of having competing multiple rule sets, operating at a fundamental level of the software, is not a good plan. The participants in the universe have to adopt one set of rules or another, and whichever do so, cannot interact predictably with those who choose differently. Too much unpredictability of outcome.

If you think your vision for a Bitcoin competitor is such a good idea, go and get your own hashrate to subject it to. Your agenda is to change a system that doesn't want your proposal, and you just won't go away. You're in a minority, and a decreasing minorty at that. The real plan to scale Bitcoin up responsibly is now underway with BIP 65 rolling out. Get your own coin.
 

Disagree.  Miners hold power > 0.  

My point being is that the longest valid chain will be decided by the people who are behind the full nodes and miners. Therefore if they choose to support forking Bitcoin in order to increase the blocksize then that will become the longest valid chain, even if you still personally do not consider it valid it does not change the fact that according to the terminology that we are using it is.

It most certainly does matter that full nodes can be spoofed, this is why proof of work was necessary in the first place. It is simple really, participants in the network have the free choice to support any code that they want, therefore consensus is not totalitarian, it is more democratic in nature. People have the free choice to support whatever code they want to, which will in the long run determine the future of Bitcoin.

"The longest chain" per say is irrelevant.

Only the longest chain which the network of nodes (users) decide as valid is Bitcoin hence why the miners' decision to fork to a new software is inconsequential.

Great, so we agree that miners hold no power over what constitutes the longest valid chain.

It was true: miners and nodes abandoned those chains and they did not persist as the longest. 

Except that's not true as was evidenced by the July 4th forks in which 5 consecutive invalid blocks were mined on top of each others.

Same is also true for the March 2013 fork.

We have seen this 'longest chain' verbiage where 'valid' is notably excluded for some time.  I take it as a backup or auxiliary attack strategy.  Every opportunity is taken to lay the foundation participant misunderstanding however.  That misinformation effort seems to have picked up again over this last month here on bitcointalk.org.

Basically, if a bloatblock (for instance) can be inserted just one time, it would fork the chain and obsolete Bitcoin core software.  A combination of political/enforcement activities against mining centers in 'aligned' jurisdictions and blocking of those operating in non-aligned jurisdictions would do the trick.  We've already seen Hearndresen work the political end of things in surreptitious meetings and pressures on large mining installations and their management structures.  Thankfully these activities appear, outwardly at least, to have been relatively unsuccessful and it seems to have spurred an uptick in alternate related attack strategies.

A nicety of this attack would be that operators could shed crocodile tears about the 'unfortunate' situation, but say "longest chain, what can we do?"

The workability of this attack strategy relies on several things:

 - There is widespread misunderstanding of the 'valid' part of 'longest valid chain.'

 - Bitcoin core is molded into a situation where it fails if it does not act as a near real-time system.  That is to say, those who rely on it are not able to take a 'hiatus' for the amount of time it takes to mount and win a counter strategy (which would be more political than anything else.)

Subordinate chains could continue to operate during a hiatus in core function, but in degraded form.  This 'degraded but still functional' aspect would take much of the pressure off the core (aka, the 'backing') solution and allow it to outlive an attack such as the described.  Such an attack would be expensive and difficult as a function directly related to the time over which it must be sustained.

The longest chain is decided by the software that the majority of miners choose to run. It is the users that determine which chain the software follows because it is the users that choose the code in the form of what type of full nodes they decide to support, the same is true for the miners.

This might be the aspect of the Bitcoin network you are failing to take account of, the human element. This aspect of the Bitcoin network does not fit neatly in the discipline of computer science, a multidisciplinary approach is required in order to better understand the various dynamics that make up the body politic of Bitcoin. From game theory, psychology, politics and economics. Bitcoin might not always be entirely rational considering that it does reflect the will of the economic majority.

So? What's your point?


I'm guessing you simply chose to ignore the argument. Dogecoin was simply an example.


You suceeded in side stepping the whole of my argument to basically say nothing.

It doesn't matter that nodes can be spoofed. What matters is the nodes being run by the ones holding sizeable investements into the system. If the miners try to go against their will they will be bankrupted.

I agree.  Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks.  A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid.

valid is a concept that derives from the subconscient of bitcoin's hard core and savy technologists (who have more interesting things to do than spending any time on forums and social networks)...

luckily they also have lots of bitcoins and resources to keep monetary sovereignty on track.

any ph0rk or govcoin will be rejected by the network as from validity thrives bitcoin's value.

cant beat cold math and apolitical logic. in vires numeris.

Behind the full nodes are people and they can choose to run whatever code they want.

It is impossible to mine Dogecoin with Bitcoin ASICS, Dogecoin uses a different algorithm compared to Bitcoin.

Technically they can, practically it depends on whether the majority of nodes actually represent the economic majority or not, since nodes can easily be spoofed, this is why proof of work is so useful since it is a better measure of consensus because it can not easily be faked.

The users decide on the software he runs fully aware of the rules it enforces.

The point is miners cannot go and start mining invalid blocks on a different chain and expect the economic majority behind Bitcoin will follow, they won't.