Topic: Why exactly is Bitcoin clinging to PoW? (Read 1790 times)

The discussion here just seems to be looping and getting increasingly heated. I think people have said what they want to say on the subject.

Further threads about non-pow will get punted to the altcoin subforum for the immediate future.

You have been barking the same thing for years now through idiotic, banned accounts. But you never actually go away. Nobody needs your repetitive, stupid takes.

You are incapable of convincing people not because Bitcoin is a cult but because you don't have a valid point with these delusions about "PoS" and "3rd generation blockcahin"..

Nobody is ignoring reality here. Every single individual understands the limitations and choices for Bitcoin. They also understand the logic behind those choices. The whole community and market have taken those decisions. Just because you hate bitcoin for not being what you THINK it should be, doesn't mean the rest of us don't get it.

This also doesn't mean that Bitcoiners are being left behind in making money out of all these foundations/ corporation coins. In fact, they put money into them all the time and make it back several times over. We just know that some centralized PoS shitcoin that you think has solved the trilemma, cannot be what Bitcoin is.

PoS coins serve a different purpose than what Bitcoin does. Its morons like you who don't understand this and keep hating on bitcoin and the community for your self-therapy sessions. Stop being such a useless human being and stop repeating yourself.

No,
I purchase the soda with the $10 , and then smacked you upside the head, retrieved my $10,
and spent the $10 down the street. A double spend.

You know, their really is no further point talking to any of you bitcoiner cultist.

You can't recognize that PoW is a dead end.
You can't recognize that LN is Bank 2.0 , ie an IOU system.
You can't even acknowledge what a double-spend is.
You ignore government bans as fud.
You ignore the fact every altcoin can outperform bitcoin onchain.

You bitcoiners have totally left the rails of sanity behind for your ridiculous cult like worship of a bitcoin.

So as of now,
I shall leave you to enjoy your asinine worship of a 1st generation blockchain that is inferior to all of the 3rd generation blockchain designs.

Good Luck to you,
however those that ignore reality are one day going to get reality smacked and that is going to take alot more than $10 from you.

Enjoy your Bitcoiner Cult's Delusions.    

 

Nah.  You spent it once on some candy, and stole some soda from me.

Or, if you consider the soda transaction to be complete before you take the $10 back, then you are looking at 3 separate transactions...
Transaction 1: $10 transferred to me from you (in exchange for a soda)
Transaction 2: $10 transferred to you from me (in exchange for a bump on the head)
Transaction 3: $10 transferred to a vendor down the street (in exchange for some candy)

Either way, it's physically impossible to create an equally valid identical copy of that $10 bill (which is the specific "double spend" problem that digital goods need to deal with). That $10 bill can only exist in a single place at any moment in time.  The blockchain makes sure that the same is true of digital goods.

This is the only issue that the blockchain solves.  It doesn't prevent theft, it doesn't prevent fraud, it doesn't make people intrinsically good (or bad), it doesn't prevent or cause inflation, it doesn't determine exchange rates, etc. It just makes sure that at any moment in time, a given unit of value can only be under the control of a single individual.

Inherently true of ALL blockchain solutions, including both POW and POS, is the fact that there is some period of time between when a transaction is initiated and when the recipient of that transaction can be comfortable with the level of risk which remains that control over that value might change without their authorization.

The double spend that we were originally reference had 6 hours of confirmations.

And yes Cash can be double spent,
If I give you a $10 bill for a soda, and you are holding on to it in your hands,
Then I slap you upside your head and Take the $10 back and keep the soda,
then walk down the street, and buy some candy with that $10 , I just double-spent that $10,
and the only proof I did so is that knot on your head.  


FYI:
Think of it as a 51% butt kickin.
As I was 51% stronger than you to take the cash back.  

Nah.  That's no different than giving away products at the verbal promise of payment.

If I call you and say, I'll send you 0.01 BTC, please send me $300 worth of product, and then you send it without ever seeing the transaction that's not a "double-spend".  That's you making an assumption about how much you can trust my promise.

If I send you a transaction that isn't confirmed (or has very few confirmations), and then you send it without waiting for sufficient confirmations, that's not a "double-spend".  That's you making assumptions about how much you can trust an unconfirmed transaction.

The entire purpose of the blockchain (the only reason it exists at all) is so that the users of bitcoin can determine (among multiple transactions spending the same utxo) which transaction is the one-and-only "real" transaction. In other words, to eliminate the possibility of an actual "double-spend" where there are two (or more) transactions and no way to determine which is the real one.

If a transaction that is not in the blockchain is considered to be a "double-spend", then we can just get rid of the blockchain (and mining) entirely and move on with the acceptance that double spends happen.

Let's think about this in terms of cash.  It's impossible to "double-spend" cash, right?  If I give you a $10 bill, and you are holding on to it in your hands, there's no way for me to hand it to someone else at the same time and they believe that they are the sole possessor of that $10 bill.  However, if I deposit that $10 bill into a bank account and then write two people each a separate cheque for $10, does that mean that I "double spent" that $10?  No.  The bank will transfer the $10 based on whichever cheque clears first, and the other cheque will "bounce".  The $10 wasn't "double-spent", but the losing recipient of a cheque may have made a poor assumption about the trustworthiness of the cheque.

Yes, it would be wise to wait for a few or several confirmations. If you also know there is an upcoming hard fork or some other major upgrade, it would be wise to wait for a day or two worth of confirmations. Many exchanges suspend trading or withdrawals when everyone knew a fork or upgrade was going to happen, and not just to bitcoin but any other altcoin.

Double spent transactions will never exist on chain.

It's not that hard to understand. But, this is a little bit beyond the original topic already.

double spends:
the blockchain will never have 2 UXTO's (unspent transactions of the same parent)
block rejects/orphans ensure only 1 utxo is valid/remains

a double spend is not about onchain transactions existing in double..
but services that give away products at the sight of a zero-confirm/low confirm.. and then find that transaction disapears(never confirms, gets confirmed then orphaned).. so the service doesnt get paid

meaning the person(spender) has got the goods and kept the funds. via one version of his transaction dispearing

its about the service/retailer/recipient of funds not waiting for good confirms to guarantee they are paid before releasing goods/service.

I have hope for you.

Their is no hope for you.
You don't know anything.

 

Fixed that for you. And yes, that is correct.

Double-spends will Never show up on the Blockchain,
Because the Reorg overwrites the ORIGINAL transaction.
That is why it is a DOUBLE_SPEND!


FYI:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/doublespending.asp

Where is the double-spend in the blockchain? It can not possibly be there. Can I see it on my own full node? I'm not a part of any cult, have no idea what you are trying to imply.

The reddit thread had these words in them:
You are also saying the US will ban bitcoin mining in 3 years, just like China? I look forward to that. Maybe some things will change before then.

As a last resort, you can mine Bitcoin with totally ecological pencil and paper, reaching around 0.67 hashes per day 

http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and-paper.html

But let's not be naive...
If the elite really cared about the environment, then they would order mining using only green energy sources instead of banning it completely, right?
I also think they know that in terms of DLT-based networks, Sybil-resistance and fault tolerance can quite well go hand in hand with centralization.

Bitcoin is still a resistance movement, not a cult.

I showed you the double spend, the original article called it a double-spend, the reddit post called it a double-spend.

Everyone in the freaking universes calls it a double-spend, except for bitcoin cult members.

If part of being in the bitcoin cult makes you ignore reality, that is your problem , not mine.

I guess when the US bans bitcoin PoW mining in ~ 3 years for excessive power grid disruptions,
the bitcoin cult members will cry fud just like when China did for excessive power grid disruption.

So where is the double-spend again? I don't see it. Sorry. My boat already sunk. Lost all my bitcoins some time ago. We cultists always have boating accidents.

A reorg to reverse a transaction is possible on any blockchain network. This is not specific to bitcoin. This remains true regardless of if PoW, or something else is implemented. A party wishing to reverse a transaction on a PoS blockchain for example would need to bribe a different set of stakeholders versus a PoW blockchain, but is still possible.

Nice paraphrasing with words I never said. I gave you a practical example of double-spending above.


Yeah you're right about that. If miners knowingly include transactions inside a smaller chain when they are aware of a larger chain that exists, that is a perfect example of fraud against users (and also, buggy mining software that should be repaired ASAP) but from a metaphorical perspective to conventional fraud, in this case the fraud will also hurt the miners who will lose large sums of block reward BTC from submitting blocks to a shorter chain.

Because of the amount of money at stake and how difficult mining became, this is why you don't see miners pull of this kind of fraud. It would take a really dumb mining organization to risk millions of $$$ in block rewards just to play with people's transactions.

But normally the reason why a lot of temporary chain splits happen is because two miners who are far from each other on the peer graph find a block, broadcast it to their peers who are also far enough from the other set of peers such that they can't talk to each other quickly, and then one of the miners that are in these groups of peers finds a third block and extends one of the competing changes.

Since this type of occurrence can't be known in advance and is corrected by the network quickly, in no more than several minutes, it can't be described as fraud though. In this case, there's nothing a miner can do to prevent this kind of situation from happening except to connect to all the nodes which are attached to other miners. Whereas fraud is something that happens intentionally, as you said, not accidentally.

Reorganizing the blockchain to reverse a transaction is a fraud and it is possible to do it on btc's network. Definition of fraud by Google: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Whatever floats your boat.