Topic: Why is using 51% hashing power stronger than using 51% of the people? (Read 778 times)

You right, 51% (users using the network) people power better than 51% computer power. That way majority wins not the rich.

If I have 51% of the hashrate, I cannot disrupt the network?

The attackers would be able to prevent new transactions from gaining confirmations, allowing them to halt payments between some or all users. They would also be able to reverse transactions that were completed while they were in control of the network, meaning they could double-spend coins.

Now before you make the argument of let`s say, they would lose money, what if they don`t care about money losses or bitcoin? Let us say they are a rival to bitcoin.

I am sorry squatter but if you ever went out in public, went to a mcdonalds or just walked down a city street, your eyes and face are given up, unless you were wearing a full burka. Your fingerprints are given up if you touched anything. Your shit and piss are (I am sure you have shit and pissed in public). Your spit is if you left a drink in a public garbage (through a smoke on the ground?). It is all public data. To get a drivers licenses you give up your iris and face or passport. When you are born they take your feet print. They have your blood if you ever did blood work. They have your cum if you ever donated sperm.

I am pretty sure there is satellites that can track your every step from like 10 years ago.

It is coming buddy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JUqoyZU1Ik&feature=youtu.be
 #twitter integration to link a centralized identity to a blockchain account

Wait it will get better

It seems like a poor analogy from the OP. A 51% attack is an attack. It's not a mechanism for governance. It's a possible attack vector that is a byproduct of Bitcoin's security model.

Bitcoin was purposefully designed to thwart any sort of majority governance. If you want to opt into the network, you first need to agree to the existing consensus rules.


Ah, so that's your position. "Privacy is only desired by criminals." We'll have to agree to disagree.

And no, my biometric data is not already on the internet. I intend to keep it that way. You seem to be confused about the information recorded at birth.

Even if we imagined that the problem of verifying identity has been successfully and fully solved, I would still argue that using amount of people to determine consensus, aka direct democracy, is still a bad idea. People should be equal in rights, but they are not equal in many other qualities, and majority of people can easily be wrong, and it happened many times in history when people elected shitty leaders. Bitcoin's PoW consensus puts something at stake, which ensures that even those who wield 51% wouldn't cheat if they behave rationally, but in democracy this risk is not personal, everyone puts all other people at stake, which turns out to be a worse deterrent than individual responsibility.

No, a person. That person attached to a address attached to kyc attached to your eye and fingerprint.
Yes, or they can even submit it themselves on a blockchain with filesharing if they have a computer, phone or laptop. They can go to a public lib.

It's a rich gets richer scheme.
But again using people would be a difficult task for some decentralized coin. What would you count as a user? A device?
Poor ones would have one device while rich one could get millions. Or you could just ask for KYC from every users and airdrop their wallet with same amount of tokens every month.
Rich could just farm poor peoples device for some quick money or enslave them.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1138219548979675138

He does know it takes 51% of the hashing power right?

1. Sidechains
2. No it won`t (I can do a eye captcha and fingerprint scan in like 10 seconds) it will get faster with better tech as we go along
3. No it is not, storage is cheap these days. My plan is to have a phone that can do everything with a solar panel on it and it be broadcasting the blockstream, with some back up battery's.
4. In the future we could make it so you have to check into a place once every like 10 years to see if you are still alive (it could be in the hospital office) I am sure they will be using this tech to cure diseases a lot faster in people and preventing the spread faster of them.

As for your example, if we have a birth cert, that does not match the blood on the chain, from a real person, we will know it is not a real person. If we know that blood does not exist or there is no birth cert of the eyes/finger prints we know it is a fake person, if we know the iris and fingerprints are already in use you cannot make another account. (we can look on the chain, it will be a red flag in the future when someone is signed up late after we have most the people in the system. BlockPOP.

BlockBirth I have not explained this one yet, I will at the meeting with the U.N.

(WE CAN TELL IF PEOPLE ARE DEAD OR NOT) The blockchain will know you gave it stale blood. If you want to go as far as 25FA. I know this sounds like some type of mark of the beast shit, it is not, it is the complete opposite, Mark of the tamed animal.

They are already on the internet, The benefits heavily out weigh the cons. The only people concerned are criminals.

the cost: giving up some personal information that is already given up to the hospital at birth.
the benefit: unenslavement, self representation voting (voting on issues rather than voting people to vote for you) 8.8 billion jobs created, everyone creating a money supply at the same rate (fair distribution for once).

I CAN NAME 1000 OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CASE USES. DO YOU WANT ME TO? THOSE 2 ARE ENOUGH FOR ME TO PISS ON MY COMPUTER AND GIVE IT SOME BLOOD.

Why would you want to upload your biometric and KYC data onto the internet? Aren't you concerned about the risks of identity theft? The cost vs. benefit doesn't seem worth it.

found it funny the amateur eye captcha demo.
anyways

imagine retina's.. and having human verifiers

you have only 3 seconds to verify these 2 retina's

could you be 100% guaranteed and assured that in just a few (be honest) seconds of looking.. no longer, that you could tell if they are the same or not.

We verify using fingerprints, id, iris scan, (another 30 different ways) using file sharing.

Here is a eye captcha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4x0vOAu0lQ (better cam will be needed, mine is kind of broken)
We can also use filesharing to upload a fingerprint, video, id and other things, our height, our weight, the colour of our eyes or skin. etc.
Here is file sharing on a blockchain https://youtu.be/Y7TLFyK_3Pk?t=960 My pictures are on that blockchain, I also made my own coin in 3 clicks Mikecoin, voted in a decentralized voting https://imgur.com/haz02ll and used the p2p exchange, soon btc to be added to wallet, I won`t need to trust other people with my btc soon, I can hold it in my own wallet and trade p2p with btc to bits. https://twitter.com/Bit_Swift/status/1135270387628105733

I wonder what is next 

Even someone had the resources to do a 51 percent attack on bitcoin I doubt they would, all that would do is make the price of bitcoin plummet and make all their mining gear worthless.  It would have to be some type like Joker form The Dark Knight who isn't motivated by money.

satoshi had no clue what the fuck a asic was at the time that is for sure.



The Person is rolling in their grave anyways. What you guys are doing is like pissing on satoshi`s grave.

Good observation. The current way is not how satoshi planned it to be.  Mining was meant to be cpu+nodes on one computer. Cpu was separated from node eventually as mining difficulty increased, making mining less participatory.. . I guess he didn't anticipate this. Maybe he thought that as the mining difficulty increases, each miners will simply use multiple laptops,  upgrade his/her computer to more powerful processors or buy affordable stuff like graphics card. I doubt he would have liked asics and other large miners

Well the point is, why even allow a 51% attack from 1 person, if it is going to be a 51% attack it should come from 51% of the people using the network. Give me a good reason why not?



If they majority of people in gym want to play soccer, we are playing soccer in that gym, Well we should I don`t see why not.



Willing people vote, Willing people have a job, Willing people control the network, Willing people create the money supply, Willing people give up their fingerprint to do so

I am in, ill sign with my fingerprint with a iris scan to, piss and blood sample.

lets not forget that hash power is not controlled by the aliens from outer space! they are also "people" it is just people who were willing to take bigger risks than others so they invested more of their money in proof of work algorithm of bitcoin and are going to make profit or lose a lot if the experiment succeeds or fails respectively. and just because someone has a large amount of hashing power that doesn't make them automatically evil.

This would be the best economy and money supply: NONE, there is a reason none of the other animals use money, it is dumb. We need to just have resources and play earth as a team game human and manage our resources well as a race and species.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51074861