/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12039111
Recall what nakamoto consensus actually is. Pic related. What it means is that this consensus mechanism has failed, and it has failed no matter where you actually believe it should have guided whatever chain you believe is legitimate to. The problem boils down to identifying the correct evolution of the ledger versus an attack to sabotage the ledger. How do you actually identify which one it is, not as a matter of subjective opinion, but objective fact?
Nakamoto consensus, as illustrated in that image, is that you follow what the miners are signalling, because there is an assumed economic incentive for them to be telling you the truth. Why would they lie to you about what the legitimate chain is and sabotage their own economic interests by giving you the wrong information? But no matter what you believe is actually the correct information, miners have signalled against you now.
(c)

>>11921849
> was supposed to be peer to peer electronic cash?
Exactly, and in order for it to be that thing, it needs to have a set of properties.
> Are you saying you don’t care what the people think about the protocol?
Insofaras what they think about the protocol interferes with those properties, absolutely fucking not.
> Bitcoin is for whoever wants to download and run the software
What is a sybil attack fuckwit? I'll wait, I'll be here all year, but I'll wait. Go ahead. And while we're at it, what the fuck did pic related mean?

>>11662786
>>11662793
Imagine being this retarded

>>11662776
Imagine being this deluded.

>>11654249
What's not to get? What did you think mining was if you don't understand how a hash war works?

*ANY NEEDED RULES AND INCENTIVES CAN BE ENFORCED WITH THIS CONSENSUS MECHANISM*

Absorb and understand.

>>10717387
>the developers to look for consensus
and that is why you fail

>>10574956
Humans are irrelevant.

>>10538797
Pic related was the consensus mechanism for Bitcoin and remains the consensus mechanism for BCH. The consensus mechanism for BTC is whatever the core devs says it is. That is the official definition for the ledger backing BTC that the exchanges announced a year ago. You being too much of a stupid cunt to understand what any of this means is nobody's problem but your own.

>>10538610
This is the kind of stupidity that is emblematic of exactly why I think the sector is probably broken beyond repair. This fuckwit actually uncritically swallows the fact that now a political council of six people decides what consensus is, and claims it was never intended to be any different, despite that being complete and utter nonsense that only the most absolutely retarded of newfags could ever believe.
To say that the Chinese Communist Party controls all the hashing power is even more idiotic than saying it's business as usual the consensus mechanism for BTC has been swapped out to an unaccountable centralised six person political council. Yeah, Communist China controls all the energy production in the world, the red menace! Reee!.
Fucktards like this really have me thinking it's just plain ogre. There is likely nothing that could ever wake up this level of idiotic delusion.

>>9814881
nodes do not secure the network, period. it is a lie. it is that simple. What the miners mint into the blockchain is what goes there, if they don't want your "shitty valid chain" to have any transactions, they can just push empty blocks infinitely.
Nodes do not secure the network, anything else is a lie. Hashpower secures the network, hashpower fundamentally executes the changes that the market highlights it wants for the chain, and nodes sit and listen or fork themselves off the network onto a useless alternative chain.

>>9716357
wrong.

>>9615097