Bitcoin Forum

Title says it all

Why is using 51% hashing power stronger than using 51% of the people on the network?
I don`t think it is.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*cSR1HS8jZF3Ni3tI.jpg

Why not use 51% of the people on the network instead of 51% of the hashing power? in a new Crypto  

I guess fiat morons would just dominate it anyways without time as the medium of exchange same as the current system but instead of buying computers they just buy people.

How do you use 51% of people? How do you determine that someone is a different person from someone else online? Are you going to collect everyone's IDs? Who is going to store those IDs?

Determining individuals is basically impossible to do and is easily gameable by individuals such that some people get more power than others without those others necessarily knowing.

Also, Bitcoin doesn't use 51% mining power for anything except 51% attacks.

Hashing power is for hardwares not for humans.

It doesn't matter how many people there are or how many machines you are running. What matters is how powerful these machines are.


Please remove the GIF.

51% of hashing power is also 51% of the total energy.
Energy is something valuable in our world, and will continue to be for as long as we can foreseen.

It is very plausible that the secure of the network is based on that.

51% of people doesn´t make much sense, as you can´t be sure if people are real, like achow101 said.

As I read somewhere in this forum, democracy is vulnerable to 51% attack. People can be bought and manipulated.

51% of the total people on the network may not amount to 50%> of the total hashing power, it depends on the amount of energy being expended and computing power.
The idea is not to use any or launch an attack on the network.

@OP

You can read all about how an 51% Attack works here : How does a double spend 51% attack work ? Explanation and examples. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5035336.0)
There is all explaind.

filesharing, take a picture of your eye/fingerprint, gg wp. (it is already built into the ardor/bitswift network) The filesharing can check for dupes on the blockchain, so you can only have 1 account, in theory.

here is a eye captcha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4x0vOAu0lQ
you can do the same with fingerprint

here is the file sharing https://youtu.be/Y7TLFyK_3Pk?t=965 I explain it briefly in this check out www.bitswift.network wallet (login top right).  p2p exchange, file sharing, decentralized voting, asset creation etc.

 ::) ::) ::)

The blockchain stores the IDs

I will go more in depth in this post, keep in mind I am just a random pro gamer/farmer I am not a coder so I really need your help achow101, I am not affiliated with ardor or bitswift other than being on of them`s little brother who really likes the concepts of everyone making the money and everyone voting on where their taxes go.

Person creates a unnamed coin address, in order to make one they upload a picture of themselves, gov id, eyes, fingerprint.
The system checks to make sure there is no duplicates using back track.

from then this happens.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 (look at the 3rd pic down and 4th pic)

I can explain better on voice, I think this is the future brother. I know you can make it better then a farm boy who dropped out of school in grade 3, achow101
do not do it for self profit, do it for the profit of all of humanity and it will come out great, think what world do you want your kids in? one where they are working for another mans money supply, voting people to vote for them or one where they can vote, they make the money supply, equally (until people enterprise and get more)
  

yes, my point exactly, the rich get richer in the future with bitcoin, also there is no future for the people born after 2045, they don`t get a chance to mine! What kind of distribution is that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYJVG1fKnRo this is the future of that world, I played in it, killed the king twice (who was AI hacker) made 4 bitcoin in a few clicks.
SPOILER: EVERYONE DIES, EVEN THE LAST TRIBE KILLS ITSELF,  SPOILER: LIFE IS A BLOCKCHAIN, MY ACTIONS LOCKED IN TIME IN THAT BLOCKCHAIN

huntercoin was a human mineable crypto like a gold/bitcoin simulation, then bots took over.

Now, What if there was a way to do it by address rather than number of machines and how powerful the machines are?   ::)  ::)  ::) Insuring only 1 address can be created per person  ::)  ::)  ::)

Because the network will work as the miners decide it work, if 51% of the miners decide to change their code to make the network works differently it will change because the network gives the order to work that way, but if  51% of the users take some decision to change the network, they need the miners to apply this change, without them it would be impossible.

Inb4 no more dead people voting and hacked elections. (wait there is no elections?) people just vote on issues and get paid for it? They vote where the tax funds go WOW  and they get paid for it? WOW :o

Obviously hastage power is very strong here. 51% people is not very important here, important is their honesty in their work. But in hastage 51%, it has 100% honesty by blockchain if we input correctly. It is totally impossible to dishonesty in blockchain by hastage to here 51% hastage is more stronger than 51% people.

We have 100 people in a gym.

Sally has 51% of the hashing power and wants to play basketball (shes a rich bitch) this girl on my left

The other 99 people have 49% of the hashing power and want to play soccer

GG WP, great because of 1 fuck we are stuck playing basketball.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/db5bc1a03f4fbbefe90c7791bbcf1968/tenor.gif?itemid=5081084

THANKS SALLY!

But it is really possible that one person can own or control or influence 51% of the hashing power? I love your analogy except that in the real world it rarely happens maybe except if Sally is the owner of the basketball gym but in that case the other 99 can just get out of the gym and play whatever they want. Again, except if Sally own the minds of the other 99 and she can program them as robots.

in the context of 51% attacks (and that's really the only relevant context), it's not.

with POW, nodes validate back to the genesis block. in order to "roll back" transactions, a 51% attacker must build a longer chain. this has huge financial costs.

with POS, these costs don't exist. once an attacker achieves 51% of the stake, they control the entire history of the blockchain. they could in fact erase the blockchain and all inputs at no additional cost.

as others have pointed out, 51% "of the people" can't be measured in an online system, but i thought maybe this was heading towards a discussion of POS consensus.

Bitcoin isn't a voting system. Having 51% of the hashrate does not mean that you get to dictate what happens on the blockchain or in Bitcoin.

I think a 51% attack is impossible for global networks like Bitcoin. Nobody can hold that kind of power alone.

In addition, even if this attack is carried out on a network like Bitcoin, everyone will lose it, including the attacker! So for Bitcoin, I think we can close the matter completely. In other networks, the right ones will reach the same situation in the future.

I also think miners will not accept a 51% atack on bitcoin network, you can't use people for mining bitcoin, because bitcoin already has and algorithm and only ASIC miners can mine bitcoin.

No point somewhere in the whitepaper that bitcoin is created to be an equalizer for the rich and the poor, only a tool to help people be their own banks and a digital currency at best. If this is about equality, you must be on the wrong universe, my friend.


Nice try explaining this but honestly, Sally wouldn't be able to do what she wants to do in the long run if those 99 people left the gym and she has no one to play with. Having said that, in bitcoin, if someone went insane and has 51% of the hashing power and tried to fuck with the network, most people would surely dump before huge changes are made in the blockchain. By then, the 51% attack would be rendered useless because the coins are essentially worthless since everyone left.


Well at some point in time, some asshole had it, but decided not to because they know what the results of their action will be.


Exactly.

I mean if you are going to make a money supply, make it fair or KYS!

I think you are all missing the point the attacker (fed banker) could not give a shit about bitcoin or money profit and be a billionaire/trillionaire already, and ruin the network for the rest of us. So there money supply FIAT can prevail in the markets. (what will you do when they have 51% of the hashing power) START ANOTHER CHAIN? THEY WILL FUCK THAT ONE AS WELL!

You all assume the attacker wants something to do with bitcoin after the ATTACK. Ever seen a JIHAD bomber?

:THINKING:

This could work, but you would need the nodes to regularly solve problems that only humans are known to be able to solve. That would prove there's a man in the loop, and would eliminate the risk of a botnet.

But there are already large numbers of companies and governments that have large quantities of fingerprints, eye scans, and IDs, plus anyone who steals any of these can create many accounts, and who is going to verify which account for a person is real?

Ideally it would be nice to connect to the healthcare systems so we can tie into some birth certs and other data.

You cannot do a live fingerprint captcha, eye captcha (video live stream and not be the person there). If a amazing video editor even created a fake person we could check the birth cert to it.

If someone has already registered there eye/finger or kyc, The system will check the existence database and see it is a copy and will not allow a duplicate account to be created. The community of the network would verify. See blockCOURT https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141142.0

Let me make a video for you for example for when this happens (I could do it on a live stream) and blockcourt needs to get involved (the system would be able to do this normally but lets say someone does register before I can with my data), brb

https://youtu.be/ySvcUDimAk0

Sorry you are mistaken,

The odds of any Long range back to genesis blocks attacks are impossible in PoW or PoS,
due to the checkpoints included in both the PoW & PoS clients,
all devs add program coded checkpoints to their latest wallet updates.
Making any 51% attack all the way back to the genesis block IMPOSSIBLE.

However Short range 51% attacks are possible against PoW or PoS if you have the mining or staking power.

Some PoS coins have a rolling checkpoint, which only means reorgs are not permitted past a certain block #,
ie: Blackcoin, only allows reorgs back 500 blocks, after that 500 blocks , you can't reorg even if you had 95% of the staking power.

PoW bitcoin does not use rolling checkpoints and in theory could rewrite up to the last checkpoint in the bitcoin client. However that is impractical and unnecessary, because a sustained 51% attack can freeze all new transactions, which if your goal was to destroy bitcoin, that would easily accomplish it.
It would take the top 4 bitcoin mining pools to accomplish that, but in doing so they destroy their business.

In PoS, Coin-Age is a factor and it can offset staking power by being a multiplier of lower staking power,
due to the fact all PoS coins enter a dormant state, (depending on the specs) of 30 days, 20 days or 24 hours or 2 hours, during this dormant state, the dominant group would need much greater that 51% Collusion and they would still not be able to block all transactions like in a bitcoin PoW network.
(Due to the dormant period all staking % are always in flux and never static like in PoW)
One question arises, who would be stupid enough to spend millions of dollars to dominate a PoS network just so they can attempt to destroy it, it would be the same as getting all of your money and setting it on fire, no real point.

FYI:
PoS is a Cooperative form of Consensus ,
where you need others to help keep the chain moving and secure , by staking with high coin age.

PoW is a Combative form of Consensus ,
where the elite few dominate the non-elite majority.
 

^ You all assume the attacker wants something to do with bitcoin after the ATTACK or ATTACKS, reroll or regorg to a old checkpoint, they put the hashing power on that chain. RIP AGAIN.

Let us make the assumption instead of the person wanting bitcoin after, they don`t. Let us also make the assumption the person has enough money to take 51% of the hashing power of any network.

If the attacker only blocks all new transactions from entering the blockchain,
he freezes the blockchain.

Restoring to an old checkpoint can not defend against this version of attack in a PoW network.

Only by using the bitcoin client to censor the dangerous parties would work,
but by doing so you destroy any pretense of being decentralized,
and determined who may or may not mine future blocks, the ultimate control.

The FED and there is a point, so bitcoin dies and fiat wins.

In that case , owning a few PoS coins to profit from a fed burn attempt might be very profitable.  :D

* It be easier & cheaper for the FED to just get their corrupt government officials to outlaw all crypto like
INDIA is proposing.*
https://www.coindesk.com/reserve-bank-of-india-denies-involvement-in-draft-bill-to-ban-cryptocurrencies

@Khaos77: you misread the post, which said in POW blockchains, nodes validate back to the genesis block---not that a 51% attacker can actually roll back to the genesis block. even aside from centralized checkpoints, the point is that POW (at least with a network as secure as bitcoin) implies great costs to "roll back" the chain. the further an attacker tries to roll back, the greater the cost because they must mine a longer chain than honest miners.

if your protocol depends on developers adding checkpoints, you don't have decentralized consensus. there is little point in using a blockchain at all. the developers are enforcing the blockchain state, not the economic incentives intended to overcome the byzantine generals problem.


maybe you could walk us through an example? how would this work, and what are the incentives at play?

You do realize Bitcoin has software coded checkpoints, added by it developers.  :P
So does that ruin bitcoin for you?

FYI: http://archive.is/dEZ35

Satoshi promoted software coded checkpoints with client updates.  ;)

Checkpoints added this way do nothing , but make long range attacks impossible.

You are confusing that type of checkpoint with a checkpoint server,  that actually determines which blocks were valid and allowed, very few devs use a checkpoint server as no one denies it is centralized control.

But the way the majority of PoS devs and satoshi did it with program coded checkpoints, does nothing more than block long range attacks without giving the devs the ability to control the future blocks acceptance or rejection.

Two ways to fuck btc over by them.

1)Print a shit load of money, buy a bunch of btc, sell at a loss to make btc price in fiat 0 or low, so people lose faith in it.
2)Print a shit load of money, buy a bunch of asic farms, control the network and fuck it over, so people lose faith in it. (they can move to whatever chain you do with their hashing power)

The incentive is that fiat wins, bitcoin dies, they control the market of markets again. #ENDTHEFED #STOPALLFIAT

anyways can we all agree time > fiat https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 thanks!
everyone making the supply > a few people
everyone voting > a few people
everyone have a job > a few people
everyone owns the equal the same amount of hashing power > a few people

People will lose faith of overinflated fiat first before they destroy bitcoin using the strategy you pointed out.

I think everyone has already lol, they are all driving cars on artificial gas, not even the fumes of real gas, just on the blood, sweat and tears of real working people.

Those people will be coming for heads I tell yah what, pretty soon. Read some of the comments, youtube: ROTHSCHILD DEATH AND READ THE COMMENTS ON ANY VIDEO!

I do not dance with these comments, I think it is sad when any being dies, I pray every time I step on ant by accident, say sorry to the ant and ask to become the ant I killed. I made a system, kind of well a theory of one that can fix everything please look into it. So no one has to die.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 (time stuff)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141142.0 (bitcoin 2.0)(not bitcoin2 wtf that is)

bitcoin (like most small altcoins) was highly centralized early on. satoshi even hard forked bitcoin in the very early days. that doesn't mean a successful hard fork is possible today.

FYI, no centralized checkpoint has been hard coded into the client in ~5 years, and the consensus is to never add them again and in fact to remove the previous checkpoints if possible in the future.

i don't view bitcoin as some immaculate conception situation, lol. the early client was coded horribly, the early development process was very centralized. that doesn't mean we need to embrace these mistakes.

So you are saying you disagree with Satoshi.

5 years or 1 day, programed coded checkpoints are there,
and if the btc devs were really serious, they would have removed them instead of just not adding more.

So until you petition to have them removed, bitcoin uses checkpoint exactly the same as most PoS coins.  :)
As their are many PoS coins that have also not updated their checkpoints in recent years.  

yes. satoshi wasn't a god. he may have been a visionary re bitcoin's economic design, but he wasn't a great coder and some of his ideas were naïve or just flat out wrong. i'm glad we have a developer community that is far more robust and capable now.


it's not that simple. here is some discussion of the issue:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/70824

and some discussion of why checkpoints were used in the first place (hint, not what you think):
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/75735


years-old checkpoints don't affect the security model. as stated earlier, i don't care what happened in the early days when bitcoin was worth very little and the development process was highly centralized.

And like I said earlier, many PoS coins have also not updated checkpoints in years.

You make the point , years old checkpoints don't affect the security model,
so by that standard you should have no issues with a PoS coin that has years old checkpoint.

If you do , you are not being honest with yourself.

But the year old checkpoints do affect security, making sure no quantum computer can come along and rewrite the blockchain all the way to the genesis block, as their true potential is years from being fully understood.

Recent BTC devs don't improve bitcoin, they improve LN, as they see it as the future not BTC.
Satoshi saw the future with Onchain Bitcoin, not LN's Offchain Banking.
Bitcoin was to remove the banking middlemen , LN is nothing but middlemen.

1. and as you get older you get cataracts and suddenly the funds you saved for retirement you cant access
2. and as you get older you cut ur finger from paper cuts or work as a janitor using harmful chemicals, bye bye fingerprint

some even envision DNA as a identity. but with the whole new disruptive science community working on stem cells and dna cures using virals, DNA can change too

this is why passports dont rely on just retina scans but use 'witnesses' to a photo, signed documents like birth certificates, retina, and others COMBINED to reduce the chance of faking a passport.

i don't have issues with that. what gave you the impression otherwise? this is the issue at hand:

i don't know what protocols you're talking about but clearly bitcoin doesn't fit that description.


the consensus opinion seems to be that ECDSA would be broken by QC long before that. and that may be decades away as it is. we have much bigger fish to fry than such theoretical problems. bitcoin seeks to solve the double spending problem, not secure money from decades-out theoretical quantum computing problems.

Well in the case where something changes, it will be documented and updated to your chain and address. We can make digital passports quite easy with file sharing and digital birth certs combined into the same system. It is not like everything is set in stone, just like with other documents. If the network agrees or the assigned let`s say 1000 random people for blockCOURT (still better than 1). Things can be changed in the system by the community and participants in the system.

There will be even be problems let us say with like conjoint twins, are they one or two people, same eyes, or same fingerprints possibly? or people with no hands for fingerprints etc etc, I am sure I can come up with a work around for every single case in humans. (they already do in the current system).

There will need to be physicality`s put up in all the major city`s to get people into the system slowly and properly (people joining late get a back cap on the duration they missed, from birth) But as home cams/phone cams get better I am sure everyone can do everything from home soon. (the entire network will be there to witness).

witness to photo is usually getting someone known to the person for a long enough time, where the witness hold employment in a role that shows they are less likely to make a false claim as it would hurt their own reputation.

its not simply find 5-1000 strangers and just say 'my names frank, sign this to say you know im frank'

we are already seeing that voting and passports are based on more of a honour system of combining several sources of documentation make a strong case that the id is legit. but still not 100% 'proof' which is where some false voting, fake passports and such still occur.

so dont treat the ability of creating ID as something easy and effortless and something to brush under the carpet, as its the ID part that is actually the hardest part to document/allocate compared to transaction data of labour.

in short making a 'time' ledger is easy. having it public/privately key secured to an ID is easy. but to allocate and lock it to a physical human securely (digital to analog) is the hard part.

now imagine you had the perfect way to link digital to biological. whats next. proof biological done the task.
say its some education where students earn upto 100 credits for passing a test. %pass=credit
we already see teacher give students second chances to re-test. we see teachers only teach kids enough to answer the test and not real life meaningful lessons. theres even cases where teachers sit with students and hint at the answers

same with commissioned employment like car sales. if a sales men gets 100 credits per car sold on computer they show they sold 10 cars. but physically the salesmen are telling customers to buy car on lease and use it for 2 weeks and the return car using a no questions returns policy. thus free rental. but as stated digitally it appears as a car sale.

So my brother is sleeping atm, but I would have him come on cam and be like yah this is Michael yada yada yada, I known him my whole life and worked on a farm with him for 20+ years, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySvcUDimAk0 Get a video with my doctor, yah this is my patient Mike yada yada yada or dentist. It will really help to tap into the medical systems, but not necessarily needed. I mean I would do it if I could.

I trust a video document of someone giving birth locked into a blockchain on video or even afterbirth the kids eyes and or fingerprint in the blockchain. Honestly fingerprint should be enough.

I will tell you why fingerprint is better than eyescan, and it is because of shit like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eenscggz-Pk granted this is a meme video, but having things like your face and eyes for facebook to have is dangerous, anyone can take a database of people and light them up with drones with cams and guns on them. You can just wear gloves to hide your fingerprints, granted some people have no hands we are going to have to use a picture of their eyes and face but who is going to use the drones to just kill people with no hands. I don`t see it.

Most people do not realize those street cams are logging our faces and eyes anyways. This is what they have if not better already.|

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkw15LkZ_Kw China’s "Social Credit System" Has Caused More Than Just Public Shaming (HBO)
It is coming here you won`t be able to buy a bus ticket because your bad credit score or a plane ticket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNf4-d6fDoY China: "the world's biggest camera surveillance network" - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yKga54tx6U China's surveillance cameras can recognize you

They already link you to social media stuff I bet, your car to your face to your online profile to your medical records to your police records, everything is exposed.

I am going to start wearing a full burqa.

this is why 'people power' is not as strong as hashing power.   the digital/biological divide has too many loopholes of abuse

Frank what is the difference between what we have now? and what we have now on a blockchain? LOL

hashing is just hashing. its maths. meaning less avenues of attack or abuse.

but when you start requiring the mining to also be dependant on identification. theres a new avenue
but when you start requiring the identification to be dependant on a human. theres a new avenue
but when you start requiring the human to provably perform a task. theres a new avenue

There is no mining in my system, there is addresses that accumulate duration coins over time, back trackable to the day you were born if we can get birthdays from a birth cert. So if one guy signs up today and one guy signs up in a year it does not matter to their accumulation of duration. Currently the system just starts biased off when you sign up on this guys site www.bitswift.cash (still better than fiat)
We already do
We already do




see the 4th image https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 I can explain blockPOP (PROOF OF PERSON/POPULATION) more if you want https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141142.0

We can verify someone with file uploading.
1 fingerprint = 1 address
no fingers?
1 faceprint = 1 address
no face? don`t worry I got over 30 ways to verify you through file sharing.

We can even make them do fingerprint or iris captcha`s  (live streamed into the blockchain)

baby swapping in the neonatal unit of a hospital
claiming a still-born child didnt die
kidnapping
'you look nothing like your baby photo'
plastic surgery
facial injury

compare that to the simplicity of the maths of hashing. and hashing is more secure.. as the title of this topic asks

...
all this being said. i personally would have preferred an economy based on people accumulating wealth through life rather than credit agreements and mortgages creating money. or speculating value based on emotion of an asset.

i a few years back ran through scenarios of instead of mortgages/credit agreements creating 'value' the education system would. where test results of students = new money. which is then exchanged with employers/unlocked at grauation. to both re imburse the education system but also give the ex-student access to their funds

but that said this topic asks which is more secure. and maths of hashing is more secure then the numerous loopholes between physical and digital

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141142.msg51074861#msg51074861

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.

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?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/e01fdea09b18d70e0d7348716c7a0cf1/tenor.gif?itemid=11630051

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.

https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/08/69/68/500_F_108696802_6X8RSqlibNdMS1bBh6BApQTtdvRy4rS1.jpg

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.

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

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6bInU3WkAAj0ct.jpg

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

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.

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  ::)

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
https://i.imgur.com/XxgfW1j.png
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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