Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin?

[legiteum]

China probably could, but it's also probable that they could be kicked out of the network, [...]

Kicked out by whom?? How would this centralized control entity you keep inventing even know what part of the network is "China" and what isn't?

[...] and the "total damage" they caused in the network is some censored transactions, and a double-spend.

Um, that's...the whole network. That's what the network does. That's all that it does.

It would be stupid to believe that the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the users/community in general would merely follow Govcoin.

Sure. But it's even stupider to believe that those groups mean anything when the system is an algorithm that is not centrally controlled by them or anybody else.

(Again, it's simply mind blowing to me that so many people simply can't understand the implications of the word, "decentralized" and no matter what they have to invent some kind of central control of the system where none exists).

[Wind_FURY]

China probably could, but it's also probable that they could be kicked out of the network, [...]

Kicked out by whom?? How would this centralized control entity you keep inventing even know what part of the network is "China" and what isn't?

[...] and the "total damage" they caused in the network is some censored transactions, and a double-spend.

Um, that's...the whole network. That's what the network does. That's all that it does.

It would be stupid to believe that the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the users/community in general would merely follow Govcoin.

Sure. But it's even stupider to believe that those groups mean anything when the system is an algorithm that is not centrally controlled by them or anybody else.

(Again, it's simply mind blowing to me that so many people simply can't understand the implications of the word, "decentralized" and no matter what they have to invent some kind of central control of the system where none exists).

Ser, you present a debate as if they're happening in practice, but everything that has been discussed/debated are all mere hypotheticals. Plus I didn't invent the "centralized control entity", you did when you debated that you're absolutely sure an entity could get more than 51% hashing power and "control Bitcoin". Laughable.

Those groups matter because it's those groups that the community in general decided to follow. The social layer plays a big part in decentralized systems/blockchains.

[legiteum]

Ser, you present a debate as if they're happening in practice, but everything that has been discussed/debated are all mere hypotheticals. Plus I didn't invent the "centralized control entity", you did when you debated that you're absolutely sure an entity could get more than 51% hashing power and "control Bitcoin". Laughable.

Those groups matter because it's those groups that the community in general decided to follow. [...]

I have said, quite correctly, that any single entity that controls over 51% of the hashrate effectively controls Bitcoin regardless of what any other centralized entity wants or thinks.

The social layer plays a big part in decentralized systems/blockchains.

No, it doesn't. The exact opposite of this is true. Bitcoin is an algorithm, not a company, not a committee, not a "community", not any kind of human entity.

The thing that controls Bitcoin is the majority of the hashrate. Period. If it mattered what people "thought", then bad actors would infect the system even more easily than garnering 51% of the hashrate.

The software in a Bitcoin wallet does not "decide to follow the prevailing sentiment of the community", it simply picks from an IP address list, which is maintained by automated software.

What is laughable to me is that despite the entire Bitcoin concept being based around a decentralized architecture, many people seem to be unable to grasp what this actually means, and absolutely must impose a central authority in the system to be able to understand it.

The idea that there is a decentralized model not controlled by any single company, committee, "community", or government is a very unique and interested piece of technology, but I guess for some it's simply too scary to contemplate? The idea that there's not some "benevolent entity" watching over this valuable thing, making sure bad actors don't infect it? Maybe that's too terrifying for some to accept, but that's the reality with Bitcoin or any other truly decentralized architecture.

[Wind_FURY]

Ser, you present a debate as if they're happening in practice, but everything that has been discussed/debated are all mere hypotheticals. Plus I didn't invent the "centralized control entity", you did when you debated that you're absolutely sure an entity could get more than 51% hashing power and "control Bitcoin". Laughable.

Those groups matter because it's those groups that the community in general decided to follow. [...]

I have said, quite correctly, that any single entity that controls over 51% of the hashrate effectively controls Bitcoin regardless of what any other centralized entity wants or thinks.

No it doesn't. The miners can't control the network because there's an army of full nodes that enforce the consensus rules. Any miner that mines an invalid transaction or block will be rejected by the network.

You are simply wrong. But OK, you believe what you want to believe. Haha.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The social layer plays a big part in decentralized systems/blockchains.

--Snip--

 

[legiteum]

No it doesn't. The miners can't control the network because there's an army of full nodes that enforce the consensus rules. Any miner that mines an invalid transaction or block will be rejected by the network.

You are simply wrong. But OK, you believe what you want to believe. Haha.

"The Network" in your first sentence there means, "51% of the network". "Consensus rules" are in code, not in a subforum of Bitcointalk.org.

Again, it's simply astonishing to me that some people can be around blockchain technology for this long and yet still not understand what "decentralized" means.

[savetheFORUM]

I would say that people who are questioning "how" has absolutely no idea about forks? I mean you could literally leave the last chain aside, let China take it if they can somehow manage to attack it successfully, and just move to another chain that is forked, and make that the "real" bitcoin. We have done it before and we can do it again, it is not really as hard as people imagine it to be.

I think it's clear that we are going to end up with a result that will not be all that complicated. Don't get me wrong, I would dislike it if it ever happened, and I think even with all the money in the world they can't, and also the cost of it is so high that they wouldn't even want to attempt something that is risky and probably would fail while losing that much money.

[Wind_FURY]

No it doesn't. The miners can't control the network because there's an army of full nodes that enforce the consensus rules. Any miner that mines an invalid transaction or block will be rejected by the network.

You are simply wrong. But OK, you believe what you want to believe. Haha.

"The Network" in your first sentence there means, "51% of the network". "Consensus rules" are in code, not in a subforum of Bitcointalk.org.

Again, it's simply astonishing to me that some people can be around blockchain technology for this long and yet still not understand what "decentralized" means.

Haha, actually no. The hashing power isn't "the network", the network is the fortress of validation that's made possible to participate through running a full node, and in the Bitcoin network - it's Bitcoin Core or other implementations that follow the same rules like Bitcoin Knots/BTCD.

I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know how Bitcoin works and you speak as if you're an authority in the matter.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[legiteum]

Haha, actually no. The hashing power isn't "the network", the network is the fortress of validation that's made possible to participate through running a full node, and in the Bitcoin network - it's Bitcoin Core or other implementations that follow the same rules like Bitcoin Knots/BTCD.

I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know how Bitcoin works and you speak as if you're an authority in the matter.

Yes, and if a majority of those nodes modify their rules, then that becomes of the rules of the network.

It's you who doesn't know how Bitcoin works, because you keep trying to invent a central authority when there isn't one.

Just to be clear, you can't have it both ways: either Bitcoin is decentralized, and therefore is run by an algorithm, and thus can be taken over by obtaining a majority of the hashrate, or Bitcoin is centralized somehow as you keep asserting, and thus Bitcoin can be taken over by compelling the central authority you keep saying exists.

Either way, Bitcoin can be taken over by a large nation-state player like China, Russia, or the USA.

Their motivation to do so it up to debate, but their being able to do so is not.