Banks have bought the Core Team

[franky1]

it could be first seen first entered.
Should be.

but how would you know.

for instance i could make a tx at 11:10:01 but by the time it relays around the nodes it hits a pool at 11:10:05
yet someone else who was only one hop away makes a tx at 11:10:04 gets to the pools milliseconds meaning its still 11:10:04
so mine wont be first even if i sent it first

also because other tx's have been sat in mempool for a while my 11:10:01 and the other persons 11:10:04 are gonna wait for the others that got seen sooner.

then ofcourse people can fake the time..
.. inevitably making the first seen first entered unprovable and a useless technique.

[1714830714]

1714830714

[1714830714]

1714830714

[The One]

it could be first seen first entered.
Should be.

but how would you know.

for instance i could make a tx at 11:10:01 but by the time it relays around the nodes it hits a pool at 11:10:05
yet someone else who was only one hop away makes a tx at 11:10:04 gets to the pools milliseconds meaning its still 11:10:04
so mine wont be first even if i sent it first

also because other tx's have been sat in mempool for a while my 11:10:01 and the other persons 11:10:04 are gonna wait for the others that got seen sooner.

then ofcourse people can fake the time..
.. inevitably making the first seen first entered unprovable and a useless technique.

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

[olarsson]

To the OP: there's no need for tin foil hats.   The fundamental problem with bitcoin and its block chain technology (like most alts BTW), is that there's no simple, fluid way for it to become a mainstream payment system.  That was pointed out to Satoshi very early in the discussion, and he waved that away, but the fact is that a system that needs everybody to know, in a cryptographically secured way, all transactions by everybody else, world-wide, before being able to accept a payment, is bound to be "computationally heavy" to say the least.

Satoshi's initial view on that problem was re-centralization: a few big data centres/centralized miners, which are the few big nodes in the network, no more P2P network, and those few data centres with those few big nodes (the "bitcoin facebook servers") are then connected to directly by all users.

In other words, those few data centres are then the "unique world bank".

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

So in a way, Satoshi realized that bitcoin was, finally, not going to get rid of centralized banking, only, those banks would now be the few full nodes/miners.  In a way, he admitted, without saying so, that bitcoin's invention was doomed not to succeed in what its outlined purpose was: a P2P "people's own money" system.  Nevertheless, he might have considered that those few data centres/miners/full nodes/world banks would at least be bound to something (even though they would have all the power needed to, for instance, increase the total amount of bitcoin, give themselves all the rewards they'd like, change the PoW or whatever.... if bitcoin were the unique world currency, people wouldn't have any recourse either).

So, Satoshi's long term vision of bitcoin was in any case a centralized banking/mining/node system, and not a P2P network.  I don't think that it is because he was paid by the Rothschilds, but simply because at a certain point he realized that his invention wasn't going to live up to the goal he set about: namely a peer-to-peer money for the people.  That was only sustainable on smaller scales, but not on world scale.

Is this the reason why he introduced the 1 MB limit, to keep bitcoin from becoming that horrible world bank unique money, and keep it small scale enough ?

That said, whatever is bitcoin, its basic idea is too heavy to become a light-weight P2P worldwide universal payment system.

When there is a valuable payment system that has some friction in "paying for coffee", then it is a NORMAL EVOLUTION that a banking layer is put on top of that, that fluidizes the underlying asset, with all that comes with it (fees, fractional banking, ....).  This is how normal banking got running on top of gold, which also had a fluidizing problem (security, weight, ....).  It was more practical to leave one's gold in the bank, and have paper substitutes, because the gold itself couldn't always be used easily.

In the same way as bitcoin cannot be used easily enough to pay coffee to anyone everywhere, a banking layer will naturally get on top of that.  LN is such a banking layer.

-->  banking is unavoidable in monetary affairs, until we invent something that is less clunky than bitcoin.

 

Satoshi payed by Rotschild made a decentralized currency to promote centralization? You really are a payed shill arent you?

[jonald_fyookball]

it could be first seen first entered.
Should be.

but how would you know.

for instance i could make a tx at 11:10:01 but by the time it relays around the nodes it hits a pool at 11:10:05
yet someone else who was only one hop away makes a tx at 11:10:04 gets to the pools milliseconds meaning its still 11:10:04
so mine wont be first even if i sent it first

also because other tx's have been sat in mempool for a while my 11:10:01 and the other persons 11:10:04 are gonna wait for the others that got seen sooner.

then ofcourse people can fake the time..
.. inevitably making the first seen first entered unprovable and a useless technique.

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

That is generally how things are done but because the goal here is distributed consensus, we have to rely on the miners to decide what goes in the blocks and when.  There is no way to force them.  This is the entire mechanism that solves the double spend problem.

[The One]

it could be first seen first entered.
Should be.

but how would you know.

for instance i could make a tx at 11:10:01 but by the time it relays around the nodes it hits a pool at 11:10:05
yet someone else who was only one hop away makes a tx at 11:10:04 gets to the pools milliseconds meaning its still 11:10:04
so mine wont be first even if i sent it first

also because other tx's have been sat in mempool for a while my 11:10:01 and the other persons 11:10:04 are gonna wait for the others that got seen sooner.

then ofcourse people can fake the time..
.. inevitably making the first seen first entered unprovable and a useless technique.

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

That is generally how things are done but because the goal here is distributed consensus, we have to rely on the miners to decide what goes in the blocks and when.  There is no way to force them.  This is the entire mechanism that solves the double spend problem.

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

[franky1]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

[jonald_fyookball]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

You keep using the word "should".

Yes, they "should"... but how do make sure they actually do?  (think about it) 

[dinofelis]

To the OP: there's no need for tin foil hats.   The fundamental problem with bitcoin and its block chain technology (like most alts BTW), is that there's no simple, fluid way for it to become a mainstream payment system.  That was pointed out to Satoshi very early in the discussion, and he waved that away, but the fact is that a system that needs everybody to know, in a cryptographically secured way, all transactions by everybody else, world-wide, before being able to accept a payment, is bound to be "computationally heavy" to say the least.

Satoshi's initial view on that problem was re-centralization: a few big data centres/centralized miners, which are the few big nodes in the network, no more P2P network, and those few data centres with those few big nodes (the "bitcoin facebook servers") are then connected to directly by all users.

In other words, those few data centres are then the "unique world bank".

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

So in a way, Satoshi realized that bitcoin was, finally, not going to get rid of centralized banking, only, those banks would now be the few full nodes/miners.  In a way, he admitted, without saying so, that bitcoin's invention was doomed not to succeed in what its outlined purpose was: a P2P "people's own money" system.  Nevertheless, he might have considered that those few data centres/miners/full nodes/world banks would at least be bound to something (even though they would have all the power needed to, for instance, increase the total amount of bitcoin, give themselves all the rewards they'd like, change the PoW or whatever.... if bitcoin were the unique world currency, people wouldn't have any recourse either).

So, Satoshi's long term vision of bitcoin was in any case a centralized banking/mining/node system, and not a P2P network.  I don't think that it is because he was paid by the Rothschilds, but simply because at a certain point he realized that his invention wasn't going to live up to the goal he set about: namely a peer-to-peer money for the people.  That was only sustainable on smaller scales, but not on world scale.

Is this the reason why he introduced the 1 MB limit, to keep bitcoin from becoming that horrible world bank unique money, and keep it small scale enough ?

That said, whatever is bitcoin, its basic idea is too heavy to become a light-weight P2P worldwide universal payment system.

When there is a valuable payment system that has some friction in "paying for coffee", then it is a NORMAL EVOLUTION that a banking layer is put on top of that, that fluidizes the underlying asset, with all that comes with it (fees, fractional banking, ....).  This is how normal banking got running on top of gold, which also had a fluidizing problem (security, weight, ....).  It was more practical to leave one's gold in the bank, and have paper substitutes, because the gold itself couldn't always be used easily.

In the same way as bitcoin cannot be used easily enough to pay coffee to anyone everywhere, a banking layer will naturally get on top of that.  LN is such a banking layer.

-->  banking is unavoidable in monetary affairs, until we invent something that is less clunky than bitcoin.

 

Satoshi payed by Rotschild made a decentralized currency to promote centralization? You really are a payed shill arent you?

Huh ?  I'm claiming he most probably wasn't paid by the Rotschilds...

[dinofelis]

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

But this is exactly the fundamental problem of a decentralized consensus system over a network with unpredictable latency, and hence the Byzantine General's problem ! 

Solving this is the hard part of a decentralized system: the order of reception of the individual transactions is not the same for all network participants.  So *someone* has to decide on what was the "consensus" order, to, indeed, apply "first seen".  This, together with the fact that you can't trust anyone on the network, is what makes the whole decentralized system difficult, and for which theoretically it is proven there isn't even a solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem

Note that the Byzantine general's problem is in fact easier than the reward-winning cryptocurrency problem, because in as much as in the standard problem, there are faults, in as much each agent is motivated to cheat in a reward-winning cryptocurrency problem.

In practice, although no algorithm exists that guarantees to find a consensus with 100% certainty, there is always a practical solution with high probability of consensus when the unrestricted parameters are in practice, restricted.

[dinofelis]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

You keep using the word "should".

Yes, they "should"... but how do make sure they actually do?  (think about it) 

Very right.

In fact, there isn't even a way to distinguish a legal from an illegal transaction if you receive two unconfirmed double spends.   And miners are just as well non-trustworthy players in the system as users are untrustworthy (and can emit double spends).  The whole idea of bitcoin was to oblige a group of cheating untrustworthy antagonists to come to a consensus, by using their mutual antagonism.  This is what was brilliant in this invention, and also why you cannot change it.

[olarsson]

Very right.

In fact, there isn't even a way to distinguish a legal from an illegal transaction if you receive two unconfirmed double spends.   And miners are just as well non-trustworthy players in the system as users are untrustworthy (and can emit double spends).  The whole idea of bitcoin was to oblige a group of cheating untrustworthy antagonists to come to a consensus, by using their mutual antagonism.  This is what was brilliant in this invention, and also why you cannot change it.

Individual miners dont have to be trustworthy as long as there is not one central untrustworthy entity that the existence of bitcoin depends on.

[jessicadrewd]

We don't need a LN, waiting some minutes for a tx is ok, what we are discusing is to not wait 12 hours.

[The One]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

I meant first one in miner's mempool deemed legal and the 2nd one (possible double spend) deemed illegal. I wasn't talking whether it is legal or illegal from the recipient's point of view.

[jonald_fyookball]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

I meant first one in miner's mempool deemed legal and the 2nd one (possible double spend) deemed illegal. I wasn't talking whether it is legal or illegal from the recipient's point of view.

That's usually what they do I think.  So whats the prob?

[Sadlife]

In the end this all just baseless allegiations.
If you're planning to make some conspiracy theory please make sure to provide some proof or some sources.
If you're so against Segwit then would prefer BU then?

[chixka000]

Now we are talking about banking system taking over core devs of bitcoin(tho i wont believe it as for now). Yet as far as I am concerned bitcoin fees this days are getting worse(higher and higher). Then we should find a way to kill the paypal and bank wires alike

[The One]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

I meant first one in miner's mempool deemed legal and the 2nd one (possible double spend) deemed illegal. I wasn't talking whether it is legal or illegal from the recipient's point of view.

That's usually what they do I think.  So whats the prob?

OK, just thinking of the top of my head.

Scumbag buys a coffee with BTC and then proceed to double spend. The first tx is then broadcasted to all nodes. At this point what exactly in detailed logical process do the nodes do according to the codes?

[cryptoanarchist]

I think the banks buying Core was not only entirely expected, but its good for Bitcoin in the long run. We need multiple competing development teams and clients to make bitcoin truly decentralized. In this aspect, bitcoin can move out ahead of other coins in a really meaningful way (not just by network effect).

[dinofelis]

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

I meant first one in miner's mempool deemed legal and the 2nd one (possible double spend) deemed illegal. I wasn't talking whether it is legal or illegal from the recipient's point of view.

That's usually what they do I think.  So whats the prob?

But... but... then you didn't get the essence of what bitcoin's invention is about !

--> if it were true that all nodes, all over the world, received all broadcast transactions all in the same order, there would, indeed, not any need, nor of miners, nor of block chain, nor of anything: as you say, the first arrived spending transaction of given output is considered the right one, and all the others, as rejected illegal double spendings of the same output.

It would then be very simple: all on-line nodes just accumulate in their local database, all these legal transactions, and because everybody is perfectly synchronized, all these local databases will be identical, because all nodes will take the same decisions.

What is the problem with this view ?  The problem is network propagation delays, and the fact that your node is not always online !  THIS was the hard problem to solve in bitcoin !

What is needed, is a global consensus of what transactions are the legal ones.  If half of the network thinks that Joe spend 5 BTC to Jack, and the other half of the network thinks that Joe spend those 5 BTC to Mary, then the day that Jack will want to pay his 5 BTC, half of the network will think his transaction is OK, and the other half will not recognize this.  As this will propagate further, you imagine that after a year or so, no bitcoin holding is certain, and nobody knows any more who owns what.

How can it be that half of the network thinks that Joe spent to Jack, and the other half that Joe spent to Mary ?  Because of network delays !  If Joe sent a double spend, one to Jack, and one to Mary, on different P2P nodes, then these transactions will propagate differently through the network.  Some will receive the spending for Jack first, others will see the spending to Mary first.  Other nodes won't see anything because they were off line.  So what do you tell them when they come online again ?  Depending to which nodes they connect, they will learn about Jack, or about Mary getting 5 BTC.

This is why there needs to be a "consensus mechanism", that is to say, a rule so that all nodes, when presented with different alternative histories, will all pick the same history as the "consensus" one and hence, agree upon said history.  In bitcoin, that is "the chain with most PoW".  Note that the consensus rule must be cryptographically protected, so that it is not easy to make nodes switch regularly on the consensus history.  In bitcoin, that cryptographic protection comes from the economic cost of proof of work.  Because everybody on the network, it being permission-less, can *propose* alternative transaction histories.

[dinofelis]

I think the banks buying Core was not only entirely expected, but its good for Bitcoin in the long run. We need multiple competing development teams and clients to make bitcoin truly decentralized. In this aspect, bitcoin can move out ahead of other coins in a really meaningful way (not just by network effect).

Yes, I think Satoshi made a fundamental error by giving the "keys to the kingdom" to only one team, Core.  He should have created 20 different copies on github, and handed them out to 20 different and competing teams.  He was of course the centralized force at the start, but that was inevitable.  Him leaving was most probably done to avoid the continuation of this centralization, but by having one Pope, (Gavin at the time), the central authority remained.  If there would have been 20 different Sultans, that would have been much more decentraized.  But, as you say, I think this is the fight that bitcoin is now fighting.  The funny thing is that it needed centralization of the miners, to have enough muscle to attack the centralization of the protocol in Core's hands.