Exact binary map of database blockchain?!

[kjj]

@kjj

Transactions don't have timestamps, but blocks do.  The timestamp on a block is considered to be the time that all of the transactions inside it happened.

In reality all transactions even in the same block differ in time.
Nonetheless they all use the same timestamp? Can't really believe that.
Nonetheless that exactly the chronological order of transfers avoids double-spending?

Armory restored date+time of all my different transactions (as it seems correctly)
Was this something like a trick? Visionary power

P.S.  Your commentary on the whitepaper is wrong, deeply wrong. 

Why

You may know a bit about banking, but you don't seem to know anything about the history of cryptocurrencies.  Bitcoin is the solution to problems that you don't seem to even understand as problems.

Sorry, modesty is my middle name. But I can assure that I know more than "a bit" about banking and money, legally, economically, logically.
"History" and/or renaming money to "cryptocurrencies" changes what??

Be sure:
the basic logic I talk/ed about, was, is and will always be the same - since 100thousand years, forever.

Proofed very well in the other only aggressive comments, totally free of any arguments.

No, really.  As far as bitcoin is concerned, all of the transactions in a block happen at the exact same moment, in the order listed in the block.  They may have been created years ago and published days ago, but that doesn't matter.  They are deemed to have happened at the time listed in the block header's timestamp field.  For extra amusement, keep in mind that the block's timestamp can be in the future or the past.  It is a rare block indeed that actually happened exactly when it claims it happened.

Your belief in this is not required.  I'm telling you how it really is.

I hope that the other posts in this thread have led you to do some research into what exactly a cryptocurrency is, and how it differs from a bank ledger.  Bitcoin is not just the same money that you know about under a different name.  It is something new.  Well, new-ish.

[1715283007]

1715283007

[1715283007]

1715283007

[1715283007]

1715283007

[etotheipi]

To clarify kjj's point a bit further: you must remember that Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Transactions are not "real" until there is some degree of consensus that it is valid.  This is done by including it in a block.  Therefore, broadcast time, while may be interesting for you, is irrelevant to the system.  The proof-of-work associated with each block is consensus-building feature of Bitcoin, and that transaction doesn't really "exist" until it's in a block.  

Therefore, you use the block timestamp to determine when the transaction first received any degree of "consensus".  The actual broadcast time would not only be a waste of space, not everyone has the same clock, or received it at the same time.  That's part of Bitcoin's charm, is that it can work with millions of users, many of whom are scammers, and some of which are behind slow internet connections and don't see all the traffic.  But it still works.

When Armory displays your transaction, it's only displaying the timestamp on the block in which that transaction was included.  From Bitcoin's perspective, all transactions in that block happened at that time.

[bfever]

@LvM: Like others have said before in this thread, you fail to see what Bitcoin really is, because you keep thinking in your own environment of bank accounts.
What Bitcoin tries to resolve is something completely different !

Let me try to explain the basics:

Centralized versus decentralized:

If a person A has a bank account with bank B and wants to send some money to person C that has a account at bank D, then this is what happens in your world LvM:
person A gives bank B (and only bank B) the authority to "send" the money to bank D. This involves central authorities (bank B and D) that have to be trusted: bank D trusts bank B (that the transaction is legit, that they are not double spending money or creating money out of thin air), and person C trusts bank D that he can get cash from his account that was credited.

I suppose you can understand the above (and probably better then I do).

Now LvM, ask you the following question: what happens if there are in the above scenario NO BANKS involved AND A and C don't trust each other (as they are strangers) ?
To put it in other words: person A wants to send some money to person C. (And afterwards, person C should be able to spend this money to another person E)

This is exactly the problem that bitcoin solves !

We have two problems:
 1. C will only accept the money if A can prove he "owns" the coins: that is why the transaction is signed cryptographically by A to prove he owned the coins. And with the transaction, all coins are transferred to an address "owned" by C (that is, only C can sign the spending, as he is the only one that knows how to), and "the change" to another (or the same) address "owned" by A.
Due to the crypto-magic, C does not have to trust A: he can easily verify (and everyone else looking at the transaction) that the signature is correct, and the signature is nearly impossible to compute by anyone else then A.

 2. A malicious user A could try to send his coins not only to person C, but at the same time send them to X (here is your impossible double-spending). Both C and X can verify the signature, which will be correct. But which of those transactions is the right one ? The solution that bitcoin offers here is the "proof-of-work" blockchain: the transaction that is recorded in the "best" blockchain will be recognized by everyone as the correct one. Nobody needs to trust anyone, no bank needs to authorize something. NICE, ISN'T IT ! The company you work for is not necessary anymore

So here you have it:
I want to spend Y coins I received (from mining or from others) to person Z: I make a transaction and send it to the network. After a while, it will be included in a block, and after some more time, it will be "buried" deep enough in a chain of blocks so that it becomes nearly impossible to change it: now everyone in the network will happily accept that person Z owns Y coins.

[LvM]

@bfever
Thank you for your kind explanations.
I understand most of it, except that the blockchain in my opinion certainly plays the role of a bank.
The receiver does not check ownership. I never did that, don't even know howtodo.

[LvM]

The problems have todo with the fact, that Satoshi Nakamoto as cryptologist forgot to implement the basics of normal bookkeeping.
He ignored the fact, that his blockchain is logically nothing else than a normal bank and should work like that, of course.
His main factual interest ("prevent double-spending") would be -since logically impossible- no special problem at all.

Today I had an opportunity to open the first edition of Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" from 1994. The second paragraph of the "Digital Cash" chapter explains double-spends in his rare style that is both highly entertaining and highly educational. Since we now have year 2013 this marks nearly two decades of you being out of touch with the progress in your claimed field of expertise.

Happily, there is a complicated protocol that allows for authentic but untraceable messages. Lobbyist Alice can transfer digital "cash" to Senator Bob so that newspaper reporter Eve does not know the identity of Alice. Bob can then deposit that electronic money into his bank account, even though the bank has no idea who Alice is. But if Alice tries to bribe two different Congresspersons with the same piece of digital cash, which is easy to try with a bit copy program, she will be detected by the bank. And if Bob tries to deposit the same piece of digital cash into two different accounts, he will be detected--but Alice will remain anonymous.

I know that. Saw it cited or as link in wikipedia, bitcoin.org or so, perhaps on Bruce Schneiers own website.
Could and can do nothing with that. You? Why?

As said, encryption is quite a different problem anyway. 
Bad idea to mix money transfers or (likewise) the content of emails or anything else with their encryption.
I am interested in the basics, encryption is another level.
Didn't even try to talk about encryption at all.

[LvM]

I hope that the other posts in this thread have led you to do some research into what exactly a cryptocurrency is, and how it differs from a bank ledger.  Bitcoin is not just the same money that you know about under a different name.  It is something new.  Well, new-ish.

Can't agree, sorry.
And I am firmly convinced that there is no logical difference between ANY currencies at all.

[LvM]

To clarify kjj's point a bit further: you must remember that Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Transactions are not "real" until there is some degree of consensus that it is valid.  This is done by including it in a block.  Therefore, broadcast time, while may be interesting for you, is irrelevant to the system.  The proof-of-work associated with each block is consensus-building feature of Bitcoin, and that transaction doesn't really "exist" until it's in a block.  

Therefore, you use the block timestamp to determine when the transaction first received any degree of "consensus".  The actual broadcast time would not only be a waste of space, not everyone has the same clock, or received it at the same time.  That's part of Bitcoin's charm, is that it can work with millions of users, many of whom are scammers, and some of which are behind slow internet connections and don't see all the traffic.  But it still works.

When Armory displays your transaction, it's only displaying the timestamp on the block in which that transaction was included.  From Bitcoin's perspective, all transactions in that block happened at that time.

Thank you!
So the block time is comparable with a bank working day, even the time.
Yes, fine! Have no problem with that!

Remains the problem of the "changings", but that seems to be a (self produced but anyhow solved) pure technical problem only.

That there is no field "reason of payment" remains as really significant disadvantage.

More fundamental, the 21 Mio. limit which almost alone makes BTC interesting for me is in my eyes not really guaranteed.

The so called "community" might change that some day, accepting a BIP concerning this matter if they like and are so silly. Technically it seems easy, enough to change just one public variable. But I am not sure, of course.

[fornit]

btw, this guy is trolling the bitcoin.de forum and the german subforum here for weeks now.
he is no expert in anything, he just seems to enjoy wasting other peoples time. dont let him.

[DannyHamilton]

btw, this guy is trolling the bitcoin.de forum and the german subforum here for weeks now.
he is no expert in anything, he just seems to enjoy wasting other peoples time. dont let him.

Sure, but the discussion is sort of entertaining at least.  If he's a troll, he's one of the more entertaining trolls I've communicated with.