The blockchain does not know its code but the code knows the blockchain?

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[1714830873]

1714830873

[1714830873]

1714830873

[Shymaa-Arafat]

This is in summary what SMZ communicated to me.
If you want to know more from him, you need to ask for the ban to be removed, which he was unfairly subjected to.

Aside from the person, where's a link to the paper itself?


I'm not sure which of the 2 ideas that came into my mind, or none?,  u r referring too:

1- A scenario where a hacker manipulates a Bitcoin Core update for example and more than 51% of full nodes download it; a situation that I think a Cryptographic code checksum or  a Core signature on the update would solve it.

2-A situation where a whole country software is manipulated, which could isolate its Blockchain from the true International one without individuals noticing it; either for a common virus with lack of security measures, or for political reasons an enemy tries to obfuscate population data. In both cases I don't think ur method will help, still Solution 1 of a global code hash/integrity only "may" help
(I'm talking hypothetical here, I mean if there data on a global Blockchain they can retrieve the last Internationally saved copy, but if the fact is discovered after some time they will lose some data and have to get back to the last integrity verified point)

Sorry, that's kind of frightening &  I'm not sure if it's related to the white paper u r talking about.

[ymgve2]

In the white paper is the answer to the question:
Who decides which bytecode updates need to be added?

There is nothing in the "paper" about this - all it says about updates to the code is "Other blocks of code can be seen as applications on the solid blockchain, as well as updates of the genesis code."

Can you please quote the part of the white paper that explains how code updates are approved and included in the chain?

[concepter]

This is about the Connection Layer Protocol (CLP).

[Shymaa-Arafat]

Sorry is the author banned from the bitcointalk group (or a certain section or a certain moderator),
or the paper itself is banned from the internet???
How is that?

I reject any such frobidding of ideas/info/knowledge

I tried to Google search it out of curiosity, only found this about Dissociative Social media platforms,
https://bettermarketing.pub/social-media-is-dissociative-ac1b3c67b5d3
But it didn't upload either

[HCP]

Aside from the person, where's a link to the paper itself?

The link to the "paper" was mentioned in an earlier post:

I'm not talking about Bitcoin, I'm talking about the stupid "associative blockchain code" idea the original poster is pushing, which explicitly wants to have validation code in the blocks themselves: https://medium.com/@mocciaro.smz/associative-blockchain-code-f84f385c45ec

ABSTRACT

Reading the specifications of the blockchain emerge the anomaly of the genesis block. It couldn’t just be what it appeared to be, one of the many blocks without a predecessor. Hence the idea that the genesis block must really be the block it generates and not just the initial block of the blockchain. If the genesis block isn’t just a data block then the genesis block must be a code. Only a code can truly generate and be called really genesis. The concept idea that the genesis block must be a code changes the perspective. The same code that manipulates the blockchain must be the genesis block.

This seems fundamentally flawed... the Genesis block is just a data block... it's not a "code".

So, it seems their entire premise rests on this really bad interpretation of what a "genesis" block is?

[pooya87]

This seems fundamentally flawed... the Genesis block is just a data block... it's not a "code".

They probably looked at some "how to create an altcoin" guide and saw that in the bitcoin core source code there is a method that creates the Genesis block (which shitcoin creators change) and built this whole nonsense "article" on top of that. But the fact that there is a method generating the Genesis block instead of a hex being decoded doesn't change the fact that block #0 IS hard-coded or the fact that in the decentralized network people running the "correct" code are generating the correct Genesis block and it doesn't matter what a malicious node does.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

The midium link doesn't upload in my browser.
Anyway, why didn't u tell this explaination to the author & clarify any ambiguity he/she has instead of banning them?

But the fact that there is a method generating the Genesis block instead of a hex being decoded doesn't change the fact that block #0 IS hard-coded or the fact that in the decentralized network people running the "correct" code are generating the correct Genesis block and it doesn't matter what a malicious node does.

Still one question from me (I'm an academic person who have never run a full node) why the Genesis block is "generated" and not downloaded as part of the IBD Initial Block Download process?

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

Could it be that u mis-spelled the word the author meant & it is "assortative"?
In the paper
https://appliednetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s41109-019-0249-6

The authors state the result:

Another important finding of this study is that the transaction graphs of all examined coins are becoming non-assortative as they grow larger over time.

Where they define the term

The assortativity coefficient of a graph indicates the tendency of the graph vertices to attach to other vertices that are similar to them. The similarity of two nodes is usually measured by their degrees, and the assortativity coefficient is calculated by the Pearson correlation coefficient of degree between pairs of linked nodes.

This metric has a numeric value between − 1 and 1. The value of 1 indicates that the graph is perfectly assortative and the vertices tend to have an edge with other vertices of similar degree. A value of − 1 indicates that the graph is completely disassortative and its vertices tend to link to vertices with different degrees. An assortativity of 0 shows that the graph is non-assortative and its vertices are neutral and do not exhibit a tendency for a particular type of vertices (Barabási and Pósfai 2016).

But here the authors do not state that as a problem, they just clarify a difference between cryptocurrencies  & social media transaction graphs

[DooMAD]

So, in essence, someone has conceptualised a blockchain that can't be forked, but only has an unproven theory about it.  And they think we're going to unban their account so we can hear more about something which Bitcoin can't possibly benefit from.  Yeah, sounds likely.   

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[pooya87]

Still one question from me (I'm an academic person who have never run a full node) why the Genesis block is "generated" and not downloaded as part of the IBD Initial Block Download process?

It is not exactly generated, in a way the Genesis block is hard-coded because the method always returns the same thing on all systems at all times.
The genesis block is hard-coded because everyone has to start from the same origin, otherwise if a node wanted to start downloading from block 0 the other nodes could give them another completely different chain (like an altcoin's chain with the same consensus rules as bitcoin) that could even be longer than bitcoin's with more work and that node wouldn't have any way of knowing it is on an altcoin chain.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The genesis block is hard-coded because everyone has to start from the same origin, otherwise if a node wanted to start downloading from block 0 the other nodes could give them another completely different chain (like an altcoin's chain with the same consensus rules as bitcoin) that could even be longer than bitcoin's with more work and that node wouldn't have any way of knowing it is on an altcoin chain.

While I agree that it should be hard-coded, I disagree for the reason you've said. A node should always follow what's having the most work. An altcoin could be using Bitcoin's genesis block and still have more work than Bitcoin. Does a hard-coded value determine what chain will a node follow? Obviously the one with the most work.

You probably confused it with “longest chain” or “different chain”.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

But a stronger blockchain should know its own authorized code and not be manipulated by other potentially dangerous codes.
For this you can use the genesis block in the blockchain to contain references to the code that can modify it, and only that code is authorized

Couldn't this be simply achieved by having a Cryptographic hash or finger print of the authorized code released by Bitcoin Core?

Isn't this the same simple problem of how do u know the update/SW you  are downloading is not a malicious tampered version?  
.
And for

So, in essence, someone has conceptualised a blockchain that can't be forked, but only has an unproven theory about it.  And they think we're going to unban their account so we can hear more about something which Bitcoin can't possibly benefit from.  Yeah, sounds likely.   

I do not know the person, but as a matter of principle
I'm against banning from a public group for dispute reasons, unless there is a serious violation of the group rules just don't read or comment on his/her posts.

These discussion boards are supposed to be for sharing ideas, discussing & brainstorming, clarifying any misunderstanding, answering & helping beginners,...etc

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[suchmoon]

I'm against banning from a public group for dispute reasons, unless there is a serious violation of the group rules just don't read or comment on his/her posts.

These discussion boards are supposed to be for sharing ideas, discussing & brainstorming, clarifying any misunderstanding, answering & helping beginners,...etc

There was a violation of rules, repeatedly. This board is about Bitcoin. All OP has to say about Bitcoin is that its genesis block is flawed for some made-up reason that doesn't make any sense, and doesn't offer any plausible solution for it anyway.

This is not a beginners board either. Time to stop feeding the ban-evading troll.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

Of course, the bitcoin blockchain cannot change its genesis block, which the newly developed blockchains can do, but it can always include special blocks that certify the code authorized to modify it.

This would be the softest but still valid solution.

I don't understand why a special block, why not just verify a cryptographic function on the code before running it?

There was a violation of rules, repeatedly.

Honestly, the fact that I couldn't find the paper elsewhere, the medium link doesn't work, the one person acting as if a lawyer to the author hardly posts very small parts, not a name/twitter/....etc
All of these make me suspecious.

If one has a different point of view, one must allow the expression and full development of that point of view.

Express it & discuss it yes, but a full development I'm not sure; at least not on the publicly used software ... you don't run trial experiments on people or their savings.

As an example, my idea about UTXOS categorization/partition ( their Merkle as a start) although best suited to be tested on Utreexo, but I can not force them too.
Yes I expected them to do it or at least discuss with me why don't they think it's promising, but for the sake of scientific research or achieving more improvement; not for me as a person.
Like I'm discussing here without knowing this SMZ or even anyone of you.