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

[NotATether]

This is apparently the document OP is talking about which is also written by SMZ: https://medium.com/@mocciaro.smz/associative-blockchain-code-f84f385c45ec (to be fair, it would've been easier on all of us if you just linked this in the first place though)

And also to be fair, the author constructed his arguments well, and looks like he did his research.

I'm not going to comment on this whole "ban" situation (create your own thread for that if that's important to any of you) since it's not relevant here, but it reinforces my view that this is mainly a theoretical idea and that actual code to apply this theory will need to be produced later at some point.

[1714124496]

1714124496

[1714124496]

1714124496

[1714124496]

1714124496

[1714124496]

1714124496

[1714124496]

1714124496

[1714124496]

1714124496

[suchmoon]

And also to be fair, the author constructed his arguments well, and looks like he did his research.

He's claiming that he can make an unforkable blockchain and doesn't address even the most basic issues with that, for example what would prevent creating a fork that doesn't include his magic hypothetical code, or what to do if the centralized provider of the "correct" code gets taken over by someone like CSW. It doesn't look like any serious thought was put into this at all, it's a fantasy "solution" to a non-existent problem and even if it was possible, it would create more and bigger problems.

See what you made me do, I'm feeding the troll again. Ew.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

See what you made me do, I'm feeding the troll again. Ew.

What forces u to participate in the discussion?
Are you the moderator the who banned him?

[HCP]

The midium link doesn't upload in my browser.

Maybe try this archive.is link: https://archive.is/V2nyU

Hopefully that will load in your browser (which browser are you using? )

Anyway, why didn't u tell this explaination to the author & clarify any ambiguity he/she has instead of banning them?

I am not familiar with the account that is supposedly banned... or the reasons for them being banned, but I doubt it has anything to do with this "whitepaper". More likely it was for repeated breaking of forum rules. I certainly didn't ban anybody (I'm not a mod/admin).

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?

When you start a blockchain... where are you going to download the Genesis block from if you're the first node?

The simple solution is to simply generate the genesis block and hardcode it... anyone (ie. any node) that wants to use your blockchain is going to need to use the same genesis block. It really makes no difference if it is generated or downloaded.

But as an interesting thought... I wonder if it would be possible to create a Bitcoin client that attempts to "download" Block #0? Is it even possible for a current Bitcoin Node to send Block #0?

Of course, if you were to attempt to download Block #0, how do you know that it is the "real" Block #0 and you haven't downloaded a fake one from a malicious node? Hence, hardcoding it in the client is the only logical option.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

Maybe try this archive.is link: https://archive.is/V2nyU

Thank u, I will save it & read it soon to decide. As a first thought, I'm thinking a Cryptographic finger print of the code could solve the problem; do not run the code before verifying it.

Anyway, why didn't u tell this explaination to the author & clarify any ambiguity he/she has instead of banning them?

I am not familiar with the account that is supposedly banned... or the reasons for them being banned, but I doubt it has anything to do with this "whitepaper". More likely it was for repeated breaking of forum rules. I certainly didn't ban anybody (I'm not a mod/admin).

This phrase was directed to the comment preceding it, not you.
For he/she said or complained from having to re- explain & defend his rejection to the paper and the author again & again

[HCP]

Thank u, I will save it & read it soon to decide. As a first thought, I'm thinking a Cryptographic finger print of the code could solve the problem; do not run the code before verifying it.

You mean like the signed sha256sum's of the installers/zip files... signed by the public key of the Bitcoin Core devs? As available on the download page: https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/

The problem is... Bitcoin Core is not the only node software available or able to connect to the network and process transactions and blocks etc. Anyone is free to create their own node software. It seems that the author wants there to be only one node application or something... as that is the only way that I can think of that the "blockchain could know the code".

Otherwise, the blockchain would need to know about any and every node application ever written... and then what happens if someone tries to create a new node client tomorrow? Well, the blockchain would reject it because it has "no knowledge" of this code.

This phrase was directed to the comment preceding it, not you.
For he/she said or complained from having to re- explain & defend his rejection to the paper and the author again & again

That's fine... I didn't think you were personally accusing me or anything

I was just pointing out, that I've never heard of this S.M.Z. person and had no knowledge of their ban... but that people generally don't get banned just for wanting to discuss ideas etc.