pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @standardcrypto 4h \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
man satoshi said that but is it really true?
what terrible thing happens if nosea aren't in lockstep? the only thing I can think of is stale blocks (fork risk) and fees become hard to estimate. am I missing anything?
You have a chain split, which defeats the purpose of a single distributed consensus.
You don't solve the byzantine generals problem by adding more generals, especially untruthful ones.
reply
If you say there is no such thing as spam, only consensus valid or not, then you're a liar.
We don't need more generals, we just need to get rid of some of the ones in core.
reply
The irony is that they are using this quote as support for the idea that monetary transactions will outbid spam.
Which is it defer to expertise or the word of Satoshi?
Spam exists or it doesn't?
If spam is defined as the consensus layer then we can just change consensus to service more markets for distributed data storage, everybody wins!
But the reality is that bitcoin gets it's value from the fact that it is so hard to use it for anything other than money.
If you can just outbid the moneyness at the level of block space then bitcoin is nothing but a proof of stake shitcoin, where the people who control the chain are the people who pay the miners the most. But there is no reason to believe that those people would be people using bitcoin as money.
CoreCoin is just a "trust me bro" scam.
reply