5 ms·

>bitcoin is not decentralized because all transactions are on a single public ledger. Immediately not following you here. The singular ledger you refer to is i

>bitcoin is not decentralized because all transactions are on a single public ledger. Immediately not following you here. The singular ledger you refer to is in fact stored (and modified) by many different actors and agreed to on a majority basis. There are absolutely different versions of the ledger in existence, but the majority chooses to move forward temporally on the basis of majority consensus. That version of the ledger becomes the basis for future records, and so on. It is an agreement between parties, in the same way that having other people refer to you by your chosen name is 'a single truth' which is actually just majority agreement. >the product is a single central source of truth. I can't see this aspect of your argument panning out to anything other than complete absurdity, to be honest. >There is nothing centralized about having a single objective "reality". Was this a typo? It appears to contradict the rest of your post. If it wasn't, I agree with this point.

mempko 9y ago
Yes,the last one was a typo. Phone input. My argument is bitcoin relies on a consistent ledger to function. It relies on a distributed system to compute the ledger, but it depends on consistency to function. This makes it ACT like a centralized system and therefore it functionally IS one. A real decentalized system functions with inconsistency.
- FooHentai 9y ago
  So then to track that argument down to an absurdity - The objections you raise could equally be applied to language, or mathematics.
  - mempko 9y ago
    Language does not have to be consistent and mathematics are a game we play. Bitcoin is a single global public ledger created in a distributed system. To call it decentralized is strange since all transactions must go into the central ledger to be valid. In other words, decentralized systems function perfectly fine with inconsistency. Bitcoin does not pass that test.
    - FooHentai 9y ago
      >Language does not have to be consistent Parties have to agree on terms for language to be of any use. >mathematics are a game we play Ok? So is money. Rest of your comment is a nonsense since it follows a declaration that 'maths is just a game', then gets incredibly specific on a bunch of stuff which, if we're being consistent, is just maths.

mempko 9y ago

Yes,the last one was a typo. Phone input. My argument is bitcoin relies on a consistent ledger to function. It relies on a distributed system to compute the ledger, but it depends on consistency to function. This makes it ACT like a centralized system and therefore it functionally IS one. A real decentalized system functions with inconsistency.

FooHentai 9y ago
So then to track that argument down to an absurdity - The objections you raise could equally be applied to language, or mathematics.
- mempko 9y ago
  Language does not have to be consistent and mathematics are a game we play. Bitcoin is a single global public ledger created in a distributed system. To call it decentralized is strange since all transactions must go into the central ledger to be valid. In other words, decentralized systems function perfectly fine with inconsistency. Bitcoin does not pass that test.
  - FooHentai 9y ago
    >Language does not have to be consistent Parties have to agree on terms for language to be of any use. >mathematics are a game we play Ok? So is money. Rest of your comment is a nonsense since it follows a declaration that 'maths is just a game', then gets incredibly specific on a bunch of stuff which, if we're being consistent, is just maths.