3 ms·

The system doesn't really considers ownership. All participants could, individually but all, simply follow the rule (R): "this 'address' (x) actually won't spe

by swfsql 8y ago

The system doesn't really considers ownership. All participants could, individually but all, simply follow the rule (R): "this 'address' (x) actually won't spend anything, ever". Since participants are actually free to move into that rule, that x "owner" (person X) never owned btc. Person X can't say he was "disowned"/"robbed"/"stolen". Each participants is free to do whatever they want with their computers (they could, individually, even shut it down completely - so everyone could actually shut it down at the same time and no one ever come back). If Person X is to "actually own" bitcoins, then he (or someone) owns every participants computers, so this owner could state (or enforce) the rule "you shall not move into rule R" (because you would be disowning person X without X's permission, which would be aggression and be unjust). So knowing a private key "just happens" to interact with each blockchain on the participants computers. They "just happen" to not ignore that information, and interact to it in a certain way. We, in practice, consider the filters the participants decides to apply as having the effect of simulating ownership. But Bitcoins are not actually owned by anyone.

rcxdude 8y ago
This is potentially semantics, but arguably 'Bitcoin' (or at least the specific bitcoin you claim to 'own') is defined by the set of rules. Thus if someone adds another rule, they are not using the same 'Bitcoin' any more. In that sense you still control it, even if everyone moves to the 'new Bitcoin', though it will now be worthless. This does happen in practise, it is what is known as a 'fork', and things can get complicated, because generally when the rules change most people will be able to control addresses on both sides of the fork, and more confusingly, it may be possible to 'transplant' transactions from one fork to another (i.e. if you start a transfer from address A to address B on one set of the rules, anyone can also initiate the same transfer on the other set). Another point, more specific to the example you gave, is that within the rules of bitcoin, the 'miners' who verify the transactions with a proof of work are free to choose which transactions they include. If a sufficient percentage of them choose not to include transactions from a particular address, then it becomes much slower and/or more expensive to transfer anything out of them.

by swfsql 8y ago

rcxdude 8y ago

This is potentially semantics, but arguably 'Bitcoin' (or at least the specific bitcoin you claim to 'own') is defined by the set of rules. Thus if someone adds another rule, they are not using the same 'Bitcoin' any more. In that sense you still control it, even if everyone moves to the 'new Bitcoin', though it will now be worthless. This does happen in practise, it is what is known as a 'fork', and things can get complicated, because generally when the rules change most people will be able to control addresses on both sides of the fork, and more confusingly, it may be possible to 'transplant' transactions from one fork to another (i.e. if you start a transfer from address A to address B on one set of the rules, anyone can also initiate the same transfer on the other set). Another point, more specific to the example you gave, is that within the rules of bitcoin, the 'miners' who verify the transactions with a proof of work are free to choose which transactions they include. If a sufficient percentage of them choose not to include transactions from a particular address, then it becomes much slower and/or more expensive to transfer anything out of them.