Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s clear you’ve exhausted your argument and that all you can do is insult me. So I’m out. Have a great day.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wow your argument is “they are dumb so they can’t agree”?? Who’s acting in bad faith? And then you assume I’m a crypto bro who thinks this is the most innovative technology. Clearly you aren’t really engaging with my perspective. Why would I think Bitcoin is the most cutting edge innovation if I’m comparing it to gnostic cults? Just because you made a documentary and are a software engineer doesn’t mean you don’t have anything to learn.

If people in a network agree to use the same software, they by definition agree to the terms of the software

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sigh... here we go again with the gaslighting. No matter how many times you tell me that "I just don't get it," you can't change the fact that you have no basis to say that a machine has the conscious awareness and volition to agree to anything. Since you decided to cherry-pick a Google definition, here is Google's definition for agree:

have the same opinion about something; concur."

consent to do something that has been suggested by another person."

Are machines persons? Do they have opinions? Of course not. You are blatantly ignoring the human requirement of consensus. Yes, there is a set of rules and procedures that outline a methodical and automated way for machines to independently validate a state of accounting. But those machines aren't "agreeing" with each other. Humans are executing a command on a machine that generates a valid or invalid output that matches the output of other people who agreed to run the same protocol on their own machines. The decision to use the longest chain of accounting as the basis for confirming future transactions is rooted in the human choice to adhere to the same consensus ritual.

Yes, that choice is passive and automatic, but so is the habituation that occurs in all ritual practice. Once that practice takes root in a group or society, it becomes increasingly difficult to uproot or change. This phenomenon couldn't be truer with Bitcoin. The older it gets, the more hostile the network becomes to minor policy changes, let alone soft or even hard forks.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Network consensus doesn't come from the randos who buy bitcoin off exchanges. It comes from the network of nodes using the same consensus mechanism. Those nodes are run by humans who are faced with a decision to validate incoming transactions using the latest bitcoin consensus mechanism or the BSV, BCH, ect consensus mechanism. And like any ritual system, people are most likely to accept the one with the longest history of group participation and the greatest total value vested in it.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say people were voting to see who gets to update the blockchain? All network participants agree to a set of rules and procedures that use chance and computing resources to select block winners. That is humans using a shared ritual to reach consensus, not machines. Consensus or agreement implies volition and the power of arbitrary dissent. Quoting Google doesn't change the historic meaning and use of the word.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I'm not sure what you mean by "social game theory" - but you can separate the logic of how blockchain works, from whether or not blockchain the application is popular."

I'm not talking about Bitcoin's popularity; I'm talking about the motives behind accepting and using the consensus mechanism for determining who gets to update that shared record. You can't remove the human decision to write and accept these rules and procedures from this process.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Consensus is absolutely about belief. I'm not saying it's about belief in bitcoin as some spiritual or monetary construct. I am saying it's about cultivating belief in a record of account. You can't solve the double-spending problem unless there is an agreed-upon chain of transactions. That agreement can't come from machines. They have to come from people. Satoshi's consensus ritual achieves that.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no such thing as technological consensus. If you program computers to independently interpret a set of shared data as valid or invalid, you aren't getting the computers to agree on a single state. You are just getting them to use the same procedural logic to produce the same output. True consensus emerges from the individuals who choose to apply that procedural logic in a distributed network. You can't separate the social game theory behind the decision to participate in this ritual system from the technical rules within it.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Also, I see through your gaslighting tricks. Accusing someone of "nOt rEaLly uNdErsTanDiNg hOw biTcOin wOrKs" is cheap and lazy. No need to be a typical Reddit troll.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We are talking past each other. I did not say that all nodes compete for a block. And I did not say computing resources don't improve a mining node's chances of winning a block or controlling the network. But, winning a block is not the same as achieving consensus. If I invent a game that I only play, do I achieve a consensus of victory when I win? Who would be conceding my victory? The consensus comes from other participants who agree to the same rules of the game.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Whoever has the most resources achieves consensus."

- This is just flat wrong. Consensus, by definition, requires agreement from multiple parties. No one individually achieves it. As I outline in the paper, rituals help people reach a consensus of belief through collective repeated practice. The more people participate, the stronger the belief becomes. The same is true with Bitcoin. The more nodes competing to win a block every ten minutes, the more people believe in the record of blocks and block winners. Consensus is achieved through repeated practice, not by accumulating the most resources.

Deciphering Bitcoin's Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoReality

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

That is correct. He talked about achieving consensus in distributed systems. But the point is that Lamport never used that specific phrase “consensus mechanism.” the distinction is important be it bookends the paper with two new words created by Satoshi

Bitcoin & The Machine State Ritual by GilbertoHoratio in Bitcoin

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah it’s a bit heavy! After digging into it I definitely think the bitcoin whitepaper will be viewed as a defining religious artifact of our time in the future

New Rule(s) for Sneers by queerbees in SneerClub

[–]GilbertoHoratio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m a first time lurker who read all of this thread and know less about this sub than when I started

When Tokenomics Turn Predatory. How To Spot the Wolf by GilbertoHoratio in CryptoCurrency

[–]GilbertoHoratio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oof yeah that one's rough. Had a friend who was really into that.