Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 25, 2015, 08:27:47 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 25, 2015, 08:23:52 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 25, 2015, 08:00:27 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 25, 2015, 07:56:58 PM

However as long as there remains one honest full node (let's say an MIT independently funded node, or a libertarian party funded node), that single honest full node would be able to easily generate concrete evidence of the corrupt transactions and easily present that evidence to the world for everyone to verify for themselves. Since this honest node monitors the network in real time, it could easily flag corruption in real time.

The masses will ignore such evidence. They won't switch from their existing systems, e.g. Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, 21 Inc, etc..

How many times have I tried to explain the Logic of Collective Action upthread, but if you are determined to ignore reality, I can not force you to comprehend.

Politics is inherently centralizing. Duh! Look out the window and observe society now.

How smug are you now Smartypants.

So from your response it seems you acknowledge that yes my statement that it only takes a single honest full node to identify and communicate any corruption in the system to the world, is in fact correct and you were grossly incorrect.

So you then fall back and say "but no one will care and thus you're wrong". First that is a different argument, second that position itself is absurd for numerous and obvious reasons.

God you really are a fucking child aren't you. Back to ignore.

BTW in the example I laid out Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc are not full node operators but light client users, they will want to work with honest systems because their users will expect them to work with honest system.

Real engineers don't piecemeal analysis in order to delude themselves. Now you've just demonstrated for all astute readers that you are disingenuous (and have an agenda which defies the logic of decentralization).

If there is an incentive to collude, then those establishment vulture capital oligarchs (e.g. Peter Thiel, Larry Summers, etc) who've been funding Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc will be involved in the collusion with those permanently sited full nodes of the establishment that you proposed. This is the way the corruption of politics works. Duh.

The fact that 2/3 of the voters here are so easily deluded by your political obfuscation of the logic, shows that for sure the people can not react correctly to evidence. They can be fooled and moved on to Sybil attacked pools for example (how many times per day do you think people will play Whack-A-Mole before exhaustion sets in Smartypants).

This is why Bitcoin has already failed, because it has fallen to political control.

Edit: also you assume that the nature of an attack on the network would be "corrupt transactions" which are easy to prove. However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.

Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.

The only thing of substance that you said there is

Quote

However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.

1) Censoring attacks do not work unless you have 100% of the miners. It only takes a single pool/miner not colluding the break the censor and include the transactions.
2) Yes it is easy to verify and communicate censor attacks (if they even are pulled off) by an honest node. That node would have the valid transactions, with fees, that are never added to blocks. It doesn't take long to start to ask why there is a pool of transactions not confirming or are only in blocks that are being orphaned from the MC.

Again, you simply do not understand anything about Bitcoin or the dynamics of how it works. These are 101 concepts you can't seem to grasp. Your only replies are attacks without saying anything of substance (and the little you do say is easy to show as wrong) or constant changes to your position on what matters.