Quote from: monsterer on February 07, 2016, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 07, 2016, 10:44:11 PM

Quote from: monsterer on February 07, 2016, 10:41:33 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 07, 2016, 10:36:50 PM

We can't count the components because identities can be Sybil attacked.

I'm not really sure why you are having such a problem with this; it is obvious that hashing power is the only substitute for the abstract concept of a node, or a component.

Because hash rate doesn't prove faultiness. Bitcoin has no frame of reference.

Majority is truth. That is the ethos of bitcoin.

For the 3rd or 4th time, according to definitions the rule of majority presenting different symptoms to different observers is not Byzantine fault tolerance:

Quote from: monsterer on February 07, 2016, 10:17:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 07, 2016, 09:47:53 PM

A system which doesn't objectively (from the perspective of all observers) know when it is failing is not Byzantine fault tolerant.

Refer again to the Wikipedia definitions:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 07, 2016, 06:44:52 PM

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The following practical, concise definitions are helpful in understanding Byzantine fault tolerance:[3][4]

Byzantine fault
Any fault presenting different symptoms to different observers
Byzantine failure
The loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault in systems that require consensus

This circular logic of yours is getting redundant. I have made my point and you have not refuted it.

I hope I don't have to repeat that again.

Since Bitcoin can not detect faultiness (consistently provable to all observers), then that means you are claiming it is Byzantine fault tolerant with up to 100% of the hashrate faulty. Which obviously violates the fundamental research about what is theoretically plausible. Which thus proves to you that your claim is incorrect.

Bitcoin is the Power Law of Economics, not Byzantine fault tolerance.