Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on October 15, 2018, 09:55:34 PM

You forked and ran a shitcoin! Nice! Much professional. You must understand everything about PoW, PoC, PoS, and pretty much every other work type out there, right?

Actually I didn't fork anything. I spent several years fixing security and network issues for the protocol. It sucked so much Dogecoin decided to jack the protocol and re-brand it. We were also one of the first, if not THE first to demonstrate proof of concept of a transaction fee only run network with a hard cap. What did you do again? Run a handful of miners? Cool story bro. BTW, do you ever stop and listen to yourself and realize how much you sound like a parrot?

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on October 15, 2018, 08:23:05 PM

Proof of work seems a lot like socialism once you abstract the meanings. But nah, you just confuse proof-of-work with proof-of-stake.

"abstract the meanings" AKA redefine the words completely to fit within your confirmation bias.

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on October 15, 2018, 08:23:05 PM

So far you've demonstrated the inability to understand the implementation of bitcoin (which is a pretty straight forward pow implementation). You try to conflate the argument with tedious unrelated societal points rather than arguing at the abstracted technical layer. I think your primary purpose is to gaslight other individuals rather than contribute to this conversation. The fact that you haven't been banned is quite a sentiment to the libertarian nature of this forum.

As I've explained before, proof-of-work is not proof-of-stake. Proof-of-stake is pretty pro-capitalist in which the individuals holding the most capital makes the rules. Proof of work is pretty socialist in which the workers choose the rules.

If you're too dense to make the connection between "proof-of-work" and workers, then that's on you buddy.

I'm pretty sure arguing with you is akin to arguing with a flat earther, no amount of evidence or proof would change your opinion on the subject. I'm pretty sure I could sign a message as if I were Satoshi, and you'd still deny that as evidence.

Also, I like how you say "Satoshi goes over this in great detail" in which you don't even provide proof. Later, you go onto say "out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned" which is pretty ironic in that instance Wink

You have demonstrated the ability to rephrase my statements and repeat them back to me as a result of your inability to form original thoughts. Oh I am like a "flat Earther" now am I? Interesting. Quite a lot of projecting you do. It almost like you need to compare me to these fringe groups because you can't think of anything else within my argument to criticize. It only seems ironic because it serves your little echo chamber bubble of confirmation bias, and it is less work than re-evaluating your own belief systems and doing a little reading. Also, last I checked this forum doesn't ban for butthurt resulting from being exposed to information you would prefer did not exist.

I am talking exactly about the technical layers of Bitcoin.

MINERS = CAPITAL
BLOCKCHAIN = CONSENSUS OF MINERS
MORE MINERS = MORE INFLUENCE IN CONSENSUS
MINERS DO THE WORK
MINERS PRODUCE CAPITAL
MINERS DETERMINE CONSENSUS
CAPITAL = CONSENSUS

Sounds a lot like Capitalism to me, but again feel free to redefine any words that upset you.

Re: Satoshi-

"6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." -Satoshi

"It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." -Satoshi

More substantiation:

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/

As you see Bitcoin was carefully and purposely designed as a mechanism of using mutual greed to run the network and thus produce capital. You see Satoshi very clearly uses the analogy of gold and miners, to represent hash power and electricity costs. The consensus is designed around CAPITAL and the fact that RESOURCES are limited. He also even explicitly states a system of simply voting by IP would be totally exploitable, as would any other form of voting by pure head count.

I don't need to gaslight you, you gaslight yourself. I know you aren't used to people taking the time to form a rational logic based debate to counter your flimsy pop-culture arguments, but that doesn't make anyone who challenges your opinions a troll. I am simply not satisfied to sit on the sidelines and let your ideologies go unchallenged.