Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

That is not what I said , reread my earlier posts til you get it.

Ok, since you want to be pedantic (personally, I do prefer pedantry anyhow), let's try this again using your exact words.

Quote from: TangentC on September 18, 2021, 07:36:39 PM

Because Longest chain is more accurate,

It is not. To the average person, "Longest chain" generally implies largest quantity of blocks. Bitcoin nodes do not use quantity of blocks to determine which chain to follow.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

since using Proof of Work implies the longest chain would have more work.

It does not. It is quite easy to create a chain with MANY more blocks, but much less total proof of work. If I purge all the blocks from the current blockchain EXCEPT the original "genesis block", and then immediately start mining a new chain with that same starting block, using today's modern ASICs I can produce thousands of valid blocks per minute. If I write code that sets the timestamp for each new block that I create 10 minutes later than the previous block, then the difficulty will remain low and I can continue this process completing a chain of 705,000 blocks in less than 8 hours. This will give me a chain that is "longer", but since those blocks are lower difficulty it will have "less work". Clearly "longest chain" doesn't always have "more work".

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

For any reorg to ever occur , the # of blocks (height) has to be greater and have more work. ie: longer chain with more work.

This is simply a false statement. The number of blocks is unimportant, only the total work.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

You can never have a shorter chain overwrite a longer chain as the wallets will ignore any blocks not near equal in height with the current blockchain.
Wink

This is also a false statement. Again, the number of blocks is unimportant. IF SOMEONE HAD MORE HASHPOWER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED, then they could go back a few difficulty adjustments and start replacing blocks. Since they have more hashpower, they'll produce blocks faster than the rest of the world. Therefore, the time between 2,016 blocks will be less than it was in the current chain, and the difficulty will increase faster at the difficulty adjustments. By the time they start to get close to the current chain with their replacement chain, they'll have more total work BEFORE they exceed the current blockheight. At that point, if they broadcast their chain, all nodes will abandon the chain they currently have and will accept this replacement chain as the valid chain, even though it is a block or two shorter. You absolutely CAN have a shorter chain overwrite a longer chain.

Quote from: TangentC on September 18, 2021, 07:52:00 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 18, 2021, 07:46:52 PM

You could mine the rest of the blocks with less difficulty and catch up really fast.

Nope ,

block speed and difficulty settings would prevent that.
You're stuck at the same difficulty level for 2 weeks, so thinking you can catch up really fast is not possible.

How fast you can catch up depends on how much more hashpower you have than the rest of the world combined. If you have only 1% more than the rest of the world combined, then you are not going to catch up very fast. If you have 10,000 times as much hashpower, then you can catch up quite a bit faster.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on September 18, 2021, 08:04:52 PM

~~You are mistaken. It is absolutely possible for a chain with less blocks to have more total proof of work.~~

That is not what I said , reread my earlier posts til you get it.

That is ABSOLUTELY what you said:

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

since using Proof of Work implies the longest chain would have more work.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

So in your confusion,
Someone could make 1 block with a greater proof of work today that the combined 701172 blocks that bitcoin currently has.

That is not what I said , reread my earlier posts til you get it.

I said nothing about a single block having more work than a 700,000+ chain of blocks. I said that a shorter chain can have greater proof of work. In other words, a 699,999 block chain could have more work than a 700,000 block chain.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

I can tell you, you're wrong, but it seems to be some cult mentality blocking logic from getting thru.

Perhaps. What's your source of information? I suspect mine is more reliable.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

Tell you what, you and anyone that believes you, get together and overwrite all of bitcoin chains and do it in 3 blocks.

3 blocks? Nah. Regardless, no matter whether it was 3 blocks or 699,999 blocks, the problem is that it is prohibitively expensive to acquire and operate enough hashpower. This is why Bitcoin remains secure.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

LOL, BlackHatCoiner thinks he can modify the timestamps at will, so nothing is holding you back. Cheesy

Except for access to enough hashpower.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 01:06:45 AM

* Anyone want to let him know that modifying the node program code and all of the other nodes would reject it, feel free,
he seems to have trouble believing me.*

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Nodes don't know anything about what code other nodes are running. They havee no way of knowing if the block that they receive was created by modified code or not. As long as the block itself passes all the validation checks, nodes are perfectly willing to accept blocks from a modified node program. As a matter of fact, there are SEVERAL variations of node software out there (and several versions of each variation). They all produce blocks that are accepted by all other nodes. As long as the timestamps that you create fit within the rules for a valid block, you can modify them as much as you like.