Quote from: ChuckOne on May 17, 2014, 05:58:36 PM

Quote from: Peter R on May 17, 2014, 04:17:32 PM

Both gold and the Blockchain have certain properties, as shown below. Arguments like "if we all agree to start calling different things bitcoin, the blockchain and the genesis block, then that's all that matters," is again linguistics: people could start calling the alloy of copper and zinc (i.e, brass) "gold" instead. If everyone does this, then its name might eventually become "gold." But this will never happen because it is useful for words to have specific meanings, and even if it did happen it doesn't change the fact that "gold" (copper/zinc) still isn't gold (element 79).

'renaming' is a logical tool. We call it substitution and it is necessary to abstract things and make things comparable and re-usable. It furthermore helps focusing the mind when thinking about the bigger picture.

I am not saying we should call gold copper and vice versa but I say it could be helpful to use the term metal.

I think what it comes down to is objective versus subjective reality. Your argument seems ridiculous to me [actually I don't even understand what you are saying], but I think that's because I believe in objective reality. Do you believe that reality exists outside our perception of it?

I think it is the same thing with proof of work versus proof of stake. Consensus in a proof-of-work system is tethered to objective reality (the best valid chain criteria). Consensus in a proof-of-stake system comes entirely from within the system and thus without a tether to the physical world; solving forks like the one you just had with V1.1.3 requires a subjective decision to be made. I suppose you still come to consensus, but the consensus may not reflect objective reality (but I don't think PoS supporters believe in objective reality so perhaps this point is not important to them).

I think perhaps a PoS-like system could be designed to agree on objective reality, but I think it would need some tether to the physical world. Maybe people could measure radio emissions from the sun, for instance, and use this as the tether.

Quote from: ChuckOne on May 17, 2014, 05:58:36 PM

Quote from: Peter R on May 17, 2014, 04:17:32 PM

Consensus about the Genesis Block is more a question for linguistics than computer science. Just like gold is that shiny yellow metal with atomic number 79, the Genesis Block is that collection of bytes with the message "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" encoded and with hash 00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048.

Where did you get this hash from? From your memory?

If I remember the thing about the Chancellor and the Bailouts and if I have that one number memorized (block hash), then I can personally verify whether a genesis block is The Genesis Block. The analogy to gold holds once again: if I remember that gold is shiny and yellow and if I have it's atomic number memorized, then I can personally verify whether a metal is Gold.

If you don't believe in objective reality, then what happened in the past becomes popular opinion rather than fact. But I think if the past is rewritable based on popular opinion, then it will be rewritten. And then this starts sounding like Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984.