I honestly assumed cheques were printed to be unique, making the piece of paper the proof in itself. I never used cheques in my life, so assumptions are all I have, sadly...

I get that first-come-first-served alone is just a beacon for frauds, but I still don't get how the mining makes it more secure (yes, I am that dense. Sorry...). I may need to watch the B3B1 video a few dozen more times....

I know it isn't all that fun for pros to explain it that basic, so THANK YOU for taking your time! It is highly appreciated, and I want you to know that!
But with a bank, they would simply confirm the first cheque cashed (Dave), when there was money enough, and deny the second (Betty), when the account was too low. Right? There is no real evaluation of either cheque's validity, just first come first served, and maybe some consequence for the writer of the cheques. Or so I think, never wrote or cashed a cheque in my life...
Sorry for being dense (it is an old crse of mine...), but I still fail to see how the mining truly adds to the validity/trust in the included transactions. I think I am missing some clever detail. To me, speedy confirmation and thus spreading information on a transaction makes the difference, just as it would with the two cheques example.
This actually puts a bit more of a point on it, but still leaves some.... confusion. Demanding PoW means a 'bank' cannot simply pack doubles by the thousands. Which ever 'cheque' gets cashed into a block supported by PoW gets confirmed. And if later blocks have the other cheque, they get discarded as doubles. I kiiinda get that. But how is this an improvement over the initial spread of the transaction through the network? First come is still first served, it seems. The blocks just cements one batch of transactions over another. The network should have already weeded out doubles by discarding the later transaction.
I know the basics, the problem is that I am not quite getting how this exact method adds significantly to the validity. The overall theory makes perfect sense and is, in a way, beautiful, but there are just some aspects that I feel a need to really pick apart to get a firm grasp on. This is one such aspect.

3B1B is soooo good, his was one of the first videos I watched back in the day on the topic!! If you know more like him, let me know, he is a king in my book!


This.... makes an awful lot of sense to me. I'm not sure I am quite there, but this makes me think of it in a more compact and meaningful way, thank you! Could you perhaps elaborate on the metaphor? I may also have uestions based on that metaphor, but I need to chew on this a bit...

(Not going to quite everyone due to post length, but to Poker, Franky and Ranochigo, thanks, it all helps me zero in on what I am failing to understand!)

What I get at this point is that PoW takes effort, hence the source seems more serious/honest. Like the woman putting on high heels that she hates to show that she respects the host of the party enough to make an effort. But not every transaction is performed by someone mining a hash, so I still do not entirely get how a mined block verifies the individual transaction better than the network confirmation?

I will reread the paper, maybe I just overlooked something the first seven times. I'm not known as the brightest bulb, but I get tired of my buddy being all smug about me handing him money to invest without me knowing what he does, that smug little s.o.b. :p

I'd love to have it all explained to me in perfect detail, but I am realistic enough to simply accept my own ignorance and try to work from there. The link was good, very interesting and lots of background, thanks!! However...
... I still don't fully see the connection. Is it that PoW makes one version of a blockchain more credible because someone invested the work? That kinda makes sense, what my ex called "the high heels proof". While I get the immediate notion of that, it seems like a leap to make one equal the other?

Again, I apologize for my dullwittedness, I know it grinds against some people. I just feel like I am grappling with a very big horse from the wrong end. That... can end badly :p

(warning: I may be incredibly dense here, treat me like the slow but sincere child in the playground)
I never quite got why PoW makes one possible chain more valid than others? Comparing chains would make it possible to track it back to the divergence, right? And aren't there timestamps in place that can then determine which chain was 'diverged' last, hence would be the copy?

Trigger warning: I am a complete noob at bitcoin, just trying to wrap my head around a lot of it.

I'm watching a string of videos on bitcoin, and a thought keeps popping up in my head: Is this whole ting a bit too overly complicated?

My main reason for thinking this is that the idea of simply having transactions validated across the blockchain (feel free to fry me if I am being ignorant about how things work) seems to be enough to make the entire concept work. Mining, the long hashes, all the other stuff I barely even fathom, it all seems like just painting flames on your bike to make it go faster. It seems unnecesary. If I make a transaction and that transaction has to be confirmed by dozens of nodes that track all the transactions, isn't that a pretty hard thing to outsmart already?

I'm not saying the other things should not be done, I just would like to understand the value they add to the whole process. Because every wallet essentially meeting up to check if a transaction is a-okay seems like the best system to me, all on its own!

Just trying to get through lockdown without going crazy, need some laughs. So, what is the weirdest bitcoin, altcoin or whatever coin or even blockchain project or idea you ever came across? Doesn't need to be succesful, just weird enough to make for a good story