ziploc
Legacy Member
yes but the question concerned it's survival not objective...
BRICS countries consider moving back to Gold Standard
- Thread starter 250Rocket
- Start date
yes but the question concerned it's survival not objective...
Dibbs
Active member
false, the concept collapses.
Dibbs
Active member
I guess you are right in that regard, the permanence of the bitcoin is assured through the copy of the blockchain.
However, the concept of the blockchain can no longer function with one copy because of data integrity issues.
Dibbs
Active member
The value we attribute to gold could also vanish overnight... If we valued gold based on its industrial use, its value would be a fraction of current trading value.
It's all about constructs.
ziploc
Legacy Member
prove it...LOL
I guess you meant that...but never tried to run 1 node only (I'm not sure how many nodes Satoshi had run simultaneously)...but in that case 1 can make 2 nodes very easily....
but as you've said the concept is not there because the 1 will control the network..
Dibbs
Active member
hmm ok.
what is the blockchain? what are distributed ledgers? can ledgers be distributed with 1 party? can blocks be validated by one party? how is data integrity maintained with one party? assume it can be validated by one, how will then your blockchain be reconciled amongst the network if others (who, as you say, can hop in or out freely) have conflicting versions of the blockchain?
Bro, wasting your time.
ziploc
Legacy Member
As I said again, I ddin't say that the fundamentals will be preserved..it was a discussion on the survival...
Even if a disaster happen..lets say a total Earth blackout and no power.....after the energy comes back the chain can be restarted again...
and technically it is possible for one party to run multiple nodes to preserve the network (and this might not even be required)...or like I said "pause" the network and restart on demand...
This will not erase any contents of the blockchain and no BTC will be lost or disappear...
The question in that case would be is that party honest and trustworthy to preserve the integrity of the network ?
and what would be the point to even preserve it...but that's another discussion...
You guys are simply mixing multiple concepts like value given to the BTC vs the blockchain which is the technical aspect of it vs consensus and distribution part, etc.
Nevertheless the point was on the preservation and survival of the BTC...and that's guarantied....even if the BTC value goes to zero, which i doubt will, the chain will most probably be preserved for study purposes and stay at some tech museum or archive.
ziploc
Legacy Member
simple, the longest chain prevail....
if one maintains the chain and new actor joins....he will have to catch up and then build the chain together
as I said before 1 party doesn't mean only 1 node...however I never run a chain by myself only and I'm not 100% sure if it's possible
But on another hand when a genesis block is created it can only be by 1 machine....then the blocks pile up
by participating in few coin launches I almost sure it always starts with 1 node...
therefore if the "network" will be deprived of all nodes and only 1 will remain, I think it will still be possible to continue the chain with only 1 actor/node
You can also stop mining and just run a node without any new blocks being created....it's actually what is happening in between the blocks.....even if nodes/miners are actively working to build new blocks...
but all that is just my opinions..i'm not at this level in the tech part of blockchain technology and 1 might / is surely different from another...