Crypto.co.uk apparently sold for £100k ,

[astutiumRob]

Would coin 1001 on your computer have exactly the same code/keys or whatever the term is as coin 1001 on my computer?

No.

Also this may be where you are confusing yourself, coins do not have keys - think of it in terms of a safe - the safe has keys, the coins inside do not (indeed the coins are in a 'box' called a block, which does not have a key in the same sense)

The 2nd computer/copy in your example would have the same keys (although you may not know the unlock passphrase) so in theory would be able to do something with the contents of the safe that existed at that point - it is after all a direct replica - although what in isolation is limited.

And as soon as you start expanding that to other devices/miners/wallets/etc through connectivity to do anything practical you get into the 51% consensus limitations.

I'd suggest reading the original whitepaper it does make a lot of this much clearer.

 

[astutiumRob]

Say you and I start with identical amounts of cash - £100

We each go into 10 random shops picked by throwing darts at a map and buy one item in each shop of our own chosing, to ultimately spend a maximum of £49.99

What's the possibility we'd both end up with the exact same items in the exact same order fro the exact same shops and having matching serial numbers on our £50 note change ?

 

[GreyWing]

Also this may be where you are confusing yourself, coins do not have keys - think of it in terms of a safe - the safe has keys, the coins inside do not (indeed the coins are in a 'box' called a block, which does not have a key in the same sense)

It's just I'm trying not to get bogged down in terminology. It's not massively important for the point I'm trying to get at.

The 2nd computer/copy in your example would have the same keys (although you may not know the unlock passphrase) so in theory would be able to do something with the contents of the safe that existed at that point - it is after all a direct replica - although what in isolation is limited.

This is the part that I want to focus in on, would you agree that in theory we now have two identical coins/keys numbering 1001 in two different places?

 

[GreyWing]

And as soon as you start expanding that to other devices/miners/wallets/etc through connectivity to do anything practical you get into the 51% consensus limitations.

If you have the second computer, mining everything in your own eco system. You have 100% of the coin/keys and can do whatever you want.

Only when you have say 100,000 coins/keys etc, would you take those coins/key and take them off your personal grid and inject them into the main Bitcoin chain that others use to cash them in.

 

[astutiumRob]

As to whether multiple people can spend from the same cache of coins in the same wallet if they each have the keys (and phrases) - sort-of, although it's a more common scam in RW than crypto - you'd have to do it on separate parts of the chain (so likley different countries) within the same 10 min window for mining the next block etc - otherwise just as with certain RT checks on debitcards, the 2nd spend wont go through as the money went on the 1st spend etc.

 

[astutiumRob]

If you have the second computer, mining everything in your own eco system. You have 100% of the coin/keys and can do whatever you want.

Yes.
You have your own (offline/local) set of db records that only exists on your device.

Only when you have say 100,000 coins/keys etc, would you take those coins/key and take them off your personal grid and inject them into the main Bitcoin chain that others use to cash them in.

No.
As when you submit your first db record (mined block) it would not get added to the DB as that block id number has already been used - all you've done is waste time/compute mining on an old chain (and every block mined has certain values of the previous one, so EVERY block you mined after that first one would be invalid)

 

[GreyWing]

No.
As when you submit your first db record (mined block) it would not get added to the DB as that block id number has already been used - all you've done is waste time/compute mining on an old chain (and every block mined has certain values of the previous one, so EVERY block you mined after that first one would be invalid)

Cheers Rob, I'll have a look into this tomorrow and see if it conflicts with my theory. It's not something I'm massively familiar with, but if my theory is to fail it may well be in this area.

 

[astutiumRob]

Think of the db structure
block-id #
*size of previous block
*checksum of previous block
*timestamp
*a few other bits
*the miners wallet/address (safe number)
[transaction and data contents]

block 1 points to block 0 and includes the *values of block 0
block 2 points to block 1 and includes the *values of block 1
block 3 points to block 2 and includes the *values of block 2
block 4 points to block 3 and includes the *values of block 3

if you then connect and try and submit your block#1 it'll be thrown away as there is a block#1

if you try and submit your block#2 (even if there wasn't already a block#2) it'll be thrown away as the *values in your block#2 do not match the agreed upon block#1

etc

it's why when mining you always want to make sure you're working towards solving the puzzle of the next block not one previously accepted, and using the values from the last accepted block - how hard that is becomes ultimately determined by the "difficulty" value to try and keep solutions to appx 10 min intervals and so on.

 

[astutiumRob]

Whilst the concepts behind BTC "solve" a number of monetary issues, a lot wasn't planned for / expected / completely understood - it's a great proof of concept, but once it appeared to work certain design constraints really should have led to a decent v2 with a proper transition, and 2015 would have been the optimal time to fix those.

e.g. the 50 initial size of blocks was way too small, the 10min is an order of magnitude too long, dust issues and transaction costs showed a poor grasp of real-world usage, side-chain/off-chain whilst expected wasn't fleshed out to even MVP levels, and dozens of other issues people more au-fait with finance could see a mile off

And despite some of their posturing about blockchains, authoritarian gov's love it

 

[GreyWing]

And despite some of their posturing about blockchains, authoritarian gov's love it

I'd be amazed if the US intel agencies weren't behind Bitcoin. Which makes me sceptical what they were up to launching it and letting it loose.

As someone pointed out a while back - Satoshi Nakamoto in Japanese means

(Satoshi): "wise" or "intelligent."
(Naka): "middle" or "center."
(Moto): "origin" or "foundation."

Well, that sure as hell looks like CIA to me

 

[astutiumRob]

'd be amazed if the US intel agencies weren't behind Bitcoin.

There are reasons to believe not - a half-decent encryption method, elegant code and a commitment to opensource being the main ones that imply it is not from one of the common acronyms.

They do have lots of tools to analyse numerous blockchains, and will have been involved in some of the wants added after launch, as well as wet dreams over the price-rises - what 'agency' wouldn't love the idea of usable seized property that doesn't have to be tracked or accounted for in the same way as folding green printed things