it belongs to whoever controls most of it's network
you can buy truth in bitcoin if you're rich enough
the code might indeed be open, but who uses new changes depends on that truth too.
not "most"of the network, at least 51%, which would be seen as an attack on the network, not as the network functioning as intended.
@alien23 @jcbrand That's a gross oversimplification. First of all you are underdefining "majority of it's (sic) network" to the point that the common interpretation would be incorrect. You cannot pull off any attacks with a simple network majority - even with a supermajority eclipse attacks are very difficult.
Second of all, even with a majority hashrate, what you can do has limits. You do not suddenly gain full control over someone else's node.
That's like saying socks are a commons, because anyone can acess them. Your private property is whatever you can rightfully impose your will on. The Satoshis you bought are thereby your property as much as the bits on your hard disk including the copy of the source code of the bitcoin client you're using and the socks on your feet. The concept of bitcoin, the bitcoin client's git repo, the sock factory and the knowledge on making socks are not. Cf. Locke.
And I deny lying on purpose.
Looks like you fall into the confused camp.
I'm taking about the network, not the satoshis.
The network is a commons.
@jcbrand The network is comprised of privately owned hosts. The mere possibility of sending them such data likely to trick them into transferring satoshis owned by others into your property without their consent (as in stealing) does not make anything a commons.
Yes, your satoshis are owned by you and cannot be stolen outside of someone getting hold of your private key.
That's completely besides my point though. The network is permissionless and anyone can set up a node and interact with it. Nobody can stop you from sending and receiving sats. That's because the network and the Bitcoin-core source code is a commons.
"The network" it just a metaphor for privately owned hardware. Think of a shopping mall. Everybody has access, but that doesn't make it a commons. Rather, the owner grants everyone access, because visitors mean profit, though he may ban thieves, etc. Same for a miner. The host listens to a port and accepts all packages (that's the "everyone has access" part), because he's eyeing the transmission fee, but he will reject invalid blockchains, ban hackers, etc.
A mall is a centralized architecture and therefore a terrible metaphor for Bitcoin, which is p2p and decentralized.
Also, the network is real, not just a metaphor and is much more than just "privately owned hardware".
The network comes into being when nodes implement and adhere to an agreed-upon protocol.
That protocol is open and a commons. No-one owns it.
The blockchain itself is also a commons. No single entity owns it, and everyone has access.
The original bitcoin-core node software is also free software and a commons.
So given the fact that the protocol, the database, the necessary software are all free and form a commons, and the network is permissionless and available to all, it's clear to me that the Bitcoin network is a commons.
I found the the original video where I first heard Bitcoin being called a private currency and decided to write a blog post about it.
Check the youtube video in the post.
@jcbrand Amen! In fact it's further away from private currency than fiat currencies are, which are just the state's private currencies.
From your link, which points to your own blog post:
> Buyers and sellers attempting transactions without any consistent agreement on monetary exchange value. Exchanges grind to a halt or spin out chaotically into inconsistency.
So one of the potential "security issues" is people not knowing how to price Bitcoin and then exchanges crashing due to that? 😃😆😂🤣
@alien23 @jcbrand You didn't reply to my thread and removed me from the notifications of this one, so your post didn't propagate to my server until @jcbrand responded to you. I wonder if this is due to you not understanding how the fediverse works, or because you wanted to spread FUD without giving me a chance to respond. Anyway.
re: squeet link
"Stable coin"s, and "AI algorithm technology" has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Again, price manipulation through Tether or other methods is entirely irrelevant to the point of this thread. Bitcoin is the name of the network and the protocol, those cannot be traded. They just are. And they are not private, they are public.
The rest is about potential chip-level exploits which also affect holders of digital fiat currency and is in no way particular to only Bitcoin. If you're paranoid about that you can use multisig with keys spread out over multiple devices.
In any case, nothing you said or linked to rebutted my original point about the Bitcoin network being a commons.
You've lost credibility in my eyes and I no longer take you seriously.
I'm done, feel free to shout into the void if you'd like.
1. Price manipulation through Tether or other methods is entirely irrelevant to the point of this thread. Bitcoin is the name of the network and the protocol, those cannot be traded. They just are. And they are not private, they are more public than "public". That is what is meant with "commons".
2. Not Bitcoin. Strawman.
3. Relation to Bitcoin undefined.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!