Anyone who calls a private currency is either confused or purposefully lying.

Bitcoin, being open source, is a commons. Anyone in the world can access the network to recieve/send coins.

It has no private owner, it belongs to humanity.

· · Mastodon Twitter Crossposter · 11 · 1 · 7

yeah… no.

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.

@jcbrand "it belongs to whoever controls a majority of it's network" *fixed*

@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.

@stevenroose @Gux

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.


@Gux @stevenroose

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.

@Gux @stevenroose

Furthermore, nodes (hardware) can be owned by governments, cooperatives, communes, state universities and any other form of human organization you could imagine.

They're not all just privately owned.

@Gux @stevenroose

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.


Hey Steven

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 yeah......
77.7 TerraWatts of power per hour
and 686 killowatts for single transaction

At that, the price manipulation vulnerabilities via volume disparities have been pretty publicly blatant since 2013 at the very least.

call it "no one" if you like, but the math pretty overtly says there's a pretty powerfully and fairly centralized "something" at the least.

not surprisingly, following behind that there's than an Ethereum Enterprise Member Alliance.....

At that, Intel ME and AMD PSP chipset issues (among else) lay down pretty overt security issues over the whole thing.

Not just BitCoin, Bollockschain is the answer to a question ill defined.…

@jcbrand Amen! In fact it's further away from private currency than fiat currencies are, which are just the state's private currencies.

@jcbrand @kekcoin
it's not an over simplification, it's just straight talk stripped of obfuscated nonsense.
As already noted, the issues are numerous and wide spread and DO NOT simply boil down to only one thing enabling exploit by "powerful adversary". Also as already noted, price manipulation exploits, among else, have already been well demonstrated. That BTC is broken as any sort "system of the commons" isn't even theoretical, it's been actively demonstrated for years. But never mind BTC, at least generally speaking to the current, blockchain is rather ill suited for the vast majority of functions it's touted as being good for; notably as it concerns "security".
Again, KNOWN chipset issues among else have demonstrably deemed such so.

@alien23 @jcbrand You do not know of what you speak, otherwise you would engage in specific examples rather than handwavy "as already noted" (not anywhere in this thread) rhetoric. There is a name for this; proof by intimidation.

Bonk, go to fallacy jail.

@jcbrand Already gave a link to "some" specific examples.
But here are "some" again since you apparently missed it.…

of additional on Intel ME, but as the issue is well documented, I felt no need to cover it.…

PSP suffers the same sort of single point failure potential.
Feel free to look that up.

And regarding market share…

I will note again, it was not any single one specific issue but in fact a compounding of numerous that include numerous publicly observable examples of issues having occurred.


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 

@alien23 @jcbrand This is not how exchanges work at all, and even if they did it would be irrelevant as price discovery is not what makes Bitcoin a commons.

"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.

re: squeet link 

@alien23 @jcbrand You bring in criticism of general blockchain (voting) systems. Those are not Bitcoin. You are fight straw men.

@jcbrand there are no less than 7 additional links that were given that range in origins from the University of Austin, Cornell University, the IMF, and more.

Of additional note, while I may be involved with, I AM NOT, The Church Of Space.


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.

@jcbrand 1. Is Bitcoin UnTethered?
(Analysis on Bitcoin, Tether, and U.S. Dollar manipulation by John M Griffin & Amin Shams| University of Texas at Austin - Department of Finance June 2018)…

*Supp1: Tether Report…

2. On-Chain Vote Buying and the Rise of Dark DAOs
(Analysis on general blockchain voting system security, vulnerability, and exploit by Phil Daian/Cornell University, Tyler Kell/IC3, Ian Miers/Cornell Tech, Ari Juels/Cornell Tech & IC3)…

3. Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability
(Discussionary Paper on International Monetary System, it's current problems, and possible modes of resolve by IMF Strategy, Policy and Review Department. P.26 "A sui generis Global Currency: From SDR to Bancor")…

*Supp1: Bancor & BNT: Stability through liquidity
(Analysis on Bancor and Stability through liquidity by Jeremy Epstein)…

*Supp2: Bancor is flawed
(Flaws of Bancor by Emin Gün Sirer/Cornell and Phil Daian /Cornell)…
Bancor Response to "Bancor is flawed"…

*Supp3: Bancor Hacked for 23.5Million USD 2018…

@alien23 @jcbrand Repeating here for visibility:

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.

@jcbrand Things beyond simply Bitcoin and to the greater Blockchain space were also spoken to.

Centralized actor price manipulation relates directly to the supposed "commons" ability to conduct economics in a way that is not intruded upon or controlled by other parties.
The size of the Bitcoin blockchain and the amount of power it takes to maintain it both relate to the ability of the general public (or "commons") to take part in meaningful maintenance of the record AND their own living environment at the same time. This applies to other blockchains as well.

@alien23 @jcbrand Yeah this is just pointless. You keep digging up unrelated bullshit in a way that I can only conclude is dishonest and in bad faith. I'm gonna invoke Brandolini's law, we're done here. #HFSP

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!