^ I know.

Tech buzzwords explained (by an IT guy named Aryan):
AI—regression
Big data—data
Blockchain—database
Algorithm—automated decision-making
Cloud—Internet
Crypto—cryptocurrency
Dark web—Onion service
Data science—statistics done by nonstatisticians
Disruption—competition
Viral—popular
IoT—malware-ready device

The point being that you wouldn't need to exchange your bitcoin because it wouldn't be "marked" so to speak by a transaction note.

Think of it like a memo on a check. If somebody cashes a check with a note in the memo field then gives you that cash, that cash is not somehow marked or tagged by that memo.

purplerat wrote:The point being that you wouldn't need to exchange your bitcoin because it wouldn't be "marked" so to speak by a transaction note.

All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes because that's what the blockchain is designed to keep track of. It's just that the record of the transaction notes now contains information deemed/legislated as illegal in some regions.

Think of it like a memo on a check. If somebody cashes a check with a note in the memo field then gives you that cash, that cash is not somehow marked or tagged by that memo.

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:The point being that you wouldn't need to exchange your bitcoin because it wouldn't be "marked" so to speak by a transaction note.

All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes because that's what the blockchain is designed to keep track of. It's just that the record of the transaction notes now contains information deemed/legislated as illegal in some regions.

Think of it like a memo on a check. If somebody cashes a check with a note in the memo field then gives you that cash, that cash is not somehow marked or tagged by that memo.

Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands. Transactions are recorded and can be traced but say for example persons A and B each give some bitcoin to person C who then sends some bitcoin to person X. There is no way to trace which "bitcoins" that ended up with person C originated with person A because that's not the way the ledger works.

purplerat wrote:

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:The point being that you wouldn't need to exchange your bitcoin because it wouldn't be "marked" so to speak by a transaction note.

All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes because that's what the blockchain is designed to keep track of. It's just that the record of the transaction notes now contains information deemed/legislated as illegal in some regions.

Think of it like a memo on a check. If somebody cashes a check with a note in the memo field then gives you that cash, that cash is not somehow marked or tagged by that memo.

Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands.

I know, that's how I was confused by you thinking it was like a memo on a check.

Transactions are recorded and can be traced but say for example persons A and B each give some bitcoin to person C who then sends some bitcoin to person X. There is no way to trace which "bitcoins" that ended up with person C originated with person A because that's not the way the ledger works.

and you'll be able to show where I said it did work like that...

purplerat wrote:Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands. Transactions are recorded and can be traced but say for example persons A and B each give some bitcoin to person C who then sends some bitcoin to person X. There is no way to trace which "bitcoins" that ended up with person C originated with person A because that's not the way the ledger works.

But for any of those transactions to take place at all they have to be recorded in the ledger, that people have to host, that we now know has something akin to "click here to see children being raped" permanently inscribed upon it.

I think that's a problem.

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:The point being that you wouldn't need to exchange your bitcoin because it wouldn't be "marked" so to speak by a transaction note.

All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes because that's what the blockchain is designed to keep track of. It's just that the record of the transaction notes now contains information deemed/legislated as illegal in some regions.

Think of it like a memo on a check. If somebody cashes a check with a note in the memo field then gives you that cash, that cash is not somehow marked or tagged by that memo.

Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands.

I know, that's how I was confused by you thinking it was like a memo on a check.

I referenced check memos because that is essentially what extra data we're talking about (i.e. child porn links) is. These are appearing in transaction notes which are essentially check memos.

newolder wrote:

Transactions are recorded and can be traced but say for example persons A and B each give some bitcoin to person C who then sends some bitcoin to person X. There is no way to trace which "bitcoins" that ended up with person C originated with person A because that's not the way the ledger works.

and you'll be able to show where I said it did work like that...

you said this:

All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes

There is a record of transactions of bitcoins but there is no such thing as a marked bitcoin because there really is no such thing as a bitcoin.

purplerat wrote:

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:

newolder wrote:
All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes because that's what the blockchain is designed to keep track of. It's just that the record of the transaction notes now contains information deemed/legislated as illegal in some regions.

Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands.

I know, that's how I was confused by you thinking it was like a memo on a check.

I referenced check memos because that is essentially what extra data we're talking about (i.e. child porn links) is. These are appearing in transaction notes which are essentially check memos.

The links are in the blockchain hosted by the user; they are not like check memos which can be destroyed without affecting the currency.

newolder wrote:

Transactions are recorded and can be traced but say for example persons A and B each give some bitcoin to person C who then sends some bitcoin to person X. There is no way to trace which "bitcoins" that ended up with person C originated with person A because that's not the way the ledger works.

and you'll be able to show where I said it did work like that...

you said this:

All bitcoins are marked with transaction notes

There is a record of transactions of bitcoins but there is no such thing as a marked bitcoin because there really is no such thing as a bitcoin.

OK, I mistyped - I should have written all bitcoin transactions.

minininja wrote:

purplerat wrote:Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands. Transactions are recorded and can be traced but say for example persons A and B each give some bitcoin to person C who then sends some bitcoin to person X. There is no way to trace which "bitcoins" that ended up with person C originated with person A because that's not the way the ledger works.

But for any of those transactions to take place at all they have to be recorded in the ledger, that people have to host, that we now know has something akin to "click here to see children being raped" permanently inscribed upon it.

I think that's a problem.

What's the problem? I mean I get how "click here to see children being raped" is upsetting but seeing that or even clicking on it doesn't actually cause children to get raped. If somebody really wants to see such a thing going through the bitcoin ledger would be a terribly inefficient way of doing so. Stopping it from appearing there isn't going to stop a pedophile from seeing such a thing if they want to.

Are you concerned that non-pedophiles will see something like then and decide they might want to see how child rape suits them? That seems rather unlikely.

But most importantly isn't it a good thing to know where you can go to see a child be raped because that might lead authorities to find out who is doing it and hopefully stop them.

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Do you understand that there is no such thing - physical, virtual, or otherwise - that represents 'a bitcoin' on a 1:1 basis or anything similar to that? It's not like a paper currency with a serial number that can track 1 exact pound or dollar as it changes hands.

I know, that's how I was confused by you thinking it was like a memo on a check.

I referenced check memos because that is essentially what extra data we're talking about (i.e. child porn links) is. These are appearing in transaction notes which are essentially check memos.

The links are in the blockchain hosted by the user; they are not like check memos which can be destroyed without affecting the currency.

It could be wiped out without wiping out the currency. It wouldn't be easy but it's possible. Then again asking banks to go through all of their canceled checks and wipe out any offensive memos could be done but wouldn't be easy.

I'm out.

purplerat wrote:...
It could be wiped out without wiping out the currency. It wouldn't be easy but it's possible.

I'd be happy to read an update when this happens.

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:...
It could be wiped out without wiping out the currency. It wouldn't be easy but it's possible.

I'd be happy to read an update when this happens.

This goes against everything (which is not much, quantitatively)I read about blockchain technology. I thought it was precisely the point that nothing could be deleted or altered, and that was the interest of the tech.

aban57 wrote:

newolder wrote:

purplerat wrote:...
It could be wiped out without wiping out the currency. It wouldn't be easy but it's possible.

I'd be happy to read an update when this happens.

This goes against everything (which is not much, quantitatively)I read about blockchain technology. I thought it was precisely the point that nothing could be deleted or altered, and that was the interest of the tech.

It's not impossible or even technically difficult really. The sticking point is that it requires 51% of the distributed network to agree on the change. This does happen from time to time with blockchains but typically not to "clean up" old transactions but rather to make changes to improve the blockchain.

Additionally, when such a change is made it results in a "fork" which creates two distinct blockchains - one with the change and one without. This can also happen without majority support with the difference being which of the divergent blockchains is considered the original and which one the new.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.