On the subject of definitions. What is "Bitcoin"? (It's pretty simple really)

No matter how technical, correct definitions must be established and then constantly defended by individuals.

Since Bitcoin is a tool for human-to-human interaction and there always exists a certain risk of a corrupted chain (or network) state that has to be abandoned for a better one, the job of upholding the most consistent definition known is a social task best carried out peacefully in the market place. This affords everyone the choice of their own preference even when it clashes with majority opinion and it involves no monopoly which can prevent someone from using a better definition in agreement with their peers.

The correct objective definitions were however already provided by the inventor of the very concept and the most relevant ones are explicitly explained in the paper he published. The rest are logically implied.

• Satoshi referred to the full implementation of the paper as "Bitcoin" or "the design".

• In the paper, "the network" referred specifically to that of hashing nodes.

• The concept of "longest chain" (explained as the one with the most PoW) was a particularly important parameter, but not more important than the full function and security of the design.

Hence why Satoshi for example suggested changing to a different PoW algorithm if SHA256 ever became fully compromised. In this way, even a network using a chain with less PoW than the attackers/compromised chain or network can still be part of the one valid implementation of the full Bitcoin design. It just won't have the longest chain or be the network with the most PoW out of the two, which doesn't matter since one is phony.

submitted by /u/fruitsofknowledge
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/94rnvm/on_the_subject_of_definitions_what_is_bitcoin_its/