SAM of bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
We first present the different parts, before constructing the graphical representation of SAM (Scientific Argumentation Model) (based on sheets 21-23 ).
Introduction
Motive
Why was the research done
- “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.”
- “no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.”
Objective
Aim of the research
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
Discussion
Main Conclusion
The main outcome of the research
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.
Implication
What are the consequences of the research
Counterargument
Statements which weaken the Main conclusion
- a. “If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first.”
- b. “If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes”
- c. “the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker’s fabricated transactions”
- d. “The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved”
- e. “linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner.”
Refutation
Statements which weaken Counterarguments
- a. “The tie will be broken when the next proof-of-work is found and one branch becomes longer”
- b. “it more profitable to play by the rules”
- c. “download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency.”
- d. “public can see that someone is sending an amount [..] similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges”
Results
Supports
Data and data interpretations or other literature used by authors to justify their Main conclusion
- “The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making.”
