Hi Greg, >> Thank you for conceding on that point. > > You're welcome, but I would have preferred that you instead of your > thanks you would have responded in kind and acknowledged my correction > that other consensus inconsistencies discovered in implementations > thus far (none, that I'm aware of) could be classified as "maybe"; and > in doing so retained a semblance of a connection to a the technical > purposes of this mailing list.
I apologize for that, Greg. I have not read enough on the issues you brought up to comment intelligibly. I should have conceded that you could very well be correct that those were Type 2 consensus failures. >> I think you’re being intentionally obtuse here: accepting a block composed >> entirely of valid transactions that is 1.1 MB is entirely different than >> accepting a TX that creates a ten thousand bitcoins out of thin air. The >> market would love the former but abhor the later. I believe you can >> recognize the difference. > > It is not technically distinct--today; politically-- perhaps, but-- > sorry, no element of your prior message indicated that you were > interested in discussing politics rather than technology; on a mailing > list much more strongly scoped for the latter; I hope you can excuse > me for missing your intention prior to your most recent post. The difference between a 1.1 MB block full of valid transactions and an invalid TX that creates 10,000 BTC out of thin air is *not* a matter of “politics.” If people could freely award themselves coins, then Bitcoin would not be money. It’s like saying that “technically” there’s no difference between picking up a penny from the sidewalk and holding up a bank teller at gunpoint. Ask the average person: there is more than a “political” difference between creating coins out of thin air and increasing the block size limit. > That said, I believe you are privileging your own political > preferences in seeing the one rule of the bitcoin system as > categorically distinct even politically. What rules does Bitcoin obey? What is Bitcoin’s nature? This brings us to the age-old debate between Rationalism versus Empiricism. Rationalism holds that some propositions are known to be true by intuition alone and that others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions. The Rationalist may hold the view that Bitcoin has a 21-million coin limit or a 1 MB block size limit, based on deductive reasoning from the rules enforced by the Bitcoin Core source code. Such a Rationalists might believe that the code represents some immutable truth and then his understanding of Bitcoin follows from axiomatic deductions from that premise. The Empiricist rejects the Rationalist’s intuition and deduction, believing instead that knowledge is necessarily a posteriori, dependent upon observation and sense experience. The Empiricist questions the notion that Bitcoin has a 21-million coin limit, instead observing that its money supply grew by 50 BTC per block for the first 210,000 and then 25 BTC per block ever since. The Empiricist rejects the idea that Bitcoin has any sort of block size limit, having observed previous empirical limits collapse in the face of increased demand. I am not convinced that Bitcoin even *has* a block size limit, let alone that it can enforce one against the invisible hand of the market. > No law of nature leaves the > other criteria I specified less politically negotiable, and we can see > concrete examples all around us -- the notion that funds can be > confiscated via external authority (spending without the owners > signature) is a more or less universal property of other modern > systems of money, that economic controls out to exist to regulate the > supply of money for the good of an economy is another widely deployed > political perspective. You, yourself, recently published a work on the > stable self regulation of block sizes based on mining incentives that > took as its starting premise a bitcoin that was forever inflationary. > Certainly things differ in degrees, but this is not the mailing list > to debate the details of political inertia. You were the one who just brought up politics, Greg. Not I. Best regards, Peter _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
