Agreed, this thread is venturing somewhat out of scope for the list. Please
can we redirect philosophical discussion to another forum/list such as
bitcoin-discuss, which can be found at
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
Repost of the bitcoin-dev posting guidelines
"10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement
and lack of consensus."
Certainly the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt and not a
definitive answer or measure .
However if we agree the poll has some worth (or even if not, then lets use it
as hyptothet
>Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority
varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say
"everyone needs to agree".
There's a pretty huge gap between 90% and nearly 100%. 90% excluding 10%
only 7 times results in only 48% of the original base.
If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin
is no longer interesting. What an incredibly simple attack vector...
No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of
millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to
flood th
Even ignoring the obvious flaws of that poll, Andrew is still correct: you
cannot reach 100% consensus. It's statistically impossible in any large
group.
Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority
varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say
"e
Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to. If those rules are to be
changed,nearly everyone will need to consent. The same rule applies to the
cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly
everyone would need to agree.
On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson"
wrote:
It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer
something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were
against, would you seriously consider doing it?
On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" wrote:
> 10
10% is not a tiny minority.
On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" wrote:
> You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network
> literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 10% say
You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network
literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.
On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement
an
There was an error on page 5 of the paper, which made the block-chaining odds
formula confusing. The error was in the text, not in the formula, and consisted
of assuming the affected route as always being the rewarded one, which is
false. The corrected version is already available at the same UR
Proof of Nodework (PoNW) is a way to reward individual nodes for keeping a full
copy of and verifying the blockchain.
Hopefully they also do useful ‘traditional’ node activities too like relay
transactions and blocks, but there isn’t really any way I can think of to
trustlessly verify this als
11 matches
Mail list logo
