📅 Original date posted:2014-04-27
📝 Original message:Agreed. I'm a pragmatist, certainly not anti-change (or even anti-zero-conf.) Useful and non-controversial hard forks don't keep me awake at night :) I support your general position on zero-conf payments (that they're useful and we should make them as reliable as practical.)
But the very essence of Bitcoin, to me, is trustlessness. Satoshi's great invention isn't just another payment network - it's /ecash/. Bearer-negotiable, whoever-controls-the-private-keys-owns-it, **ecash**.
If not that, what do you think it is? :-)
I like trustless systems for purely pragmatic, cost-benefit reasons. They allow us to avoid all the costs associated with imperfect humans, while reaping the benefits of reliability and predictability :P
On 28 April 2014 12:31:05 AM AEST, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>>
>> That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small
>> democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an
>imperfect
>> world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a
>> "democratic system".
>>
>> You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm
>> making :-)
>
>
>Yep, your point is well made.
>
>I don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I
>think
>this whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a
>violation of
>the social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years.
>Put
>another way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that
>evolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will
>be
>good arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different
>on
>a case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that
>argues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted
>in
>a careful analysis of costs and benefits.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Gareth Williams [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jk…373ck
2023-06-07 15:19:39
in reply to nevent1q…nxcn
Author Public Key
npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:39Event JSON
{
"id": "ade973eb726ac202302fc8e7546058385238392f4e699a5d4af2e4bd812e888f",
"pubkey": "959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411",
"created_at": 1686151179,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5090665aad23a77b012135979db1e16bc811db23aa511d1ac7d17a56045795a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7823427a357beeaafda73c4e23ebab061e7914e68d074f0d6a1398dd0300b90f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-27\n📝 Original message:Agreed. I'm a pragmatist, certainly not anti-change (or even anti-zero-conf.) Useful and non-controversial hard forks don't keep me awake at night :) I support your general position on zero-conf payments (that they're useful and we should make them as reliable as practical.)\n\nBut the very essence of Bitcoin, to me, is trustlessness. Satoshi's great invention isn't just another payment network - it's /ecash/. Bearer-negotiable, whoever-controls-the-private-keys-owns-it, **ecash**.\n\nIf not that, what do you think it is? :-)\n\nI like trustless systems for purely pragmatic, cost-benefit reasons. They allow us to avoid all the costs associated with imperfect humans, while reaping the benefits of reliability and predictability :P\n\n\nOn 28 April 2014 12:31:05 AM AEST, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small\n\u003e\u003e democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an\n\u003eimperfect\n\u003e\u003e world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a\n\u003e\u003e \"democratic system\".\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm\n\u003e\u003e making :-)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003eYep, your point is well made.\n\u003e\n\u003eI don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I\n\u003ethink\n\u003ethis whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a\n\u003eviolation of\n\u003ethe social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years.\n\u003ePut\n\u003eanother way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that\n\u003eevolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will\n\u003ebe\n\u003egood arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different\n\u003eon\n\u003ea case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that\n\u003eargues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted\n\u003ein\n\u003ea careful analysis of costs and benefits.\n\n-- \nSent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.",
"sig": "c3bc5c840254a34f3f0119a325552c9af0a7a2815c6ee89965031473ce4564a1e8d69e49a01e9e74f28e3a3c4c0ad04cb7a744c703c79538406c763fbadcb52a"
}