📅 Original date posted:2017-03-06
📝 Original message:On 7 March 2017 at 08:23, Gareth Williams <gjw at posteo.net> wrote:
> What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority of hashpower disagrees with.
Well, they'd be censoring transactions to prevent the thing from
activating in the first place. (As opposed to censoring a subset of
those transactions to enforce the new rule, which is the behaviour
that the people promoting the change want.) There would be no point at
which people reasonably expected that something useful would happen if
they sent funds to an address protected by the new scripting rule.
> Bitcoin only works if the majority of hashpower is not hostile to the users.
This is true. But what we're talking about here is hostility to *a
particular proposal to change the network rules* which is (in this
hypothetical case) supported by the economic majority of users. This
doesn't, in itself, break Bitcoin, although the economic majority are
of course always free to hard-fork to something new if they're
unhappy.
Edmund
--
--
Edmund Edgar
Founder, Social Minds Inc (KK)
Twitter: @edmundedgar
Linked In: edmundedgar
Skype: edmundedgar
http://www.socialminds.jp
Reality Keys
@realitykeys
ed at realitykeys.com
https://www.realitykeys.com
Edmund Edgar [ARCHIVE] /
npub1as…zu5p3
2023-06-07 17:57:05
in reply to nevent1q…ypkk
Author Public Key
npub1assqju94qjdpunps2yck2vtzfhnme5pclv0aantfajkjs5w2057quzu5p3Published at
2023-06-07 17:57:05Event JSON
{
"id": "dcccb39ab3d51e089fc664579daa5573e6969b7b4e4bb6e4860f21ae6e21e8a4",
"pubkey": "ec200970b5049a1e4c3051316531624de7bcd038fb1fdecd69ecad2851ca7d3c",
"created_at": 1686160625,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"884240603140ed27b03f27320d4379ba808b85a816007fd6f0068a3a767a99ca",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e4a91c8de1ab8762476167c77243c8e3abd5da13a3fd3ec8641e5f347935253e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-06\n📝 Original message:On 7 March 2017 at 08:23, Gareth Williams \u003cgjw at posteo.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority of hashpower disagrees with.\n\nWell, they'd be censoring transactions to prevent the thing from\nactivating in the first place. (As opposed to censoring a subset of\nthose transactions to enforce the new rule, which is the behaviour\nthat the people promoting the change want.) There would be no point at\nwhich people reasonably expected that something useful would happen if\nthey sent funds to an address protected by the new scripting rule.\n\n\u003e Bitcoin only works if the majority of hashpower is not hostile to the users.\n\nThis is true. But what we're talking about here is hostility to *a\nparticular proposal to change the network rules* which is (in this\nhypothetical case) supported by the economic majority of users. This\ndoesn't, in itself, break Bitcoin, although the economic majority are\nof course always free to hard-fork to something new if they're\nunhappy.\n\nEdmund\n\n-- \n-- \nEdmund Edgar\nFounder, Social Minds Inc (KK)\nTwitter: @edmundedgar\nLinked In: edmundedgar\nSkype: edmundedgar\nhttp://www.socialminds.jp\n\nReality Keys\n@realitykeys\ned at realitykeys.com\nhttps://www.realitykeys.com",
"sig": "a4600615dd5159d6568df96141e6d443122f9790f9485d4048ba42f3dbda708a9a4944fd42ae0c2d11e9fbf54f8c586a09466f59635fa0411be6a1a8cccac04b"
}