đź“… Original date posted:2015-11-15
đź“ť Original message: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
Peter R [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vx…lz2gn
2023-06-07 17:44:54
in reply to nevent1q…0p7s
Author Public Key
npub1vxzlqg5f7ykqr3hheqxdcqe35q02a8rr2mez30sjaldhlvu4hsvsqlz2gnPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:54Event JSON
{
"id": "30117aceca2dad77d5d65083dcc49d8e71d7e71d8939fc3ddf74338b4a43927a",
"pubkey": "6185f02289f12c01c6f7c80cdc0331a01eae9c6356f228be12efdb7fb395bc19",
"created_at": 1686159894,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1210ebe800165dee2ccc94a44db020accc39bb94ffc3ab7a1da78a399947e644",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"28bd40f79909ebaf970af810e464f5a6f276a62e1c6ea3138917ea721178e629",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-15\n📝 Original message:Hi Greg,\n\n\u003e\u003e Thank you for conceding on that point.\n\u003e \n\u003e You're welcome, but I would have preferred that you instead of your\n\u003e thanks you would have responded in kind and acknowledged my correction\n\u003e that other consensus inconsistencies discovered in implementations\n\u003e thus far (none, that I'm aware of) could be classified as \"maybe\"; and\n\u003e in doing so retained a semblance of a connection to a the technical\n\u003e purposes of this mailing list.\n\nI 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. \n\n\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is not technically distinct--today; politically-- perhaps, but--\n\u003e sorry, no element of your prior message indicated that you were\n\u003e interested in discussing politics rather than technology; on a mailing\n\u003e list much more strongly scoped for the latter; I hope you can excuse\n\u003e me for missing your intention prior to your most recent post.\n\nThe 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. \n \n\u003e That said, I believe you are privileging your own political\n\u003e preferences in seeing the one rule of the bitcoin system as\n\u003e categorically distinct even politically.\n\nWhat rules does Bitcoin obey? What is Bitcoin’s nature? This brings us to the age-old debate between Rationalism versus Empiricism.\n\nRationalism 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.\n\nThe 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.\n\nI 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. \n\n\u003e No law of nature leaves the\n\u003e other criteria I specified less politically negotiable, and we can see\n\u003e concrete examples all around us -- the notion that funds can be\n\u003e confiscated via external authority (spending without the owners\n\u003e signature) is a more or less universal property of other modern\n\u003e systems of money, that economic controls out to exist to regulate the\n\u003e supply of money for the good of an economy is another widely deployed\n\u003e political perspective. You, yourself, recently published a work on the\n\u003e stable self regulation of block sizes based on mining incentives that\n\u003e took as its starting premise a bitcoin that was forever inflationary.\n\u003e Certainly things differ in degrees, but this is not the mailing list\n\u003e to debate the details of political inertia.\n\nYou were the one who just brought up politics, Greg. Not I. \n\nBest regards,\nPeter",
"sig": "03d30e24871bcf6b6416a174953525472764d6493cfd5d1dd82440baaed2d3686233fc7322f43abcfb8853af2a5470926e315ea892090d3b5dbb1709f78c8be3"
}