đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-28
đź“ť Original message:Agreed on both accounts. The main point is that there are no inherent
rights built into bitcoin - just aligned economic interests enforced by
agreed upon technical rules. The technical rules allow for a majority to
dictate, while the economic interests may or may not support such a change.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Furthermore, the actual way in which the conflict is resolved sets a
> precedent for how such disagreements are to be “resolved” in the future.
>
> So the means are also important to consider.
>
> - Eric
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Brightly <ibrightly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge TimĂłn <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, this is very important. The majority has no right to dictate on
>> the minority.
>>
>
> While an interesting philosophical question, I don't think that this is
> accurate. First off, bitcoin doesn't imbue any 'rights' on individuals -
> it provides the choice of participating or not, nothing more.
>
> Secondly, from a technical perspective, how is it that the majority (or
> super-majority) are prevented from imposing their will? The best answer is
> that they are incentivized to not override a minority group since that
> reduces the inherent value in the system. However, presuming that the
> majority calculate that the reward for imposing a change is greater than
> the value lost in such disruption, I don't see how there would be any
> stopping this change. The longest chain with the greatest number of users
> valuing the token on that chain "wins".
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150628/c4445eb6/attachment-0001.html>;
Ivan Brightly [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hn…4p3n4
2023-06-07 15:40:41
in reply to nevent1q…853a
Author Public Key
npub1hn9vjtvdlnllrltesscgtnplu0ev2sreey03kjh3k07zmvd9zgus24p3n4Published at
2023-06-07 15:40:41Event JSON
{
"id": "cd625719a1c5f7071a34c300358b7b4a8ab847e67341e3d8e635c3629cb9a22d",
"pubkey": "bccac92d8dfcfff1fd79843085cc3fe3f2c54079c91f1b4af1b3fc2db1a51239",
"created_at": 1686152441,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b97b8772e4c3c0f5eb751746063b4217197a3eb7cab2fa3b16264082ad573c4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"783148c095c858ddbe2715a495494188d134666dd7b015edc9bebbbbcc0ba1a8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28\n📝 Original message:Agreed on both accounts. The main point is that there are no inherent\nrights built into bitcoin - just aligned economic interests enforced by\nagreed upon technical rules. The technical rules allow for a majority to\ndictate, while the economic interests may or may not support such a change.\n\nOn Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Furthermore, the actual way in which the conflict is resolved sets a\n\u003e precedent for how such disagreements are to be “resolved” in the future.\n\u003e\n\u003e So the means are also important to consider.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Eric\n\u003e\n\u003e On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Brightly \u003cibrightly at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e No, this is very important. The majority has no right to dictate on\n\u003e\u003e the minority.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e While an interesting philosophical question, I don't think that this is\n\u003e accurate. First off, bitcoin doesn't imbue any 'rights' on individuals -\n\u003e it provides the choice of participating or not, nothing more.\n\u003e\n\u003e Secondly, from a technical perspective, how is it that the majority (or\n\u003e super-majority) are prevented from imposing their will? The best answer is\n\u003e that they are incentivized to not override a minority group since that\n\u003e reduces the inherent value in the system. However, presuming that the\n\u003e majority calculate that the reward for imposing a change is greater than\n\u003e the value lost in such disruption, I don't see how there would be any\n\u003e stopping this change. The longest chain with the greatest number of users\n\u003e valuing the token on that chain \"wins\".\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150628/c4445eb6/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "a5d9a8224eb9efa1ba7df3aefe0a6986dcf283df37c7087daaa4c3ef5a373e9fe0038913764569c14c1b6acf7bce11dfbd9cf61ad413d4228511640fcdcdceef"
}