📅 Original date posted:2014-02-09
📝 Original message:On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 05:25:41PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:12:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> > We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade
> > it with new rules.
>
> This asserts a central authority and gives developers too much power.
I don't quite see how, There is nothing that 'forces' me to upgrade,
unless I have chosen to run an operating system (MacOS, Windows, Android)
that have automatic don't-ask-the-user update mechanisms.
The bigger problem with 'asset transfer' of assets which do not exist
soley in the blockchain is including the consensus of relevant local and
distributed legal jurisdictions.
For example, just because the 'colored coin' and blockchain consensus is
that I 'electronically' signed a mortgage document giving some random
internet company the rights to foreclose on my home does not mean that
my local county Judge or Sheriff are going to do anything if the internet
company cannot produce the original paper document with ink signature.
The only 'assertion' of central authority here is people who download and
run the code and submit to whatever the code asserts they are supposed to do.
At least with the 'central authority' of the big-business bitcoin developer
cabal I can read the code before I submit to it's central authority, and
this is a significant improvement over amgibuous legislation or proprietary
high-frequency trading algorithms.
Troy Benjegerdes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m6…rdjn5
2023-06-07 15:13:15
in reply to nevent1q…jek3
Author Public Key
npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5Published at
2023-06-07 15:13:15Event JSON
{
"id": "edf57d253e69b83e33dc207d0f9b05e0d81519fc14fec3e75b30ac1bddbde4fc",
"pubkey": "de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc",
"created_at": 1686150795,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3db7f6bd2e16cc82ea989c63a2badc34147833ffc2f2dde6b989e1da239f9ea0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c3f2deb33790247721f4b124788f89ac7537b41c4bfd78af22ad35a018170a73",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-02-09\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 05:25:41PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e On Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:12:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade\n\u003e \u003e it with new rules.\n\u003e \n\u003e This asserts a central authority and gives developers too much power.\n\nI don't quite see how, There is nothing that 'forces' me to upgrade,\nunless I have chosen to run an operating system (MacOS, Windows, Android)\nthat have automatic don't-ask-the-user update mechanisms.\n\nThe bigger problem with 'asset transfer' of assets which do not exist \nsoley in the blockchain is including the consensus of relevant local and\ndistributed legal jurisdictions.\n\nFor example, just because the 'colored coin' and blockchain consensus is\nthat I 'electronically' signed a mortgage document giving some random \ninternet company the rights to foreclose on my home does not mean that \nmy local county Judge or Sheriff are going to do anything if the internet\ncompany cannot produce the original paper document with ink signature.\n\nThe only 'assertion' of central authority here is people who download and\nrun the code and submit to whatever the code asserts they are supposed to do.\n\nAt least with the 'central authority' of the big-business bitcoin developer\ncabal I can read the code before I submit to it's central authority, and\nthis is a significant improvement over amgibuous legislation or proprietary\nhigh-frequency trading algorithms.",
"sig": "18e365048323a43c40d71624e9d43da929a14b607c598b1504f83cf07656485c0c2e0bf7ebe002938e9bb8ff73a87c3bc1aae10c83dc9799a6d7d508d699c8ac"
}