📅 Original date posted:2015-11-15
📝 Original message:On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Peter R <peter_r at gmx.com> wrote:
> 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.
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. 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.
> 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.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 17:44:53
in reply to nevent1q…9p4m
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:53Event JSON
{
"id": "28bd40f79909ebaf970af810e464f5a6f276a62e1c6ea3138917ea721178e629",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686159893,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1210ebe800165dee2ccc94a44db020accc39bb94ffc3ab7a1da78a399947e644",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c16acb1113fab2813db23dbfdf01c8b9d1d061f814e761aa3db6cd6771197d50",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6185f02289f12c01c6f7c80cdc0331a01eae9c6356f228be12efdb7fb395bc19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-15\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Peter R \u003cpeter_r at gmx.com\u003e wrote:\n\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\nIt is not technically distinct--today; politically-- perhaps, but--\nsorry, no element of your prior message indicated that you were\ninterested in discussing politics rather than technology; on a mailing\nlist much more strongly scoped for the latter; I hope you can excuse\nme for missing your intention prior to your most recent post.\n\nThat said, I believe you are privileging your own political\npreferences in seeing the one rule of the bitcoin system as\ncategorically distinct even politically. No law of nature leaves the\nother criteria I specified less politically negotiable, and we can see\nconcrete examples all around us -- the notion that funds can be\nconfiscated via external authority (spending without the owners\nsignature) is a more or less universal property of other modern\nsystems of money, that economic controls out to exist to regulate the\nsupply of money for the good of an economy is another widely deployed\npolitical perspective. You, yourself, recently published a work on the\nstable self regulation of block sizes based on mining incentives that\ntook as its starting premise a bitcoin that was forever inflationary.\nCertainly things differ in degrees, but this is not the mailing list\nto debate the details of political inertia.\n\n\u003e Thank you for conceding on that point.\n\nYou're welcome, but I would have preferred that you instead of your\nthanks you would have responded in kind and acknowledged my correction\nthat other consensus inconsistencies discovered in implementations\nthus far (none, that I'm aware of) could be classified as \"maybe\"; and\nin doing so retained a semblance of a connection to a the technical\npurposes of this mailing list.",
"sig": "71392ee5e0d08e7e29fbbd9dd40e268e517ef1cfa87f66736fcd27d54e6395fd23d13cb45ef6e3d22c1ee27be534019ab83a6484cf9dee6320ab1e68305b41a2"
}