{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ck","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ck","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-25\n📝 Original message:On 25/04/14 00:28, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e Why are we here? We are here because we were brought together by shared\n\u003e goals.\n\u003e \n\u003e What are those goals? They were defined at the start of the project by\n\u003e the creator of the project.\n\u003e \n\u003e Why do we issue 21 million coins and not 42? Because 21 million is the\n\u003e goal everyone signed up for.\n\nMike: the blockchain is a public document, with a very public and well\ndefined interpretation, which we've all signed up for too.\n\nWhat's the point of piling PoW on top of some data to make it difficult\nto modify if the interpretation itself is open to modification?\n\nThere is an important distinction to draw between a hard fork via a\nchange in block validation rules, and a hard fork via a change in the\n/interpretation of the blockchain itself/.\n\nBitcoin validates data /before/ it makes it into a block; we can all be\nconfident that, short of a reorg, /if it's in a block, it's the law/. As\nmuch as the 21m cap is the law anyway.\n\nProving that you can convince the economic majority that the\ninterpretation of existing blocks is in any way up for grabs would set a\ndangerous precedent, and shake some people's faith in Bitcoin's overall\nrobustness and security (well, mine anyway.)\n\nMy 2 bits.\n\n-Gareth\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 555 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140425/864fe1bb/attachment.sig\u003e"}