{"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:2014-04-30\n📝 Original message:On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind\n\u003e of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so. \n\nI haven't seen anybody arguing that it is.\n\nBitcoin is the elegant embodiment of /artificially contrived/\nmathematical rules, which just so happen to be very useful in their\ncurrent configuration :-P\n\nNobody is saying those rules are immutable. Just that it isn't sensible\nto undermine them by introducing imprecise and unpredictable elements\nlike human politics.\n\n\n\u003e Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates \u003eformula() coins\n\u003e that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter\n\nNo it isn't. That's the node enforcing the protocol. It isn't a matter\nof opinion, and it isn't a vote. The protocol is clearly defined: you\neither follow it or you're not running a Bitcoin node. If 51% don't\nfollow it tomorrow /they're/ not running Bitcoin.\n\nContrast with your \"vote to reinterpret the meaning of arbitrary blocks\"\nmechaism - you're free to vote either way while remaining within the\nprotocol. That's a /real/ vote - majority decides what the Bitcoin\nprotocol /and every node that follows it/ will recognise as valid.\nNothing like that currently exists. Thank $deity.\n\n\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/20140430/3e39d0ea/attachment.sig\u003e"}