<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-25&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; When you have a *bitcoin* TXn buried under 100 blocks you can be damn&#xA;&gt;&#xA;sure that money is yours - but only because the rules for interpreting&#xA;&gt; data in the blockchain are publicly documented and (hopefully)&#xA;&gt; immutable. If they&#39;re mutable then the PoW alone gives me no confidence&#xA;&gt; that the money is really mine, and we&#39;re left with a much less useful&#xA;&gt; system. This should be more sacred than the 21m limit.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Well, I think we should avoid the term &#34;sacred&#34; - nothing is sacred because&#xA;we&#39;re not building a religion here, we&#39;re engineering a tool.&#xA;&#xA;Consider a world in which 1 satoshi is too valuable to represent some kinds&#xA;of transactions, so those transactions stop happening even though we all&#xA;agree they&#39;re useful. The obvious solution is to change the rules so there&#xA;can be 210 million coins and 10x everyones UTXOs at some pre-agreed flag&#xA;day. We probably wouldn&#39;t phrase it like that, it&#39;s easier for people to&#xA;imagine what&#39;s happening if it&#39;s phrased as &#34;adding more places after the&#xA;decimal point&#34; or something, but at the protocol level coins are&#xA;represented using integers, so it&#39;d have to be implemented as a multiply.&#xA;&#xA;Would this be a violation of the social contract? A violation of all that&#xA;is sacred? I don&#39;t think so, it&#39;d just be sensible engineering and there&#39;d&#xA;be strong consensus for that exactly because 21 million *is* so arbitrary.&#xA;If all balances and prices multiply 100-fold overnight, no wealth is&#xA;reallocated which would be the *actual* violation of the social&#xA;contract: we just get more resolution for setting prices.&#xA;&#xA;So. The thing that protects your money from confiscation is not proof of&#xA;work. PoW is just a database synchronisation mechanism. The thing that&#xA;protects your money from confiscation is a strong group consensus that&#xA;theft is bad. But that&#39;s a social rule, not a mathematical rule.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140425/4c07030d/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>