rich1.0npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckhttps://nostr.ae/npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373cknjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-30 📝 Original message:On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote: > Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates >formula() coins > that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter Actually, there's one more thing I'd like to add. Apologies to the list, but it bears repeating: * rejecting a block at validation Is /very different/ from: * reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation Nodes ignoring a block that creates >formula() coins is rejection at block *validation*. That's the protocol working as it is supposed to. It's deliberately an all-or-nothing mechanism; you can't pick and choose which blocks you like. If 51% of the network say your block is invalid, they're now on a different fork. The consequences are this drastic on purpose, for stability. Nodes reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation is almost the polar opposite of this. They're /ignoring the protocol/ and making up their own meaning for stuff. Sidestepping the mechanism in the paragraph above. I would hope it'd be self evident that this is dangerous. Adam Back is arguing practicality in this thread. I'm arguing fundamental principle. (And, er, someone else is randomly throwing around ad hominems, which we'll politely ignore; Mike could work for Lucifer himself and his good ideas would still be good, and his bad ideas would still be bad, so let's just stick to the ideas eh.) So, fundamental principle: don't reinterpret history! We have validation for a very good reason. Undermine it and you might as well have an unvalidated system like Counterparty, which I wouldn't ever trust with more than the value of a small hamburger. If the economic majority starts reinterpreting history (through whatever voting mechanism / side-channel you like) that completely undermines Bitcoin's validation, and its PoW. It's worse than 51% of miners deciding to rewrite history. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 555 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140501/cba8ecc6/attachment.sig>