Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03 📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03
📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Michael Gronager <gronager at ceptacle.com>wrote:
> > If this were a proposal at the time Bitcoin was created, I would
> definitely be in favor, but I feel we can't just change such a policy right
> now - it's not what people signed up for when they started using the
> system. I also see no way to implement this without a hard fork, which
> would require planning at least 1-2 years in advance (imho). By that time,
> the economic landscape of Bitcoin may be vastly different, and either dust
> spam will have killed it, or we will have found another solution already.
>
> Bitcoin aka the blockchain is defined by the majority of the miners. This
> is what people have signed up to imo. A scheme that a) is of benefit for us
> all and b) is also of economical benefit for the miners, will likely be
> accepted quite fast - especially now when the bounty was just halved... I
> also fear that there is a lot of BTCs that is effectively un-owned and it
> could even drive Satoshi to use some of his BTCs ;)
I disagree completely. The only power granted to miners is to decide the
order of otherwise valid transactions (up to postponing some indefinitely)
- they have no ability to control the rules for validity them self In
particular, the rules that prevent double spending and (monetary) inflation
of the currency are deliberately NOT left to miners. If this were the case,
they could just as well vote to keep the 50 BTC block payout, and that
would certainly not be what people signed up for.
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20121203/c9898492/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Michael Gronager <gronager at ceptacle.com>wrote:
> > If this were a proposal at the time Bitcoin was created, I would
> definitely be in favor, but I feel we can't just change such a policy right
> now - it's not what people signed up for when they started using the
> system. I also see no way to implement this without a hard fork, which
> would require planning at least 1-2 years in advance (imho). By that time,
> the economic landscape of Bitcoin may be vastly different, and either dust
> spam will have killed it, or we will have found another solution already.
>
> Bitcoin aka the blockchain is defined by the majority of the miners. This
> is what people have signed up to imo. A scheme that a) is of benefit for us
> all and b) is also of economical benefit for the miners, will likely be
> accepted quite fast - especially now when the bounty was just halved... I
> also fear that there is a lot of BTCs that is effectively un-owned and it
> could even drive Satoshi to use some of his BTCs ;)
I disagree completely. The only power granted to miners is to decide the
order of otherwise valid transactions (up to postponing some indefinitely)
- they have no ability to control the rules for validity them self In
particular, the rules that prevent double spending and (monetary) inflation
of the currency are deliberately NOT left to miners. If this were the case,
they could just as well vote to keep the 50 BTC block payout, and that
would certainly not be what people signed up for.
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20121203/c9898492/attachment.html>;