MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21CECA63-6993-47F9-B963-A1075C45A268@gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627121016.2360041A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<CABm2gDovynxmZmf_voz-19mmb5k0R4Snxcucx-WObt_stkAL9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAre=ySbA-JaAZoU1AsGHTZoYOwkeiRnfkYPjMV6yEa_r+SYKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<21CECA63-6993-47F9-B963-A1075C45A268@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:22:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAre=ySNL35TTuxjqkTmEjQi-HxCr35OgvM+sjyG9O3Z9nK_Qw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ab4e8d2a797051994b3d0
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

--001a113ab4e8d2a797051994b3d0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Agreed on both accounts. The main point is that there are no inherent
rights built into bitcoin - just aligned economic interests enforced by
agreed upon technical rules. The technical rules allow for a majority to
dictate, while the economic interests may or may not support such a change.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote=
:

> Furthermore, the actual way in which the conflict is resolved sets a
> precedent for how such disagreements are to be =E2=80=9Cresolved=E2=80=9D=
 in the future.
>
> So the means are also important to consider.
>
> - Eric
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrot=
e:
>
>>
>> No, this is very important. The majority has no right to dictate on
>> the minority.
>>
>
> While an interesting philosophical question, I don't think that this is
> accurate. First off, bitcoin doesn't imbue  any 'rights' on individuals -
> it provides the choice of participating or not, nothing more.
>
> Secondly, from a technical perspective, how is it that the majority (or
> super-majority) are prevented from imposing their will? The best answer i=
s
> that they are incentivized to not override a minority group since that
> reduces the inherent value in the system. However, presuming that the
> majority calculate that the reward for imposing a change is greater than
> the value lost in such disruption, I don't see how there would be any
> stopping this change. The longest chain with the greatest number of users
> valuing the token on that chain "wins".
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>

--001a113ab4e8d2a797051994b3d0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Agreed on both accounts. The main point is that there are =
no inherent rights built into bitcoin - just aligned economic interests enf=
orced by agreed upon technical rules. The technical rules allow for a major=
ity to dictate, while the economic interests may or may not support such a =
change.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Eric Lombrozo <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:=
break-word">Furthermore, the actual way in which the conflict is resolved s=
ets a precedent for how such disagreements are to be =E2=80=9Cresolved=E2=
=80=9D in the future.<div><br></div><div>So the means are also important to=
 consider.</div><div><br></div><div>- Eric</div><div><br></div><div><div><b=
lockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Brightly &lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:ibrightly@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ibrightly@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=
=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_b=
lank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><br>
No, this is very important. The majority has no right to dictate on<br>
the minority.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>While an interesting phil=
osophical question, I don&#39;t think that this is accurate. First off, bit=
coin doesn&#39;t imbue =C2=A0any &#39;rights&#39; on individuals - it provi=
des the choice of participating or not, nothing more.</div><div><br></div><=
div>Secondly, from a technical perspective, how is it that the majority (or=
 super-majority) are prevented from imposing their will? The best answer is=
 that they are incentivized to not override a minority group since that red=
uces the inherent value in the system. However, presuming that the majority=
 calculate that the reward for imposing a change is greater than the value =
lost in such disruption, I don&#39;t see how there would be any stopping th=
is change. The longest chain with the greatest number of users valuing the =
token on that chain &quot;wins&quot;.</div></div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113ab4e8d2a797051994b3d0--