MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDovynxmZmf_voz-19mmb5k0R4Snxcucx-WObt_stkAL9A@mail.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>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAre=ySbA-JaAZoU1AsGHTZoYOwkeiRnfkYPjMV6yEa_r+SYKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d37ae4bf4040519944617
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

--001a113d37ae4bf4040519944617
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

>
> 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 is
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".

--001a113d37ae4bf4040519944617
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, 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"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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>

--001a113d37ae4bf4040519944617--