Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WeQ6p-00085e-KY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:31:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WeQ6o-0008Q1-Pm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:31:11 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j17so6265524oag.12 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.150.143 with SMTP id ui15mr2271448oeb.50.1398609065425; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com> References: <5359E509.4080907@gmail.com> <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com> <535BA357.6050607@gmail.com> <535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:31:05 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: izdkzjcaUlkt6m2dEA80KqiAldc Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gareth Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WeQ6o-0008Q1-Pm Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:31:11 -0000 --047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small > democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect > world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a > "democratic system". > > You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm > making :-) Yep, your point is well made. I don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I think this whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a violation of the social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years. Put another way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that evolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will be good arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different on a case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that argues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted in a careful analysis of costs and benefits. --047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That moves us away from a pure trustless system = built upon a small
democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect
world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a
"democratic system".

You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'= m
making :-)

Yep, your point is well made.

I don't have much more to say about this proposa= l specifically, but I think this whole question of what changes are OK and = what would be a violation of the social contract will get discussed endless= ly over the coming years. Put another way, what do Bitcoin's users expe= ct and want - a system that evolves or a system that remains exactly as the= y found it? There will be good arguments on both sides, and the answer will= probably be different on a case by case basis. But personally I'm skep= tical of any argument that argues against change for its own sake. It has t= o be an argument rooted in a careful analysis of costs and benefits.
--047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b--