MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2C8EBBD8-51B7-4F47-AFFA-3870DBD6C4EA@gmx.com>
References: <5631C363.5060705@neomailbox.net>
	<201510290803.52734.luke@dashjr.org>
	<5632DE33.7030600@bitcartel.com>
	<CAAS2fgTga_vTfOKrFu_hEzXSfTfg9FRfJ6aL6ginuGFqnbm7=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CB90C47-293E-4C18-A381-E5203483D68F@gmx.com>
	<CAAS2fgRdK4bDr3x_y9UpdH234PQSfD7U539HBLA==+hLQJ_7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<571D9B7F-077D-4B80-B577-1C18FF2ECF31@gmx.com>
	<CAAS2fgTLE1cpDqKTiy0r1VMex7zTAB8tgUC=Y0WXmbNBJL42xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<6DAD1D38-A156-4507-B506-BF66F26E6594@gmx.com>
	<CAAS2fgT+r4aRPe7Qjww6wgbAzkwafN+340pUaVO9F7MZEVY-zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<13D7C936-4D2E-4BAC-AC61-3DA80581C946@gmx.com>
	<CAAS2fgTuty0OCxJvZwU+BCPXG-VuJxtwCPVMvL7Xbze=OjSSdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C8EBBD8-51B7-4F47-AFFA-3870DBD6C4EA@gmx.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:12:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrEymffZXRqkYij0eCR3Rg6x1w_=AUJpb3NxHwQ-q48aQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144211a51db640524918796
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, telemaco <telemaco@neomailbox.net>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db
Precedence: list

--001a1144211a51db640524918796
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Nov 15, 2015 5:10 AM, "Peter R via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> What rules does Bitcoin obey?

Thanks to the worl of many people, part of the consensus rules are finally
encapsulated in the libbitcoinconsensus library. I'm currently writing a
document to complete the encapsulation of the specification of the
consensus rules.

> I am not convinced that Bitcoin even *has* a block size limit, let alone
that it can enforce one against the invisible hand of the market.

You keep insisting that some consensus rules are not consensus rules while
others "are clearly a very different thing". What technical difference is
there between the rule that impedes me from creating transactions bigger
than X and the rules that prevent me frm creatin new coins (not as a miner,
as a regular user in a transaction with more coins in the outputs than in
the inputs)? What about property enforcement? If the invisible hand of the
market is what decides consensus rules instead of their (still incomple)
specification (aka libconsensus), then the market could decide to stop
enforcing ownership.
Will you still think that Bitcoin is a useful system when/if you
empirically observe the invisible hand of the market taking coins out of
your pocket?

You also keep assuming that somehow it is a universal law that users must
eventually converge under the most-work chain. People follow the most-work
VALID chain, but if they consciously decide to implement different rules
(different definitions of "valid block") then their chains can diverge, and
once they do they won't converge again (unless/until one group decides to
implement the rules of the other exactly again), just like when the
implementation of the rules diverge in a unintentional consensus fork. But
in this case they could decide to never implement the same rules.
See bip99 and specially the "schism hardforks" section for more details.

> You were the one who just brought up politics, Greg.  Not I.

Please, read the thread again. I think it is pretty clear that you did.
Nothing wrong with that, just move it to the discussion ml.

--001a1144211a51db640524918796
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Nov 15, 2015 5:10 AM, &quot;Peter R via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; What rules does Bitcoin obey?=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Thanks to the worl of many people, part of the consensus rul=
es are finally encapsulated in the libbitcoinconsensus library. I&#39;m cur=
rently writing a document to complete the encapsulation of the specificatio=
n of the consensus rules.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; I am not convinced that Bitcoin even *has* a block size=
 limit, let alone that it can enforce one against the invisible hand of the=
 market.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">You keep insisting that some consensus rules are not consens=
us rules while others &quot;are clearly a very different thing&quot;. What =
technical difference is there between the rule that impedes me from creatin=
g transactions bigger than X and the rules that prevent me frm creatin new =
coins (not as a miner, as a regular user in a transaction with more coins i=
n the outputs than in the inputs)? What about property enforcement? If the =
invisible hand of the market is what decides consensus rules instead of the=
ir (still incomple) specification (aka libconsensus), then the market could=
 decide to stop enforcing ownership.<br>
Will you still think that Bitcoin is a useful system when/if you empiricall=
y observe the invisible hand of the market taking coins out of your pocket?=
</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">You also keep assuming that somehow it is a universal law th=
at users must eventually converge under the most-work chain. People follow =
the most-work VALID chain, but if they consciously decide to implement diff=
erent rules (different definitions of &quot;valid block&quot;) then their c=
hains can diverge, and once they do they won&#39;t converge again (unless/u=
ntil one group decides to implement the rules of the other exactly again), =
just like when the implementation of the rules diverge in a unintentional c=
onsensus fork. But in this case they could decide to never implement the sa=
me rules.<br>
See bip99 and specially the &quot;schism hardforks&quot; section for more d=
etails.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; You were the one who just brought up politics, Greg.=C2=
=A0 Not I.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Please, read the thread again. I think it is pretty clear th=
at you did. Nothing wrong with that, just move it to the discussion ml.</p>

--001a1144211a51db640524918796--