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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; 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: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAE28kUQ9WOnHuFR6WYeU6rep3b74zDweTPxffF0L6FjZObXE6A@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3WBWi5h04yyQ115vXmVHupoj5MG+-8sx=2zEcCT5a9hg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1+kJNE+k4kcTj3Ap0-A=PdD1=+-k5hN4431Z99A+S7M3=BoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3obO9rXKcX+G7bs2dd3AqEFOsO8pCUF6orrkGeZyr9Ew@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1+kJPxwTm6qvh2GYT2XMJAPD5O4WHLOGBTRmchRmZ2wS4MSg@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP2PZFVvH3oJyLW80e9W_Fa4bvqQ25E7T-ZFFuG9u-q1hQ@mail.gmail.com> <5359E509.4080907@gmail.com> <CANEZrP0bKe-=T5ps0myLZjo60tv2mkm3Bw0o4e-9y7zb1h5eDg@mail.gmail.com> <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com> <CANEZrP0y45eSVgbzXYmvYy1WEQNyd=tmC2EpZgGSB28poXSzDw@mail.gmail.com> <535BA357.6050607@gmail.com> <CANOOu=_T82zuV79DWZFGK0Nomhp-Y4tqOhw6ZHhCLb2uGtdR5w@mail.gmail.com> <535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:31:05 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: izdkzjcaUlkt6m2dEA80KqiAldc Message-ID: <CANEZrP2jTP+uCuXswopheJwBBmMp5ZHdqxua1sAhLF=cOnhPOg@mail.gmail.com> From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> To: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com> 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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 <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo= ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c= cc solid;padding-left:1ex">That moves us away from a pure trustless system = built upon a small<br> democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect<br> world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a<br> "democratic system".<br> <br> You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'= m<br> making :-)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep, your point is well made.</d= iv><div><br></div><div>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.</div> </div></div></div> --047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b--