1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
|
Return-Path: <Peter_R@gmx.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30F1C8EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 340E087
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:10:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.50.29] ([69.50.179.106]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001)
with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Likl3-1aWKRw1ZjZ-00cwvW;
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 05:10:33 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTuty0OCxJvZwU+BCPXG-VuJxtwCPVMvL7Xbze=OjSSdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:10:30 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Sender: Peter_R@gmx.com
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:pct1v3jUEu0KKP7J5rzpadOArSgVVY8cNBT36At9D7S0j1oU3NC
jjLBiU9YZZBgSuaRpLEEqtWKHoWz9Muu/bgnyvEJ6B/+PLjkV6FYPju0CMOA19QiMCYrZNc
zTDVdhyBjgIKx6YDP5HkPhVU45KywWqZovTrOHEqnXXKIwT3ZGlxU306xEvn+gG0S0aXPre
NS73P59atL5Zvfy197DTQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:jdnPsKTIlZg=:AHkzREYjf2HGCBhR2U2oj0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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
telemaco <telemaco@neomailbox.net>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:10:41 -0000
Hi Greg,
>> Thank you for conceding on that point.
>=20
> You're welcome, but I would have preferred that you instead of your
> thanks you would have responded in kind and acknowledged my correction
> that other consensus inconsistencies discovered in implementations
> thus far (none, that I'm aware of) could be classified as "maybe"; and
> in doing so retained a semblance of a connection to a the technical
> purposes of this mailing list.
I apologize for that, Greg. I have not read enough on the issues you =
brought up to comment intelligibly. I should have conceded that you =
could very well be correct that those were Type 2 consensus failures. =20=
>> I think you=E2=80=99re being intentionally obtuse here: accepting a =
block composed entirely of valid transactions that is 1.1 MB is entirely =
different than accepting a TX that creates a ten thousand bitcoins out =
of thin air. The market would love the former but abhor the later. I =
believe you can recognize the difference.
>=20
> It is not technically distinct--today; politically-- perhaps, but--
> sorry, no element of your prior message indicated that you were
> interested in discussing politics rather than technology; on a mailing
> list much more strongly scoped for the latter; I hope you can excuse
> me for missing your intention prior to your most recent post.
The difference between a 1.1 MB block full of valid transactions and an =
invalid TX that creates 10,000 BTC out of thin air is *not* a matter of =
=E2=80=9Cpolitics.=E2=80=9D If people could freely award themselves =
coins, then Bitcoin would not be money. It=E2=80=99s like saying that =
=E2=80=9Ctechnically=E2=80=9D there=E2=80=99s no difference between =
picking up a penny from the sidewalk and holding up a bank teller at =
gunpoint. Ask the average person: there is more than a =E2=80=9Cpolitical=
=E2=80=9D difference between creating coins out of thin air and =
increasing the block size limit.=20
=20
> That said, I believe you are privileging your own political
> preferences in seeing the one rule of the bitcoin system as
> categorically distinct even politically.
What rules does Bitcoin obey? What is Bitcoin=E2=80=99s nature? This =
brings us to the age-old debate between Rationalism versus Empiricism.
Rationalism holds that some propositions are known to be true by =
intuition alone and that others are knowable by being deduced from =
intuited propositions. The Rationalist may hold the view that Bitcoin =
has a 21-million coin limit or a 1 MB block size limit, based on =
deductive reasoning from the rules enforced by the Bitcoin Core source =
code. Such a Rationalists might believe that the code represents some =
immutable truth and then his understanding of Bitcoin follows from =
axiomatic deductions from that premise.
The Empiricist rejects the Rationalist=E2=80=99s intuition and =
deduction, believing instead that knowledge is necessarily a posteriori, =
dependent upon observation and sense experience. The Empiricist =
questions the notion that Bitcoin has a 21-million coin limit, instead =
observing that its money supply grew by 50 BTC per block for the first =
210,000 and then 25 BTC per block ever since. The Empiricist rejects the =
idea that Bitcoin has any sort of block size limit, having observed =
previous empirical limits collapse in the face of increased demand.
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. =20
> No law of nature leaves the
> other criteria I specified less politically negotiable, and we can see
> concrete examples all around us -- the notion that funds can be
> confiscated via external authority (spending without the owners
> signature) is a more or less universal property of other modern
> systems of money, that economic controls out to exist to regulate the
> supply of money for the good of an economy is another widely deployed
> political perspective. You, yourself, recently published a work on the
> stable self regulation of block sizes based on mining incentives that
> took as its starting premise a bitcoin that was forever inflationary.
> Certainly things differ in degrees, but this is not the mailing list
> to debate the details of political inertia.
You were the one who just brought up politics, Greg. Not I.=20
Best regards,
Peter
|
