Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25836305 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:51:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652C8159 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbkm3 with SMTP id km3so90776006obb.1 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:51:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GYw9YUnpzDG6JftLofNQ+iFBnSRUz47mBdU5nCz5Eyk=; b=lhH6js3RGdSlzLuzakFtYmLFh9KbV1l4o4+6Zlza/N8p6mnWu/SPWbcOaRiz0nfOSi rq+RXL8nefkLUBpHZQ/q8b0R90WR5lVu+499NDW6TLgek7ud/akSjjQYT+BXvs8fdPr1 NzOP60m7PNg3bkoElfgWeD2PH1hYvyytHoBUJwRX65djDYTtFf18wHSrX16RKqxOgnnh RBjjZbmY8NAdV5qY9Nd2jNij88/8/FP4z8n81dr0vM+gNQozt8hcKQ6upvVrbj3wnshb bQYgJEmyWJWZAq91O8fQR8QeSqRZqHaP5CFGMn/CSGzHtuwWCr+yCs0u+GsBsQOovhML E4/g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.94.215 with SMTP id s206mr9268715oib.15.1435499508788; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.177.164 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:51:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com> <20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com> <20150627121016.2360041A3E@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ivan Brightly To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d37ae4bf4040519944617 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:51:51 -0000 --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 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
On S= un, 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 phil= osophical question, I don't think that this is accurate. First off, bit= coin doesn't imbue =C2=A0any 'rights' on individuals - it provi= des the choice of participating or not, nothing more.

<= 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'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 "wins".

--001a113d37ae4bf4040519944617--