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>
Sender: Peter_R@gmx.com
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	telemaco <telemaco@neomailbox.net>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db
Precedence: list

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