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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09F171
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 03:30:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com
[209.85.213.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28B9C102
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 03:30:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcto18 with SMTP id to18so12302923igc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:30:45 -0800 (PST)
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=DmOrItvi3znGx2sbR84Qe0gtKz3me0qOhwo2xb+zaOg=;
b=u9C6Exybqw/qmShu6LaM2K9MrOVVEBj6NECbFDHM1HxFc/DasPGjFwT/Ya7HbkBjBJ
c8hoqjXfjMAHAP4f3mj5XVl3nOGAviaF9U95vADlolgdMtjdDU+HJvYeo4XR2qsVI8F4
To5wK3Vus80gmEGW8jLDOXsaydirT8YXmTIIKfrzbdCDNMGDceA5T++P1Eb9W+SzZc0H
fU8G09RrIJSMI5+7jaHOhpS6xeWJ4vv9x9TAaCWT4lRG6uJTBKmw3koeOKxbvCS5kyfq
AEk6kyJcGTEsl5sOfUvyWppxovxYGRtO+XptXE8cTEht5V3E4P3LMEz2kvHe7L4IxXml
CrsQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.78.37 with SMTP id y5mr10454485igw.66.1447558245536; Sat,
14 Nov 2015 19:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.192.199 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:30:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <13D7C936-4D2E-4BAC-AC61-3DA80581C946@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>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 03:30:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTuty0OCxJvZwU+BCPXG-VuJxtwCPVMvL7Xbze=OjSSdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 03:30:46 -0000
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com> wrote:
> 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 differe=
nt 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.
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.
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. 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.
> Thank you for conceding on that point.
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.
|
