From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0C338CC for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:33:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669C7123 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29B7B38A607A; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:33:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151102:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::V2koR4T1eWCafcRu:S97S X-Hashcash: 1:25:151102:justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org::nXMwKJMgs4HJnZ0T:8Z1S From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Justus Ranvier Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:33:18 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <5636ACFF.5040908@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> In-Reply-To: <5636ACFF.5040908@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201511020033.19291.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:35 -0000 On Monday, November 02, 2015 12:23:27 AM Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It's a lot easier to justify the position: "nobody has the right to > change the meaning of someone else's outputs", than it is to justify, > "some small group of people gets to decide what's standard and what > isn't, and if you choose to use the network in a valid but nonstandard > way, that group of people might choose to deny you access to your money > in the future" The reality is presently "some small group of people gets to decide how and if you can access your money"... and it's getting worse. > In other words, how close to the shores of "administrators of a virtual > currency" do Bitcoin developers want to sail? Bitcoin developers don't make this decision, miners do. Luke