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 1393A74 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:12:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C3A13F for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkgy188 with SMTP id y188so13942364vkg.1 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 02:12:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon_cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DaTiBls9IRs2mxkJsDQzAykiZ79IU5C5G9xK8KwEmas=; b=CA4A8ppiUY2IKSKGsqyHL7biI1ulngxHY6TBDBTdAnzwF9IxWXucCMLmmHO7gtkvr6 +v1BESl8HtJ6Mq+hOI5ZoIlawMphEvd2jWQlTYMe2m3ecApyziHBhPr3mgk+GArVDzFK 8fEPuQVVBLh2OxqqvG3Gx3HQY20GQDlFlbxc8269YEFkeWccd5PF6MjCyzq+5kvUC6Af p5yy1z/P8sIPm+NfRmSbdLWRwcFL6KE96l+h9ae3Tn/daBkhnHWMZdYnOtFSoRsEN0cJ yK2EnOvd7nI9/wx7ArowRYL52VwbMfudnGWdsv7VD1WQyy2KMh2FMudXMTtq8h5k+cH4 qdQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DaTiBls9IRs2mxkJsDQzAykiZ79IU5C5G9xK8KwEmas=; b=A+oRuL2VdLWrswM25c6KLEFDmvoQfenUE3hwwKuk64wSVm6gU/ZrFHx82ac/FeE/9x aUEnTnq/zRXkIwN5vuR+f/vlkYs3kOVLt+X6jXNsV+b2ohQQcAWlf8mtrAq2YC6+BPTB of4l6iNgBOXQRWQ+XGiXD3N6LMj3ngvgFIYbp6HCUHJ6pk3cJF1jTwsOVqVpi2DNKae9 MIcBq1HJjXiQ2opSEu7oOOa1qrMHf0CCuhALG51Rd2z2ayKbQ70dmPuvhKq+b0zjpPin 2LLZrz2VtI9klzEfNp8HaUhAYjUVQ+v0OsmcC2/9ArtTRAxgGBqZ+2iH1t+fCiLUJ+zw IG3w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnRKZUxvUt9XhB6DAC1K5kX+q84E9QGfLtLkUrJfgtGlflNV7YO+LvWaT583P0FW1wX88C MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.11.197 with SMTP id 188mr6997603vkl.2.1447582342693; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 02:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 02:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 02:12:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2C8EBBD8-51B7-4F47-AFFA-3870DBD6C4EA@gmx.com> References: <5631C363.5060705@neomailbox.net> <201510290803.52734.luke@dashjr.org> <5632DE33.7030600@bitcartel.com> <3CB90C47-293E-4C18-A381-E5203483D68F@gmx.com> <571D9B7F-077D-4B80-B577-1C18FF2ECF31@gmx.com> <6DAD1D38-A156-4507-B506-BF66F26E6594@gmx.com> <13D7C936-4D2E-4BAC-AC61-3DA80581C946@gmx.com> <2C8EBBD8-51B7-4F47-AFFA-3870DBD6C4EA@gmx.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:12:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Peter R Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144211a51db640524918796 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 , Gregory Maxwell , telemaco 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:12:24 -0000 --001a1144211a51db640524918796 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Nov 15, 2015 5:10 AM, "Peter R via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > What rules does Bitcoin obey? Thanks to the worl of many people, part of the consensus rules are finally encapsulated in the libbitcoinconsensus library. I'm currently writing a document to complete the encapsulation of the specification of the consensus rules. > 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. You keep insisting that some consensus rules are not consensus rules while others "are clearly a very different thing". What technical difference is there between the rule that impedes me from creating transactions bigger than X and the rules that prevent me frm creatin new coins (not as a miner, as a regular user in a transaction with more coins in the outputs than in the inputs)? What about property enforcement? If the invisible hand of the market is what decides consensus rules instead of their (still incomple) specification (aka libconsensus), then the market could decide to stop enforcing ownership. Will you still think that Bitcoin is a useful system when/if you empirically observe the invisible hand of the market taking coins out of your pocket? You also keep assuming that somehow it is a universal law that users must eventually converge under the most-work chain. People follow the most-work VALID chain, but if they consciously decide to implement different rules (different definitions of "valid block") then their chains can diverge, and once they do they won't converge again (unless/until one group decides to implement the rules of the other exactly again), just like when the implementation of the rules diverge in a unintentional consensus fork. But in this case they could decide to never implement the same rules. See bip99 and specially the "schism hardforks" section for more details. > You were the one who just brought up politics, Greg. Not I. Please, read the thread again. I think it is pretty clear that you did. Nothing wrong with that, just move it to the discussion ml. --001a1144211a51db640524918796 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Nov 15, 2015 5:10 AM, "Peter R via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound= ation.org> wrote:
>
> What rules does Bitcoin obey?=C2=A0

Thanks to the worl of many people, part of the consensus rul= es are finally encapsulated in the libbitcoinconsensus library. I'm cur= rently writing a document to complete the encapsulation of the specificatio= n of the consensus rules.

> 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.

You keep insisting that some consensus rules are not consens= us rules while others "are clearly a very different thing". What = technical difference is there between the rule that impedes me from creatin= g transactions bigger than X and the rules that prevent me frm creatin new = coins (not as a miner, as a regular user in a transaction with more coins i= n the outputs than in the inputs)? What about property enforcement? If the = invisible hand of the market is what decides consensus rules instead of the= ir (still incomple) specification (aka libconsensus), then the market could= decide to stop enforcing ownership.
Will you still think that Bitcoin is a useful system when/if you empiricall= y observe the invisible hand of the market taking coins out of your pocket?=

You also keep assuming that somehow it is a universal law th= at users must eventually converge under the most-work chain. People follow = the most-work VALID chain, but if they consciously decide to implement diff= erent rules (different definitions of "valid block") then their c= hains can diverge, and once they do they won't converge again (unless/u= ntil one group decides to implement the rules of the other exactly again), = just like when the implementation of the rules diverge in a unintentional c= onsensus fork. But in this case they could decide to never implement the sa= me rules.
See bip99 and specially the "schism hardforks" section for more d= etails.

> You were the one who just brought up politics, Greg.=C2= =A0 Not I.

Please, read the thread again. I think it is pretty clear th= at you did. Nothing wrong with that, just move it to the discussion ml.

--001a1144211a51db640524918796--