Published on: 2014-04-30T17:13:50+00:00
In a series of email exchanges, various individuals express their perspectives on Bitcoin's ability to act as a long-term store of value and its relationship with human politics. Troy Benjegerdes raises concern about the unpredictable behavior of buyers and sellers, arguing that if the rules of Bitcoin are not responsive to real human needs, it becomes worthless as a store of value. Jameson Lopp disagrees, stating that Bitcoin was never intended to be a stable long-term store of value. Gareth Williams believes that Bitcoin is an elegant embodiment of artificially contrived mathematical rules, which should not be undermined by introducing unpredictable elements like human politics.Mike Hearn enters into conversations discussing the relevance of attackers in the Bitcoin network. He refers to Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper and argues that attackers are relevant to the design of the system, but not necessarily to running a node. The disagreement lies in whether Bitcoin is a democratic or trustless system. One participant believes Bitcoin is meant to be trustless, while another argues for a democratic system where voting is not required for decision-making within the network.The discussion continues with Mike Hearn discussing the importance of miners and nodes following the protocol. He distinguishes between rejecting a block at validation (which is the protocol working as intended) and reinterpreting a validated block (which undermines Bitcoin's validation and proof-of-work). The notion of attackers in the Bitcoin network is debated, with Gareth Williams asserting that Bitcoin should work correctly regardless of how someone considers themselves.The conversation also touches on the concept of Bitcoin as an embodiment of natural mathematical law versus artificially contrived mathematical rules. Some argue that Bitcoin is an elegant embodiment of useful mathematical rules, while others caution against introducing human politics that may undermine these rules. The topic of confiscating balances and proposals to implement such features are rejected, as they are seen as malicious attempts or economic illiteracy that endanger Bitcoin users.There are discussions on hashpower control in Bitcoin and the risks associated with Finney attackers. The trustless nature of Bitcoin is debated, with Gareth Williams arguing that it is a perfect trustless mathematical machine, while others suggest a shift towards a more democratic system. The importance of considering costs and benefits in discussions about changes to Bitcoin is emphasized.The author acknowledges that Bitcoin is a piece of software that encodes rules to run a community and recognizes the ongoing debate on what changes are acceptable within the social contract. The question of whether Bitcoin's users want a system that evolves or remains unchanged will likely differ on a case-by-case basis. The author also discusses the importance of a strong group consensus in protecting one's money from confiscation and highlights the significance of following simple mathematical rules to prevent theft.Overall, the context provides insights into various perspectives on Bitcoin's role as a long-term store of value, the relevance of attackers, the trustlessness of the system, the importance of consensus, and the potential risks and benefits of introducing changes to the protocol.In a series of email conversations, several individuals discussed the concept of "honest miners" and the prevention of double-spending in Bitcoin transactions. Gregory Maxwell argued that miners do not prevent double-spending but rather ignore it, while Mike Hearn defined honest miners as those who work to prevent double-spends. Jorge Timón proposed two categories of miners: "stupid miners" who decide on transactions based on reception times and "smart miners" who maximize their revenue while respecting protocol rules. The discussion also touched on the possibility of deleting or reallocating coinbases to discourage double spending, with some arguing against destroying money and suggesting reallocation instead.The conversation also delved into the trustworthiness of miners and whether they can be considered "trusted parties" in a decentralized system. Maxwell believed that miners should not be trusted individually, while another individual disagreed, stating that Bitcoin could tolerate some dishonest miners but not all of them. They also discussed proposals for improving the Bitcoin blockchain, such as preventing theft and ensuring corrupt miners do not get paid for services they did not provide.The potential consequences of double spending in Bitcoin transactions were explored in another email conversation between Mike Hearn and Dr. Andy Parkins. While Hearn suggested that occasional attempts at double spending may not cause harm, Parkins argued that widespread double spending could lead to a significant increase in fraudulent activity. This highlights the challenges facing the adoption and use of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin in terms of security and trust.Different approaches to preventing double spending were discussed, including the Proof-of-Work (PoW) approach and the use of trusted third parties (TTPs). The advantages and disadvantages of each approach were debated, with the proposal of hybrid systems that combine PoW-based blockchains for settlements and TTP-based payment systems for small-value transactions. This would address scalability issues and retain the benefits of both approaches.Various proposals for improving the Bitcoin blockchain were mentioned, such as the use of coinbase scriptSigs for voting purposes and the establishment of a transaction "proof of publication" chain.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T08:57:21.196856+00:00