Author: Gareth Williams 2014-12-17 11:55:28
Published on: 2014-12-17T11:55:28+00:00
In an email exchange, a debate has been sparked between two individuals on the topic of preserving scarcity and innovation in Bitcoin. One individual argues that blockchain consensus can utilize either 1-way-peg or 2-way-peg mechanisms, and that arguments in favor of 1-way-peg are just arguments in favor of one type of sidechain over another. They also believe that objections to creating new artificial scarcity races while innovating are fundamentally moralistic and regulatory concerns that have little bearing on whether or not the systems created are useful and secure. The other individual counters that the question of scarcity preservation bears heavily on the likelihood of long-term viability of innovations, including Bitcoin itself. The conversation moves on to mechanisms for detecting divergence in embedded consensus systems, with one individual offering several possibilities such as transactions containing a hash of the previous consensus state and using state hashes as encryption keys. Another individual asks how consensus is demonstrated and incentivized, and expresses concern over how to be confident that everyone else takes the same view as their own node. They contrast this with blockchain consensus, where they can be confident that there is consensus on the longest chain observed. Despite their differences, both individuals agree on the importance of making robust arguments and arguing against the strongest opposing position known. They also mention the principle of charity, which states that when interpreting an argument, one should try to understand it in its strongest, most compelling form rather than its weakest or most absurd form.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T14:46:25.728293+00:00