Published on: 2014-05-19T21:18:54+00:00
Gregory Maxwell discusses the limitations of social contracts in cases involving coercion and violence. He argues that even if developers publicly promise to resist coercion, they may not be able to follow through when faced with life-threatening situations. Maxwell suggests that warrant canaries, which signal the absence of secret government subpoenas, are more effective than social contracts. While social contracts make it harder for attackers to conceal their activities, they cannot prevent attacks. Maxwell emphasizes that social contracts are valuable but not a cure-all solution.Justus Ranvier argues against personal promises in Bitcoin development, stating that people change and can be coerced. He advocates for building robust social and technical infrastructure to prevent failures and attacks. Justus believes in a trustless system governed by free will and understanding. Despite potential mistrust, he sees constant scrutiny as an opportunity to improve technology and security. He calls for respectful communication without personal attacks to uncover actual attacks.Mike Hearn responds to someone causing problems on a development list who suggested that certain ideas were too dangerous to discuss. He disagrees, calling such thinking outdated and medieval. He proposes creating a parallel forum where people can freely express their thoughts without fear of judgment or censorship. However, he criticizes vicious attacks on the forum, which hinder productive discussion. He suggests that those causing problems should unsubscribe to restore a positive environment for potential developers.Gavin Andresen promises to never endorse or work on changes to the Bitcoin system that would allow for confiscation, blacklisting, or devaluation of anyone's Bitcoin. He rejects requests to write an RFC regarding possible changes, citing other priorities. He encourages others to write the RFC themselves.In response to confusion over their authority to write a social contract for Bitcoin, Gavin Andresen questions why he and Mike Hearn would have that responsibility. The author of the email asserts that anyone can make promises about their future behavior, including developers like Andresen and Hearn. The community can track developers' promises about implementing or not implementing changes in Bitcoin to make informed decisions about software support.Justus Ranvier suggests a Bitcoin social contract to Gavin Andresen, specifying features that will never be added or removed from Bitcoin. Andresen questions their authority to write such a contract but acknowledges his ability to enforce a social contract against trolling or flaming on the mailing list. He expresses a desire to delegate this authority, preferably to a software algorithm that can automatically censor unproductive discussions or contributors. He reminds the group to change the subject line when topics wander.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T09:21:31.226049+00:00