Author: Jeremy Rubin 2022-10-20 23:54:00
Published on: 2022-10-20T23:54:00+00:00
The argument centers around the difference between honest majority and longest chain in Bitcoin. The longest chain bug was acknowledged by Satoshi and patched, whereas there are more explicit references that the honest majority should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys. Satoshi had categorized good guys / bad guys as people interested in double spending and those who aren't. The burden rests on the community, who has undertaken a project to adopt a different security model from the original "social contract" generated by the early writings of Satoshi, to demonstrate why damaging one group's reliance interest on a property derived from the honest majority assumption is justified. The case can be made for full RBF, but it is important to have empathy for people who built a business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network that they feel are now being changed. Peter Todd argues that Satoshi made a fundamental mistake in choosing the longest chain, rather than the most work chain, which is totally broken. Todd cautions that economically rational is a better security guarantee and whenever possible, standard computationally infeasible guarantees or even mathematically impossible guarantees should be used.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T01:51:13.768873+00:00