On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind
> of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so. 

I haven't seen anybody arguing that it is.

Bitcoin is the elegant embodiment of /artificially contrived/
mathematical rules, which just so happen to be very useful in their
current configuration :-P

Nobody is saying those rules are immutable. Just that it isn't sensible
to undermine them by introducing imprecise and unpredictable elements
like human politics.


> Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates >formula() coins
> that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter

No it isn't. That's the node enforcing the protocol. It isn't a matter
of opinion, and it isn't a vote. The protocol is clearly defined: you
either follow it or you're not running a Bitcoin node. If 51% don't
follow it tomorrow /they're/ not running Bitcoin.

Contrast with your "vote to reinterpret the meaning of arbitrary blocks"
mechaism - you're free to vote either way while remaining within the
protocol. That's a /real/ vote - majority decides what the Bitcoin
protocol /and every node that follows it/ will recognise as valid.
Nothing like that currently exists. Thank $deity.