Agreed on both accounts. The main point is that there are no inherent rights built into bitcoin - just aligned economic interests enforced by agreed upon technical rules. The technical rules allow for a majority to dictate, while the economic interests may or may not support such a change. On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Furthermore, the actual way in which the conflict is resolved sets a > precedent for how such disagreements are to be “resolved” in the future. > > So the means are also important to consider. > > - Eric > > On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Brightly wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > >> >> No, this is very important. The majority has no right to dictate on >> the minority. >> > > While an interesting philosophical question, I don't think that this is > accurate. First off, bitcoin doesn't imbue any 'rights' on individuals - > it provides the choice of participating or not, nothing more. > > Secondly, from a technical perspective, how is it that the majority (or > super-majority) are prevented from imposing their will? The best answer is > that they are incentivized to not override a minority group since that > reduces the inherent value in the system. However, presuming that the > majority calculate that the reward for imposing a change is greater than > the value lost in such disruption, I don't see how there would be any > stopping this change. The longest chain with the greatest number of users > valuing the token on that chain "wins". > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > >