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.- EricOn Jun 28, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> 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