3 ms·

Let's take a vote! Who votes to increase the 21M cap, devaluing your own holdings? Sir, it appears the nays have it..

by jbusma 7y ago

pojzon 7y ago
I dont think anyone with such possibility would put it to vote. They would just do it because they can.
- plokiju 7y ago
  Bitcoin works by consensus though. Nobody can be in that position. the best you can do is make a fork. Those who don't agree with the rule change will keep mining with the old rules in place
- jbusma 7y ago
  You would essentially "vote" with which fork you were choosing to acknowledge with your own node, should you be running one. Also I'm fairly certain a majority of hashpower, not just users would need to be on board with the change. You could argue that as the primary beneficiaries of such a change (increase cap => increased distribution to miners) they would be for it, but I think most rational actors see the catch 22 of trying to profit by removing one of the core attributes that makes bitcoin valuable (it's scarcity)
nosuchthing 7y ago
It only takes one veto (bug) to nullify the entire network, CVE-2018-17144 for example. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu...
- jbusma 7y ago
  this is actually really cool! thank you for sharing I didn't know something this critical had been found in recent years
root_axis 7y ago
Unforeseen future circumstances could make people more amenable to any kind of changes imaginable. Either way, saying that it's impossible to print more is just not true.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable. Saying "we just don't know what the future may hold" in support of a claim is an argument from ignorance.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable True, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter either way. The point is that it can be done if that is what conventionial wisdom dictates is desirable at the time.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Conventional wisdom also dictates that it is desirable for Bitcoin to handle more than 7 transactions a second - and yet that problem isn't possible for Bitcoin to solve either. Again, it's an argument from ignorance and gross oversimplification to claim "the future wisdom of the community" will solve problems for bitcoin.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        You can equivocate all you like, but accusing me of ignorance doesn't make it so. It's an undeniable fact that it is possible for any of these properties to change and the poster that claimed it was impossible for them to change is wrong. There is no debate here, it's just reality.
        bduerst 7y ago
        I'm not accusing you of ignorance - An argument from ignorance (i.e. argumentum ad ignorantiam) is the name of a known fallacy, which you're making with your claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Let's take a vote! Who votes to increase the 21M cap, devaluing your own holdings? Sir, it appears the nays have it..

by jbusma 7y ago

Let's take a vote! Who votes to increase the 21M cap, devaluing your own holdings? Sir, it appears the nays have it..

pojzon 7y ago

I dont think anyone with such possibility would put it to vote. They would just do it because they can.

plokiju 7y ago
Bitcoin works by consensus though. Nobody can be in that position. the best you can do is make a fork. Those who don't agree with the rule change will keep mining with the old rules in place
jbusma 7y ago
You would essentially "vote" with which fork you were choosing to acknowledge with your own node, should you be running one. Also I'm fairly certain a majority of hashpower, not just users would need to be on board with the change. You could argue that as the primary beneficiaries of such a change (increase cap => increased distribution to miners) they would be for it, but I think most rational actors see the catch 22 of trying to profit by removing one of the core attributes that makes bitcoin valuable (it's scarcity)

nosuchthing 7y ago

It only takes one veto (bug) to nullify the entire network, CVE-2018-17144 for example. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu...

jbusma 7y ago
this is actually really cool! thank you for sharing I didn't know something this critical had been found in recent years

root_axis 7y ago

Unforeseen future circumstances could make people more amenable to any kind of changes imaginable. Either way, saying that it's impossible to print more is just not true.

bduerst 7y ago
Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable. Saying "we just don't know what the future may hold" in support of a claim is an argument from ignorance.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable True, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter either way. The point is that it can be done if that is what conventionial wisdom dictates is desirable at the time.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Conventional wisdom also dictates that it is desirable for Bitcoin to handle more than 7 transactions a second - and yet that problem isn't possible for Bitcoin to solve either. Again, it's an argument from ignorance and gross oversimplification to claim "the future wisdom of the community" will solve problems for bitcoin.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      You can equivocate all you like, but accusing me of ignorance doesn't make it so. It's an undeniable fact that it is possible for any of these properties to change and the poster that claimed it was impossible for them to change is wrong. There is no debate here, it's just reality.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        I'm not accusing you of ignorance - An argument from ignorance (i.e. argumentum ad ignorantiam) is the name of a known fallacy, which you're making with your claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance