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 <ibrigh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc > <mailto:jti...@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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
