On 09/01/2015 03:29 PM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:55:43PM -0500, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > >> * They should own their bitcoins, meaning that they retain exclusive >> control over their balances. Even more precisely, the network must >> always honour the conditions of the scripts associated with unspent outputs. >> >> * Their fraction of the Bitcoin ledger must not be diluted. >> >> * When they decide to spend their coins, they will be able to do so >> without requiring permission from a third party. > > All of these properties are contingent on the system being decentralized.
That is not true, unless you are using a definition of the word "decentralized" which is so broad as to convey no information whatsoever. Saying that Bitcoin's security depends on decentralization is like saying that a bridge's structural integrity depends on good materials. Statements like that convey zero relevant information. Potential users of a bridge want to know about the maximum working load of the bridge, and under which conditions it is safe to use. At what wind speed should the bridge be closed? Is it ok to keep using it after a magnitude 4 earthquake, or should it be closed for inspection? Repeatedly asserting that bridges need to be made of good materials as an alternative to answering those kinds of questions would be easily recognized as useless in that context, but for some reason people seem to accept it in this one. -- Justus Ranvier Open Bitcoin Privacy Project http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/ jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
0xEAD9E623.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
