"Code is law."
"Sometimes laws should be broken."
Discuss.
@VladZamfir @VitalikButerin @TokenHash @_Kevin_Pham @CleanApp @NickSzabo4 @derose @el33th4xor
-
-
Enforced scope avoids the result in "form," but not "content." Content policy can't be enforced given the nature of pseudo- anonymity. This is sort of thing I think is basically inevitable — Bitcoin (or any other chain) hasn't really been tested in this way yet.
-
... what I have in mind is very high profile, very malicious parties getting their hands on Bitcoin (via valid transactions) and doing very high profile, malicious things with it.
-
But now you are talking about end user behavior, not the coding and ratification (upgrade) process. Completely different things.
-
But the ratification process can say, reverse a transaction (if we loop hardforks under the ratification-process umbrella)
-
The world has seen that this is a possibility, so we can't quite shrug our shoulders and claim immutability. (Yes, the big example we saw was with Eth, but it's certainly a *possibility* with Bitcoin as well)
-
And yes, a big part of why BTC hasn't dealt with this sort of thing yet is due to the "argument surface minimisation" you referred to. But again, if adoption / integration increases, I claim that a "content-based-argument" is inevitable (I hope I'm wrong).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.