Not a lawyer, but I don't see what would prevent me from writing contracts like:
I owe the holder of this contract 10 usd (IOU)
I owe the holder of this contract 10 usd in beer (voucher)
I owe the holder of this p2p asset 10 usd in beer (p2p voucher)
Of course, there must be a legal contract
The Problem
===
We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade
it with new rules. There inevitably will be a transition period where
some users use clients that interpret the new rules, while others only
interpret the old rules. Since we only rely on the host
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:12:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade
it with new rules.
This asserts a central authority and gives developers too much power.
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 05:25:41PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:12:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade
it with new rules.
This asserts a central authority and gives developers too much power.
Please, the
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 05:25:41PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:12:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade
it with new rules.
This asserts a central authority and gives developers too much power.
I don't quite
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:11:32PM -0600, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 05:25:41PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:12:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
We have an embedded consensus system and we want to be able to upgrade
it with new rules.
This asserts
The only 'assertion' of central authority here is people who download and
run the code and submit to whatever the code asserts they are supposed to
do.
At least with the 'central authority' of the big-business bitcoin developer
cabal I can read the code before I submit to it's
7 matches
Mail list logo
