Given the arguments on both sides that I have heard, yes.

Wrong. I want me to be able to validate the rules I consented to are followed and right now that means running a full node, I don't care about anybody else or how that is achieved.

It may not be and it may be that this is a design flaw in Bitcoin. But if a solution is found it will have to be one where there is no compromise on me being able to validate the rules used. If Bitcoin can't achieve that then I have no use for it.

The attractiveness is that you remain a sovereign in Bitcoin i.e. the pay off isn't material but of a different kind of value. I run it because this way I can ensure that the rules that govern my wealth are those that I agree with and that's enough of an inventive for me.

Then those who can't afford to run a full node right now are must understand that they are using Bitcoin without their explicit consent to what rules Bitcoin functions under. That their wealth is in the hands of those who can.

How so? I have a laptop with 1TB space, and the block size limit means there's max 55GB that can be added in a year on avg, so how could I not run a full node for at least 5 more years when I'm sure I'm going to upgrade my laptop by then and have even more disk space available?

Well the title is a lie. Of course they can change and they already have changed in the past. But if this is bad news to you and you were lead to believe something else, don't fret, it's not all bad. Here, let me try and give you the bigger picture about rules in Bitcoin and who it is that you need to trust that they won't change to something you won't like.

First there's a myths that I want to address. I also want to make sure the community pays attention to this issue. Because as Ben Franklin told a woman the Americans got a republic if they can keep it (turns out they couldn't) so too I'm here to tell you that you have an excellent money system on your hands, if you can keep it.

Myth: Miners set the rules by voting

False. Miners do not vote, they validate. They check that transactions meet the rules and then they add them into a block and add it to the blockchain. If a subset of miners decide that a certain rule should be changed what happens ISN'T that all miners now validate transactions according to the new rule even if the subset has the majority of hashing power, instead a so called hard fork happens and some miners validate transactions that obey the new rules and those who stick with the old rules ignore them and by virtue of ignoring each other they split into two peer to peer networks.

But what if all miners suddenly switch to new rules? Can they do this? Is there something that stops them? Answer: YES, EVERY NON MINING FULL NODE

I mean this is critical for every Bitcoin user to understand. Bitcoin is a decentralized system, in which if you run a full node YOU HAVE A SAY in what rules are to be followed. Because once the miner adds a new block they send it around across the network and when it gets to you, your client also validates. It validates that the miner validated the transactions and added them into a block and into the blockchain following the right rules, rules that you gave your EXPLICIT consent to when you downloaded the Satoshi client. If all of the sudden all miners started validating according to some new rules, your client is coded to simply ignore them and as soon as just 1 miner following rules your client accepts as valid shows up, the network can continue to operate under these same rules.

The ONLY way for rules to ever change for you is if YOU PERSONALLY download a new client version with new rules. I cannot stress enough how important this is. This so important that it should be paramount for anyone who has any significant wealth in Bitcoin to run your own full node regardless of the costs that brings to you. I myself do it too even though I don't even use the client for anything else.

Now this doesn't mean you should never accept new rules in a new client. In fact you already did because those new rules solved a technical problem. But if you want to keep the Bitcoin money system running under the principles that it is built upon today (FINITENESS, TANGIBILITY, TRANSPARENCY, ANONYMITY, SECURITY, DECENTRALIZATION, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INTEGRITY, PRACTICALITY, RATIONALISM) it is paramount that any such rule changes do not immediately or down road preclude you from being able to run a full node. Because if you can't run a full node and you trust someone else to do it for you, then you have effectively given away your power to have say about what rules Bitcoin follows.

Right now you are a sovereign in Bitcoin. You should never give that up, under any circumstance.

What do I mean with sovereign? Well there's nothing anyone could possibly do that can make you accept rules you didn't agree with. Nothing. You yourself have to decide to consent to a rule change. But if running a full node becomes impossible for you then all that which you were told about Bitcoin, that rules virtually can't change, that it has a strict limit of 21million, ect, all these rules will then be left to be decided by a small number of super nodes and the people who control them. The second this becomes reality Bitcoin will be no different than simply a slightly more transparent Paypal. And if you don't want that you better make damn sure you can run a full node.

$30

Don't forget: (mining or by maintain a full node, even if not mining)

Patri Friedman's idea has a huge flaw that turned me off and should turn you off as well.

The flaw is that his idea relies on hope, the hope that governments around the world wont see a seastead as something hostile to them and just flat out destroy it. It's the reason why although you'd have more freedom, the idea says that you couldn't trade or own weapons, that you would still have to follow money laundering laws, that you couldn't trade "illicit" goods, ect ect all for the purpose of not pissing of governments so they don't come and destroy it.

Well if I was ever going to make the unbelievable sacrifice and live in the middle of the ocean I damn well want the complete package of freedom otherwise it's just not worth it. And this is the reason I completely abandoned this idea.


Plus I can live in my home, where I am right now, hold my wealth in bitcoins and not give a shit about any financial or tax laws. I'm not saying that I do this (wink wink government agent reading this) but I'm saying I have that option. So I really don't know what more I'd get living on a boat in the middle of the ocean.

You are not what I consider a hardcore goldbug otherwise you wouldn't be willing to own bitcoins.

If I have the release candidate installed should I update it as well? Is there a difference to the actual release?

It seems you have two choices:

a) A money system which allows you to validate the rules it functions under but at the same time eventually likely forces you to use a business for your day to day transactions, however again you yourself can easily audit this business at any time and make sure they aren't doing anything you didn't agree with when you signed up for their services

b) A mere payment system, similar to paypal, that eventually you will have no power to validate is following the rules you agreed to when you started using it


Which will it be?

Regular users by downloading the blockcain validate what miners validated. I'm sure you can imagine how losing the ability to validating what miners validate could pose a problem..

I wonder how many hardcore goldbugs will completely dismiss this. 

You are wrong. There is no voting in Bitcoin. Miners validate.

I look at the original rules as a contract I gave my consent to enter into and I don't want my contract to change without my consent nor was I lead to believe it could change and it can't. That's all there is too it.

I may consent to a change of the contract by downloading a new version of the client but it cannot be a change that would jeopardize one of the principles I have identified Bitcoin is built upon. But that's me. You do with your "contract" as you will.

The problem is the rate of adoption likely isn't linear but exponential meaning it just seems we have "oodles" of spare space. This could change quite fast.


They don't? Users of mtgox can send each other bitcoins off blockchain, so can users of most other exchanges, hell Coinbase is even built with this being it's primary goal..

Btw if you happen to lose it I'll pay out as soon as that happens. Do you object to that?

You don't understand. I use Bitcoin because it is built upon certain principles and built in such a way that those principles can't be "legislated" away with a rule change. If this isn't the case I have no use for Bitcoin.