Yes, that's a clean way of saying this. It still takes longer to click for me than I'd like, but maybe there's no better way of saying it.

Personally, I do like the "who" vs. "what" framing.  Bitcoin doesn't care who (and we should keep it that way), but it may care about what (and it always has, to some degree or another).

SimpleStacker

> Bitcoin is not permissionless all over. Bitcoin is a tyranny of consensus.

This is pretty good, but I need to think about it some. Also I need not to be sleepy.

Scoresby

I agree. I'm not advocating for a permissioned bitcoin. I'm saying what I think is true: relay policy is a (crappy) signaling mechanism. It's a signaling mechanism for things we all don't like (like validation complexity bugs) and it's also a signaling mechanism for things only some of us don't like. Relay policy is good enough that parties with neutral or good intent will take heed of it, while it does not protect us from bad actors much or at all.

Bitcoin is not permissionless all over. Bitcoin is a tyranny of consensus. Consensus defines what is permitted, and only within those dynamic bounds, is it permissionless. If consensus changes, what is permitted changes, but those were the rules of bitcoin's rules all along. So perhaps it's best to avoid saying bitcoin is permissionless without being clear about what we mean.

AskSN

bitcoin

DISCUSS: "The only policy that makes sense is consensus."

> This seems like a terrible outcome.

I agree. I'm not advocating for a permissioned bitcoin. I'm saying what I think is true: relay policy is a (crappy) signaling mechanism. It's a signaling mechanism for things we all don't like (like validation complexity bugs) and it's also a signaling mechanism for things only some of us don't like. Relay policy is good enough that parties with neutral or good intent will take heed of it, while it does not protect us from bad actors much or at all.

Bitcoin is not permissionless all over. Bitcoin is a tyranny of consensus. Consensus defines what is permitted, and only within those dynamic bounds, is it permissionless. If consensus changes, what is permitted changes, but those were the rules of bitcoin's rules all along. So perhaps it's best to avoid saying bitcoin is permissionless without being clear about what we mean.