Quote from: kiklo on March 30, 2017, 08:53:47 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 30, 2017, 07:40:38 AM

Quote from: kiklo on March 30, 2017, 04:04:17 AM

Dino , Seriously
6. Permission from the original programmer thru the Open Source License granted so you can run the software. Wink

A crypto currency is not software. It is a protocol, written on paper, that anyone can implement in software. Usually, the guy (or girl) writing the paper also puts some working software up, but that is secondary. You don't need the software. You only need the paper of the protocol. Then you can write your own software to use it.

Look at this guy, using bitcoin without running software from somewhere:
http://www.righto.com/2014/02/bitcoins-hard-way-using-raw-bitcoin.html

You don't need core or BU or whatever software. You can do it the hard way, using some python scripts and a command line interface. You only need the detailed protocol description.

The use of Pythagoras' theorem is permissionless. Anyone can use it. The same for an open crypto currency protocol. It is nothing more than a more involved kind of statement. From the moment that you can read it and understand it, you can use it.

In the end, the "permission" is in the intelligence needed to understand it and code it, but again, you are stretching the notion to make it meaningless.

LOL,
I wait for you to write up your blocks on paper, your blockspeed will be what 1 year per block. Cheesy

Someone else wrote the original code , granting you permission to use it thru the Open Source License.
The fact is , everyone is using the software and they have received permission to do so.

You haven't looked at the link, did you.

What you are doing is a known rhetorical technique, a form of syllepsis, called the generalisation of concepts.
You are rendering a useful concept, permissionlessness of a cryptosystem, into a meaningless one by generalizing its condition so much outside of its initial meaning, that it becomes trivially a contradiction.

You could apply it to other things, like "mathematical proof". You could state that your vision is not guaranteed, your memory is not guaranteed, and hence, when reading a mathematical proof, you can never be sure that the next line is really seen as you think you see it, that the logical deduction from former statements are maybe ill-remembered, and hence, that no written text is ever a mathematical proof, rendering all of mathematics meaningless.

Yeah.