Appearently I am whitelisted now. I'rant about this 'newbie policy' in another topic if I feel like it.
I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.
That is a central fallacy throughout your paper. The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes. They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.
Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.
Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?
Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:
- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...