Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wwvmj-0003Mt-Ik for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:58:57 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from quidecco.de ([81.169.136.15]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wwvmg-0007tJ-B7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:58:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by quidecco.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 453D5DFC485; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:58:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Isidor Zeuner To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed References: In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20140617155845.453D5DFC485@quidecco.de> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:58:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Wwvmg-0007tJ-B7 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Lawrence Nahum Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:58:57 -0000 quote: > On 6/16/14, Mike Hearn wrote: > > If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then > > they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay > > GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product > > Lawrence, let's hope they don't collectively lemming us all off a cliff by > > doing that ;) > > Replace-by-fee doesn't imply the use of green addresses (there's other > solutions to 0 conf transactions in that context, for example, > "scorched earth"). And giving up the non-enforceable first-seen > default mining policy doesn't mean "giving up on the Bitcoin > experiment" either. > If something means "giving up on the Bitcoin experiment", then for sure it's not one mining policy or another, but the assumption that we should have one uniform mining policy. If we had a community where enough miners had their own opinion about the best mining policy, and expressed it by choosing an appropriate mining pool, then we would have better decentralized mining based on selfish motives of the miners, rather than based on an abstract thought of "centralization is bad, so I will consider how much mining profit from qualitatively interchangable mining pools I'm willing to sacrifice in order to ease my centralization fears". Best regards, Isidor