From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: lautaro.dragan@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 02:37:11 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748)
References: <CACrqygD_5jpkTvvcFo7eHxZfiH4evzZQc=YB=opBo6M_0EsZTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201808160106.54960.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAK6DEso4-R78qLtQLfGxNUML5B1Y8gxXXVzrzmSwkPabMfkW+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK6DEso4-R78qLtQLfGxNUML5B1Y8gxXXVzrzmSwkPabMfkW+w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="cp 874"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201808160237.12395.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix
Precedence: list

On Thursday 16 August 2018 02:22:21 Lautaro Dragan wrote:
> > Choosing not to mine transactions is not censorship.
>
> Is it not, if for political rather than economical reasons? These
> transactions pay fees like any other.

Miners have always chosen transaction on "political" basises, and doing such 
is their right. That's why the system is supposed to be comprised of many 
miners, all with their own policies - so the choices of one do not impact the 
overall ability to spend (presumably only spam should be rejected by all 
miners).

For fees to themselves justify the cost of a transaction, they would need to 
be magnitudes higher than we've ever seen on Bitcoin. But even then, nobody 
has an obligation to accept payment, no matter how reasonable it is, for a 
service they don't want to provide.

Luke