Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 341D5516 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 01:07:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DEC189 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 01:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5FB038ABE66; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 01:06:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:180816:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::n8bKAluAzicV4xiy:B4BW X-Hashcash: 1:25:180816:ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com::f2kHDJPsHkqnkS8t:b+Peu X-Hashcash: 1:25:180816:judecn@gmail.com::yesVwXxnUknOyKRs:dIHLK From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Christopher Allen Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 01:06:53 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748) References: In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201808160106.54960.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 01:07:47 -0000 On Wednesday 15 August 2018 21:54:50 Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM Jude Nelson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Can a miner identify which transactions came from your software simply = by > > running a copy themselves? If so, then they can censor your transactio= ns > > no matter how you encode them. > > Possibly, but in the IPFS case I suspect the latency required to inspect > all hashes would likely impact the ability of the miner to succeed in the > block. (True? I don=E2=80=99t touch mining software.) Not true at all. > Thus as long as all hashes look the same, and there are multiple content > addressable schemes that use hashes that have to be searched in order to > know to censor, you have to censor all or none. Choosing not to mine transactions is not censorship. Luke