1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CAB389C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:04:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DD89F1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:04:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCB5616D0;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:04:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Martin Stolze <martin@stolze.cc>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:04:18 +0200
Message-ID: <2621205.8A4FuXh9CI@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAOyfL0oQrHzDmHBnWo0pTdbVU7acnsLmikTh9NU_u6HnhT4VCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOyfL0oQrHzDmHBnWo0pTdbVU7acnsLmikTh9NU_u6HnhT4VCw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:48:57 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:04:24 -0000
On Monday, 20 March 2017 21:12:36 CEST Martin Stolze via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Background: The current protocol enables two parties to transact
> freely, however, transaction processors (block generators) have the
> authority to discriminate participants arbitrarily.
Nag; they don=E2=80=99t have any authority.
> This is well known
> and it is widely accepted that transaction processors may take
> advantage of this with little recourse. It is the current consensus
> that the economic incentives in form of transaction fees are
> sufficient because the transaction processing authorities are assumed
> to be guided by the growth of Bitcoin and the pursuit of profit.
This is not the case, it misunderstands Bitcoin and specifically is=20
misunderstands that Bitcoin is distributed and decentralized.
What you call =E2=80=9Cblock generators=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Ctransaction pr=
ocessors=E2=80=9D are in reality=20
called miners and they don=E2=80=99t have any authority to mine or not mine=
certain=20
transactions. All they have is a business incentive to mine or not mine a=20
certain transaction.
This is a crucial distinction as that makes it a economical decision, not a=
=20
political.
The massive distribution of miners creating blocks means that one miner is=
=20
free to add his political agenda. They can choose to not mine any satoshi-
dice transactions, should they want. But they can=E2=80=99t stop other mine=
rs from=20
mining those transactions anyway, and as such this is not a political move=
=20
that has any effect whatsoever, at the end of the day it is just an=20
economcal decision.
The rest of your email is based on this misconception as well, and therefor=
e=20
the above answers your question.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
