From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164FE5A7 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:27:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:24 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from juno.mpi-klsb.mpg.de (juno.mpi-klsb.mpg.de [139.19.86.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80F2169 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:26:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mmci.uni-saarland.de; s=mail200803; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID; bh=oNkXThpMBj7mrPSbOGS7eLpzt8miilvJjwwb1/4Vg5E=; b=xvVEplnBvEXf24qp7hGWcaQ9EPh9z3knG6EK9xVtVXmnb7bT6B2nmI5aYq+frpYEnqGpMdV8r06HdywN3/55SnZMvTOwtvPKlsD7TUJ19f6r+3/ZLQJu+0NvnYDayF+CsZ411W0ASDcKrnQIDpX82AW6KvtAPS1+0BX7M0YMaKg=; Received: from srv-00-61.mpi-klsb.mpg.de ([139.19.86.26]:32890 helo=sam.mpi-klsb.mpg.de) by juno.mpi-klsb.mpg.de (envelope-from ) with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) id 1cqLYI-000g1o-Td for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:18:32 +0100 Received: from mbpc48.cs.uni-saarland.de ([134.96.225.161]:44298) by sam.mpi-klsb.mpg.de (envelope-from ) with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) id 1cqLYI-0007O5-No for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:18:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1490109506.16330.20.camel@mmci.uni-saarland.de> From: Tim Ruffing To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:18:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MPI-Local-Sender: true X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering 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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:27:01 -0000 (I'm not a lawyer...) I'm not sure if I can make sense of your email. On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 20:12 +0000, Martin Stolze via bitcoin-dev wrote: > As a participant in the economy in general and of Bitcoin in > particular, I desire an ability to decide where I transact. The > current state of Bitcoin does not allow me to choose my place of > business. As a consequence, I try to learn what would be the best way > to conduct my business in good faith. [2] Ignoring the rest, I don't think that the physical location / jurisdiction of the miner has any legal implications for law applicable to the relationship between sender and receiver of a payment. This is not particular to Bitcoin. We're both in Germany (I guess). Assume we have a contract without specific agreements and I pay you in Icelandic kronur via PayPal (in Luxembourg) and my HTTPS requests to PayPal went via Australia and the US. Then German law applies to our contract, nothing in the middle can change that. Also ignoring possible security implications, there is just no need for a mechanism that enables users to select miners. I claim that almost nobody cares who will mine a transaction, because it makes no technical difference. If you don't want a specific miner to mine your transaction, then don't use Bitcoin. Tim