From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Martin Stolze <martin@stolze.cc>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:04:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2621205.8A4FuXh9CI@strawberry> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOyfL0oQrHzDmHBnWo0pTdbVU7acnsLmikTh9NU_u6HnhT4VCw@mail.gmail.com>
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’t 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
misunderstands that Bitcoin is distributed and decentralized.
What you call “block generators” or “transaction processors” are in reality
called miners and they don’t have any authority to mine or not mine certain
transactions. All they have is a business incentive to mine or not mine a
certain transaction.
This is a crucial distinction as that makes it a economical decision, not a
political.
The massive distribution of miners creating blocks means that one miner is
free to add his political agenda. They can choose to not mine any satoshi-
dice transactions, should they want. But they can’t stop other miners from
mining those transactions anyway, and as such this is not a political move
that has any effect whatsoever, at the end of the day it is just an
economcal decision.
The rest of your email is based on this misconception as well, and therefore
the above answers your question.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-29 9:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-20 20:12 [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering Martin Stolze
2017-03-21 15:18 ` Tim Ruffing
2017-03-29 9:04 ` Tom Zander [this message]
2017-03-29 12:48 ` Martin Stolze
2017-03-29 13:10 ` Tom Zander
2017-03-22 17:48 Martin Stolze
2017-03-25 4:42 ` praxeology_guy
2017-03-25 17:15 ` Martin Stolze
2017-03-26 11:12 ` praxeology_guy
2017-03-26 12:11 ` greg misiorek
2017-03-27 17:18 ` Martin Stolze
[not found] ` <fFz3k0NstFYpKctCaSKDrhPnkInjW3GgQ-3FIyokzdl_SScKjXptQsn8jnW71ax_oknq9hI8gUBllYaKo_9hMiBASSJtkL6xXN_NX8tcmXw=@protonmail.com>
2017-03-27 21:11 ` Martin Stolze
2017-03-28 7:02 ` praxeology_guy
2017-03-28 19:51 ` Martin Stolze
2017-03-27 16:29 AJ West
2017-03-28 12:58 Martin Stolze
2017-03-28 14:57 ` Andrew Baine
2017-03-29 12:51 ` Martin Stolze
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2621205.8A4FuXh9CI@strawberry \
--to=tomz@freedommail.ch \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=martin@stolze.cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox