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 9ED18B5D for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:49:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f195.google.com (mail-qk0-f195.google.com [209.85.220.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6BE8110 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f195.google.com with SMTP id p22so1841209qka.0 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:49:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stolze-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xtgPSDwRcLGTjt0yUtPI6OqG/FYbHrQoFdabX0IUZYE=; b=V1l3wQ/bAYWG6Uw/Bf+LbISb+WvLyzAEtBIkJ9kBouM8xNb26WIdLKg2qmkR6KQG5Y Gcs2ibd3JWmv21SCy1eE27kWboiCbKBIa4BEvkO94/mmpvp2xcJVwA8pVMmCPk9islVi tDRFB9p4hfXBGXPV1sX/waM+at5rDbfB8PBnKTnzYhrF67l9HgOiumnGDoEkBkM6R74O BlT7IKeh4CZyq0dKgZxdvp8EwTwKBcaiQ7Vo61LUlicKNk++KmEgifr+dMCTkWvz5GlN QTpZPOJ/xY7M6heOdATSkxCxb+Y1wW6WyjJ5dGSfx30/PVVcQ2oVjy7mWvcIdodb0WCt ixwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xtgPSDwRcLGTjt0yUtPI6OqG/FYbHrQoFdabX0IUZYE=; b=c3BlL0KcOq//LwnoI0sAqMJlHQYs0k/cwO+yR9dkb195rrVQgcc2a5iwGll8Do+Nym J++Z2vhbX+mDb+NyQu+NZVU/OZOJ5bejbk0xRrJatwTdLZcfEm8SwEsq8jWPMPFLZUW8 aUlrab0xKOZNdyrX5cL8IZJmaAHsDUU2qLKV4mf7VG7RWi2L4m7uUvZFdPOoODPVpzbc ZyX++sqIJt6T+T6Xwz6u9GASyjWKfV2SMsabmG6btETWJUSRGGBm3x8CFoSA4ojs67+p Zfgq4JFv0z6lsaKOAgGNVdE46ZM7emXuEoLmG6HLq+EWXtVbXnku0lTs16TxmmrcVW5M gWdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H14uoK0lRGQx0ycSCBz5lbn4YctpxMggjr+xBOXRTqUNmYxcFc9yosYPdfbrHFwjKh/RcngzI5Fu1TilQ== X-Received: by 10.55.7.149 with SMTP id 143mr318563qkh.186.1490791742969; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:49:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.63.78 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:48:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [185.65.135.90] In-Reply-To: <2621205.8A4FuXh9CI@strawberry> References: <2621205.8A4FuXh9CI@strawberry> From: Martin Stolze Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:48:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: Tom Zander Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:49:04 -0000 Ignoring your contradiction of the political and economical. Your conception holds under the presupposition that all action of hash-power is motivated by 'rational' economic interest. Specifically a very strict distinction between the profitable and the unprofitable; namely to include transactions based on "business incentive", presumably on-chain fees. I am afraid that this conception is a rickety crutch, unfit to navigate current reality. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Tom Zander wrote: > On Monday, 20 March 2017 21:12:36 CEST Martin Stolze via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: >> 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 > misunderstands that Bitcoin is distributed and decentralized. > > What you call =E2=80=9Cblock generators=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Ctransaction = processors=E2=80=9D are in reality > called miners and they don=E2=80=99t have any authority to mine or not mi= ne 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 i= s > 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 mi= ners from > mining those transactions anyway, and as such this is not a political mov= e > 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 theref= ore > the above answers your question. > -- > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel