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 F0579486 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:49:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f176.google.com (mail-qt0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C90782C1 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n21so158188877qta.1 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:49:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stolze-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R/TsYA+haAbqU9Vx3hqVP8JugNF75e1EXQS5//bbwHI=; b=Op3nWctl9QMjPA4hqk7KumEjxN+yyM1FyC9FXPeophz7ZFfGiw0aLGJK264yOHsNaQ gKbrl0QaUuy5Plpcad6eqtsEHOo2ELTMD0/N9Na3p5EsXXphYWTvDDWlnYaey9NPwy9Z jsmNqk0nCTiboh6mGFlJ8D18aIp/7k0tex72RHbPCyBEGe9IKU21YvlDRsMg5QQtt+xJ RQI+pSuajEOO+R1qeWgbpoq5xTkGuJi9dX29dDkmyQiygcKDTDw+dVO69I4GWiIK3ogI 2rg7KTQ15455lRPMmOYcTKSWZV/JWZ+J/TJgbGqIefuBM5ZkGW0aRGMZwzQmR0AJDVLg nxqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R/TsYA+haAbqU9Vx3hqVP8JugNF75e1EXQS5//bbwHI=; b=gKAHXtf37lUdQpVJP/hxgTPihCdpXvZwp05TXsyXz3j8kqCVLheVs1/UjQFRfvcd7+ wGGs49yUYxEkF1nSlymbhdxe4n3DUobixKgCHtiJJH61gFxFX41Hp0OJQXTEM+b0ACaY omd7FeLp0FXnGekufydFCv9nMQ9BEEi1oa+sWU5asJKAG/MDHWViUQpLjrMWkBT4p5ay ZXymbbqeheloxCisJwRwMoJdr8PuR2dH25KCvHqcz3TQ/xdB0BQdInsxDwX8+z+tTESK N4mtiXosk8quG6tQptfmcEUuP/zcE37VKXLGLtvFSEV5nS2K3wi+3l4zSfrefadtMn2b U/JQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0pnhTblrCEwv4p0EU5VLSfUFafhqLffisNnzKg01QKAyn29503Oh4x1zuF7NVGVXVcyQHMcmZPhFAcWg== X-Received: by 10.200.56.162 with SMTP id f31mr25344627qtc.152.1490204953358; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:49:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.63.78 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [185.65.135.89] From: Martin Stolze Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:48:52 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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, 22 Mar 2017 19:51:49 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:49:16 -0000 Hi Tim, After writing this I figured that it was probably not evident at first sight as the concept may be quite novel. The physical location of the "miner" is indeed irrelevant, I am referring to the digital location. Bitcoins blockchain is a digital location or better digital "space". As far as I am concerned the authority lies with whoever governs this particular block space. A "miner" can, or can not, include my transaction. To make this more understandable: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can extend his caliphate into Bitcoins block space and rule sovereign(!) over a given block. If he processes my transaction my fee goes directly into the coffers of his organization. The same goes for the Queen of England or the Emperor of China. My interest is not necessarily aligned with each specific authority, yet as you point out, I can only not use Bitcoin. Alternatively, however, I can very well sign my transaction and send it to an authority of my choosing to be included into the ledger, say BitFurry. - This is what I describe in option 1. In order to protect my interest I do need to choose, maybe not today, but eventually. I also think that people do care who processes transactions and a lot of bickering could be spared if we could choose. If we assume a perfectly competitive market with 3 authorities that govern the block space equally, the marginal cost of 1/3 of the block space is the same for each, however, the marginal revenue absent of block rewards is dependent on fees. If people are willing to pay only a zero fee to a specific authority while a fee greater than zero to the others it's clear that one would be less competitive. Let us assume the fees are 10% of the revenue and the cost is 95 we have currently the following situation: A: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5 B: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5 C: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5 With transaction tiering, the outcome could be different! A: Cost=95; Revenue=90; Loss=5 // BSA that does not respect user interest. B: Cost=95; Revenue=105; Profit=10 C: Cost=95; Revenue=105; Profit=10 This could motivate transaction processors to behave in accordance with user interest, or am I missing something? Best Regards, Martin > From: Tim Ruffing > To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:18:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering > (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