📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24
📝 Original message:On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> These are problematic for legitimate miners:
> 1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is
> severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point
> of Bitcoin's design.
> 1b) This punishes miners with superior transaction spam filtering. As with all
> spam filtering, it is often an "arms race" and therefore the filter rules must
> be kept private by the miners, and therefore cannot be disclosed for the
> validating clients to take into consideration.
This is simply not true given current available data, i.e. the current
blockchain and ongoing not-spam transaction rate/pool.
> The argument that these are not rule changes is flawed:
> 1) As of right now, 99% of the network runs a single client. Anything this
> client rejects does de facto become a rule change.
According to your own numbers even, this is not true. 99% of the
network runs a wide variety of rules and versions. Even with a
"critical" security announcement, the percentage of those running the
latest version is not large.
> 2) Even if there were a diverse ecosystem of clients in place, discouragement
> rules that potentially affect legitimate miners significantly mess with the
> odds of finding a block.
> 3) If legitimate miners do not adopt counter-rules to bypass these new
> restrictions, the illegitimate miners are left with an even larger percentage
> of blocks found.
Miners are not the -only- ones that get a say in what is spam, and
what is not. If miners are generating garbage, network users have the
right to veto that garbage.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 10:09:36
in reply to nevent1q…jcaw
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 10:09:36Event JSON
{
"id": "303f2c9833a9ef07bf8cc9f780e350ad6fd5e7e7073c9edfea6752b6a105316a",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686132576,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bea123cfa1dde96d98089cdcf953f77564e34363cd7b11c4a3504634664d4aa2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"060ff55cce11a36fb685ad3903080e1aad378ea6f2f21c92dba3b80d6949dcd0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24\n📝 Original message:On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e These are problematic for legitimate miners:\n\u003e 1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is\n\u003e severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point\n\u003e of Bitcoin's design.\n\u003e 1b) This punishes miners with superior transaction spam filtering. As with all\n\u003e spam filtering, it is often an \"arms race\" and therefore the filter rules must\n\u003e be kept private by the miners, and therefore cannot be disclosed for the\n\u003e validating clients to take into consideration.\n\nThis is simply not true given current available data, i.e. the current\nblockchain and ongoing not-spam transaction rate/pool.\n\n\n\u003e The argument that these are not rule changes is flawed:\n\u003e 1) As of right now, 99% of the network runs a single client. Anything this\n\u003e client rejects does de facto become a rule change.\n\nAccording to your own numbers even, this is not true. 99% of the\nnetwork runs a wide variety of rules and versions. Even with a\n\"critical\" security announcement, the percentage of those running the\nlatest version is not large.\n\n\n\u003e 2) Even if there were a diverse ecosystem of clients in place, discouragement\n\u003e rules that potentially affect legitimate miners significantly mess with the\n\u003e odds of finding a block.\n\u003e 3) If legitimate miners do not adopt counter-rules to bypass these new\n\u003e restrictions, the illegitimate miners are left with an even larger percentage\n\u003e of blocks found.\n\nMiners are not the -only- ones that get a say in what is spam, and\nwhat is not. If miners are generating garbage, network users have the\nright to veto that garbage.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com",
"sig": "ae0116b602dc2dbc38c5a252c3eabf5b7287b453c82b3eb5b9251837a3361a2c7f0d77f068512cfc49083a4e7ef50772cb145af9de333ed71433e4ad634167c4"
}