📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17
📝 Original message:quote:
> On 6/16/14, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> > If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then
> > they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay
> > GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product
> > Lawrence, let's hope they don't collectively lemming us all off a cliff by
> > doing that ;)
>
> Replace-by-fee doesn't imply the use of green addresses (there's other
> solutions to 0 conf transactions in that context, for example,
> "scorched earth"). And giving up the non-enforceable first-seen
> default mining policy doesn't mean "giving up on the Bitcoin
> experiment" either.
>
If something means "giving up on the Bitcoin experiment", then for
sure it's not one mining policy or another, but the assumption
that we should have one uniform mining policy. If we had a community
where enough miners had their own opinion about the best mining
policy, and expressed it by choosing an appropriate mining pool, then
we would have better decentralized mining based on selfish motives of
the miners, rather than based on an abstract thought of
"centralization is bad, so I will consider how much mining profit
from qualitatively interchangable mining pools I'm willing to
sacrifice in order to ease my centralization fears".
Best regards,
Isidor
Isidor Zeuner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1wz…2jvxz
2023-06-07 15:22:49
in reply to nevent1q…rkgj
Author Public Key
npub1wz2sm8h4ylh9dn28688vjzwrmhaxnh3jl04p8jk3qeq7umwf8cus72jvxzPublished at
2023-06-07 15:22:49Event JSON
{
"id": "e54798aa6a90a9c2b0964c9a29ebce7d23d032186f8a7c4d9dcfec2d6af1713f",
"pubkey": "70950d9ef527ee56cd47d1cec909c3ddfa69de32fbea13cad10641ee6dc93e39",
"created_at": 1686151369,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed0eede28e160c2ef8ddd5af1ee3069fdb0eb5f4c939c1c09a1a5f338c30c628",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"14e8813047a6b0cd7bf2d36c1a645e531b416823b35ac9954845b255faabeca6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17\n📝 Original message:quote:\n\u003e On 6/16/14, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then\n\u003e \u003e they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay\n\u003e \u003e GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product\n\u003e \u003e Lawrence, let's hope they don't collectively lemming us all off a cliff by\n\u003e \u003e doing that ;)\n\u003e\n\u003e Replace-by-fee doesn't imply the use of green addresses (there's other\n\u003e solutions to 0 conf transactions in that context, for example,\n\u003e \"scorched earth\"). And giving up the non-enforceable first-seen\n\u003e default mining policy doesn't mean \"giving up on the Bitcoin\n\u003e experiment\" either.\n\u003e\n\nIf something means \"giving up on the Bitcoin experiment\", then for\nsure it's not one mining policy or another, but the assumption\nthat we should have one uniform mining policy. If we had a community\nwhere enough miners had their own opinion about the best mining\npolicy, and expressed it by choosing an appropriate mining pool, then\nwe would have better decentralized mining based on selfish motives of\nthe miners, rather than based on an abstract thought of\n\"centralization is bad, so I will consider how much mining profit\nfrom qualitatively interchangable mining pools I'm willing to\nsacrifice in order to ease my centralization fears\".\n\nBest regards,\n\nIsidor",
"sig": "48f71e9d71fb0f03b651253c395b24ea113d629c601bd79f2d8c1803f154798b48f598940242e62e6e338e8a1d59e186b0a9227e89cedd43b63c7554c56bc50f"
}