đź“… Original date posted:2017-03-29
đź“ť Original message: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 <tomz at freedommail.ch> wrote:
> 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
Martin Stolze [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e5…gjrht
2023-06-07 17:57:29
in reply to nevent1q…hjdl
Author Public Key
npub1e56wpjk83eh8q2ccng7zhcqmcy0rgza577gpu0cfrqn34xkwct8qagjrhtPublished at
2023-06-07 17:57:29Event JSON
{
"id": "6957cd67ab1f136130dc4728ae7b129721a8e98f97c715e525e6d6df02825511",
"pubkey": "cd34e0cac78e6e702b189a3c2be01bc11e340bb4f7901e3f0918271a9acec2ce",
"created_at": 1686160649,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ad7e90d867377a53e2165bf8105a6bd781b67b75209ba255f9a84dd9956506ed",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fdb5e1016bd4776058c8eec7551fa939e1b5b6159c2c55a45edafaa66897ec24",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:Ignoring your contradiction of the political and economical. Your\nconception holds under the presupposition that all action of\nhash-power is motivated by 'rational' economic interest. Specifically\na very strict distinction between the profitable and the unprofitable;\nnamely to include transactions based on \"business incentive\",\npresumably on-chain fees.\n\nI am afraid that this conception is a rickety crutch, unfit to\nnavigate current reality.\n\n\nOn Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Tom Zander \u003ctomz at freedommail.ch\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Monday, 20 March 2017 21:12:36 CEST Martin Stolze via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Background: The current protocol enables two parties to transact\n\u003e\u003e freely, however, transaction processors (block generators) have the\n\u003e\u003e authority to discriminate participants arbitrarily.\n\u003e\n\u003e Nag; they don’t have any authority.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This is well known\n\u003e\u003e and it is widely accepted that transaction processors may take\n\u003e\u003e advantage of this with little recourse. It is the current consensus\n\u003e\u003e that the economic incentives in form of transaction fees are\n\u003e\u003e sufficient because the transaction processing authorities are assumed\n\u003e\u003e to be guided by the growth of Bitcoin and the pursuit of profit.\n\u003e\n\u003e This is not the case, it misunderstands Bitcoin and specifically is\n\u003e misunderstands that Bitcoin is distributed and decentralized.\n\u003e\n\u003e What you call “block generators” or “transaction processors” are in reality\n\u003e called miners and they don’t have any authority to mine or not mine certain\n\u003e transactions. All they have is a business incentive to mine or not mine a\n\u003e certain transaction.\n\u003e This is a crucial distinction as that makes it a economical decision, not a\n\u003e political.\n\u003e\n\u003e The massive distribution of miners creating blocks means that one miner is\n\u003e free to add his political agenda. They can choose to not mine any satoshi-\n\u003e dice transactions, should they want. But they can’t stop other miners from\n\u003e mining those transactions anyway, and as such this is not a political move\n\u003e that has any effect whatsoever, at the end of the day it is just an\n\u003e economcal decision.\n\u003e\n\u003e The rest of your email is based on this misconception as well, and therefore\n\u003e the above answers your question.\n\u003e --\n\u003e Tom Zander\n\u003e Blog: https://zander.github.io\n\u003e Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "41e4416bbda4de85f375e7bfce12270133d3d38f0df30f457eb45f463caa7f211eeb6d53fbe5c6f6d91f43603327568a3625001367e422bfff85d1d51f24ae31"
}