On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 14:48:42 CEST Martin Stolze wrote:
> Your
> conception holds under the presupposition that all action of
> hash-power is motivated by 'rational' economic interest.
This shows you didn't think this through,
instead, the concept holds true when there is even a small
f the least appealing scenarios.
>>
>> > There are some terrible pitfalls with both of these methods. [...]
>>
>> Spot on, that's why this should receive some attention before it
>> becomes urgent. I think there is much more to it that we are missing
>> at the mo
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
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
As I alluded to before, certain language lends itself to simple conclusions.
You say that "miner" have simple profit motives and compete only in
their respective domains. But what is "mining"?
It is the process of acquiring a part of the block space. He who
acquires that space can decide over
Block Producers"... which does not imply that they do all of the necessary
> "transaction processing": that all users should be fine with running
> Electrum wallets or even SPV clients. They produce blocks, but its still up
> to other users in the network to do "
ts.linuxfoundation.org <
> bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Martin Stolze
> via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 1:15 PM
> *To:* praxeology_guy
> *Cc:* bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
to accept particular blocks.
Cheers,
Praxeology Guy
---- Original Message
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
Local Time: March 25, 2017 12:15 PM
UTC Time: March 25, 2017 5:15 PM
From: mar...@stolze.cc
To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_...@protonmail.com>
bitcoin-dev@li
Users could then chose who
> they want to relay to. Miners would be incentivized to not relay higher fee
> transactions, because they would want to keep them to themselves for higher
> profits.
>
> Cheers,
> Praxeology Guy
>
>
> ---- Original Message
> Subject:
transactions, because they would want to keep them to themselves for higher
profits.
Cheers,
Praxeology Guy
Original Message
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
Local Time: March 22, 2017 12:48 PM
UTC Time: March 22, 2017 5:48 PM
From: bitcoin-dev
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 <tim.ruff...@mmci.uni-saarland.de>
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017
(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 +, 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
Hi Team,
I would like to find out what the current consensus on transaction tiering is.
Background: The current protocol enables two parties to transact
freely, however, transaction processors (block generators) have the
authority to discriminate participants arbitrarily. This is well known
and
13 matches
Mail list logo
