{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ck","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ck","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-30\n📝 Original message:On 30/04/14 00:26, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e     These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Of course not, attackers rarely do :)\n\nIf Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider\nthemselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars. There\nare simply nodes that follow the protocol, and nodes that do not.\n\nThe fact that you even need to think about who should and should not be\nconsidered an attacker, in the context of your proposed change, should\nbe ringing alarm bells :)\n\n\n\u003e What do you think miners exist for?\n\nOrdering transactions.\n\n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 555 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140430/e5d8bcd3/attachment.sig\u003e"}