<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; Non-developers are more comfortable using social media tools. Blog&#xA;&gt; posts can be shared, Tweeted, and commented upon using nothing more&#xA;&gt; than a web browser.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I don&#39;t think Twitter is an appropriate medium for discussing the details&#xA;of byzantine consensus algorithms.&#xA;&#xA;I&#39;m not going to bother arguing in replies to a blog post. Suffice it to&#xA;say, miners are already handsomely compensated via both inflation and fees&#xA;for doing their job of preventing double spends. Your suggestion is people&#xA;should pay them EVEN MORE for simply not being corrupt. My proposal is&#xA;simpler - how about we find the ones that are claiming people&#39;s money via&#xA;coinbases yet not doing their jobs correctly, and take the money back (or&#xA;destroy it). I think I prefer that one. Miners that are maliciously double&#xA;spending cannot justify their existence, they offer no useful service and&#xA;do not deserve compensation as a result.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/2ba5d5ad/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>