<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ck</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ck</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-30&#xA;📝 Original message:On 30/04/14 00:26, Mike Hearn wrote:&#xA;&gt;     These parties wouldn&#39;t generally consider themselves attackers&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Of course not, attackers rarely do :)&#xA;&#xA;If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider&#xA;themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars. There&#xA;are simply nodes that follow the protocol, and nodes that do not.&#xA;&#xA;The fact that you even need to think about who should and should not be&#xA;considered an attacker, in the context of your proposed change, should&#xA;be ringing alarm bells :)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; What do you think miners exist for?&#xA;&#xA;Ordering transactions.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;A non-text attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;Name: signature.asc&#xA;Type: application/pgp-signature&#xA;Size: 555 bytes&#xA;Desc: OpenPGP digital signature&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140430/e5d8bcd3/attachment.sig&gt;</html></oembed>