<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30&#xA;📝 Original message:btw the fact that mining is (or can be) anonymous also makes oligopoly&#xA;or cartel behaviour likely unstable.  Miners can break ranks and&#xA;process transactions others wish to block, or with lower fees than a&#xA;cartel would like to charge, without detection.&#xA;&#xA;Anonymous mining is a feature and helps ensure policy neutrality.&#xA;&#xA;This is all overlaid by the 51% attack - if a coherent cartel arose&#xA;that could maintain 51% and had enough mutual self-interest to make&#xA;that stable, they could attack miners bypassing their cartel policies,&#xA;by orphaning their blocks.  This is partly why mining decentralisation&#xA;is important.  Also that is an overt act which is very detectable and&#xA;could lead to technical counter-measures by the users, who are in&#xA;ultimately in control of the protocol.  So there is some game theory&#xA;suggesting it would be inadvisable for miners to be overt in cartel&#xA;attacks.  Non overt attacks cant prevent anonymous under cutting of&#xA;cartel desired fee minimums.&#xA;&#xA;Adam&#xA;&#xA;On 29 July 2015 at 21:00, Adam Back &lt;adam at cypherspace.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; On 29 July 2015 at 20:41, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev&#xA;&gt; &lt;bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt; Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market?  Isn&#39;t every&#xA;&gt;&gt; miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance&#xA;&gt;&gt; algorithm?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The assumption is that wont work because any miner can break ranks and&#xA;&gt; do so profitably, so to expect otherwise is to expect oligopoly&#xA;&gt; behaviour which is the sort of antithesis of a decentralised mining&#xA;&gt; system.  It&#39;s in fact a similar argument as to why decentralisation of&#xA;&gt; mining provides policy neutrality: some miner somewhere with some&#xA;&gt; hashrate will process your transaction even if some other miners are&#xA;&gt; by policy deciding not to mine it.  It is also similar reason why free&#xA;&gt; transactions are processed today - policies vary and this is good for&#xA;&gt; ensuring many types of transaction get processed.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Adam</html></oembed>