rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24 📝 Original message:On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote: > These are problematic for legitimate miners: > 1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is > severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point > of Bitcoin's design. > 1b) This punishes miners with superior transaction spam filtering. As with all > spam filtering, it is often an "arms race" and therefore the filter rules must > be kept private by the miners, and therefore cannot be disclosed for the > validating clients to take into consideration. This is simply not true given current available data, i.e. the current blockchain and ongoing not-spam transaction rate/pool. > The argument that these are not rule changes is flawed: > 1) As of right now, 99% of the network runs a single client. Anything this > client rejects does de facto become a rule change. According to your own numbers even, this is not true. 99% of the network runs a wide variety of rules and versions. Even with a "critical" security announcement, the percentage of those running the latest version is not large. > 2) Even if there were a diverse ecosystem of clients in place, discouragement > rules that potentially affect legitimate miners significantly mess with the > odds of finding a block. > 3) If legitimate miners do not adopt counter-rules to bypass these new > restrictions, the illegitimate miners are left with an even larger percentage > of blocks found. Miners are not the -only- ones that get a say in what is spam, and what is not. If miners are generating garbage, network users have the right to veto that garbage. -- Jeff Garzik exMULTI, Inc. jgarzik at exmulti.com