Topic: Can miners "freeze" bitcoin addresses? - page 2. (Read 1760 times)
Miners would be shooting themselves in the foot. They make money from their expensive hardware and operations by selling/trading/hoarding bitcoin. If 50%+ started a blacklist then the value would most certainly plummet and the miners would no longer have a stream of revenue. The system is set up to incentivize everyone to play fair.
Its possible.
Won't happen.
Won't happen.
Bitcoin is a self regulating system, which means if you go as far as being able to attack the system, you had to put too much effort for it to be more beneficial than just being a legitimate part of the network.
It's not about percentage. It's about excluding tx's from "all" tx pools. That's the only way.
Even if all of the miners exclude spesific address's tx's then those people can edit their mining pools & tx pools to accept only those tx's to create block. If they're lucky enough they'll create block and their tx's will be on the chain.
Even if all of the miners exclude spesific address's tx's then those people can edit their mining pools & tx pools to accept only those tx's to create block. If they're lucky enough they'll create block and their tx's will be on the chain.
Every single miner can individually set up the requirements. The miners can skip any transaction that they dont want to confirm. But thats only possible when they found a block and dont want to include the transaction into the block.
Is it technically possible for miners to "freeze" certain bitcoin addresses by rejecting all transactions to/from a list of addresses? For example if all (or 50%+) miners agree or are forced to by some new regulation to block any transaction from an address that is known to contain stolen funds. If this is possible, then it would open up for all types of regulations forcing miners to become gatekeepers and blocking "bad" transactions.
Exactly. Bitcoin can only function correctly should the majority of hashing power remain honest. In this context, miners following such regulations are dishonest because they do not always build on the longest chain.
If 50%+ of miners decide to do something, and they have the programming ability, they can make bitcoin into whatever they want.
You mean if miners (mining pools actually) that control >50% of the hashing power decide (i.e. nothing to do with the % of miners as you could have 90% of miners only controlling say 30% of the total hashing power).
Such ideas of "black lists" have been brought up many times before and thankfully they haven't been adopted. If they do get adopted then Bitcoin would have a very big problem with regards to "fungibility".
Is it technically possible for miners to "freeze" certain bitcoin addresses by rejecting all transactions to/from a list of addresses? For example if all (or 50%+) miners agree or are forced to by some new regulation to block any transaction from an address that is known to contain stolen funds. If this is possible, then it would open up for all types of regulations forcing miners to become gatekeepers and blocking "bad" transactions.
If 50%+ of miners decide to do something, and they have the programming ability, they can make bitcoin into whatever they want.
Is it technically possible for miners to "freeze" certain bitcoin addresses by rejecting all transactions to/from a list of addresses? For example if all (or 50%+) miners agree or are forced to by some new regulation to block any transaction from an address that is known to contain stolen funds. If this is possible, then it would open up for all types of regulations forcing miners to become gatekeepers and blocking "bad" transactions.
If this happen, that means bitcoin is going to die. Why people chosen bitcoin?
Freedom of financial.
Is it technically possible for miners to "freeze" certain bitcoin addresses by rejecting all transactions to/from a list of addresses? For example if all (or 50%+) miners agree or are forced to by some new regulation to block any transaction from an address that is known to contain stolen funds. If this is possible, then it would open up for all types of regulations forcing miners to become gatekeepers and blocking "bad" transactions.
Jump to: