You are right, and from that point idea is born.
imagine this:
a non pool coin, where the block reward and block time would be different , and changable depending on how much hashpower you point at it.
that way , if you have a huge hashrate , your block reward would be big, and if you have small hashrate, block time stays the same but your reward is smaller
so basicaly, same thing like you were mining at a pool, but while pointing your hashrate @ your client.
seams like a lot of work, sadly i doubt we will be seing this anytime soon
Topic: Miners have NO power, NO vote, Where is this Decentralization? BTC BS (Read 927 times)
June 13, 2014, 05:47:52 AM
June 13, 2014, 12:31:49 AM
But can anyone really stop coins from being spent? For example, if those 144,000 DPR coins were on your blacklist, would you consider taking them off your blacklist for 1 BTC? For 100 BTC? For 10,000 BTC?
i understand based on simple math no one can STOP it. even the smallest percent can get it in there. it would only delay the sending. those obsessed with following the coins would add the new addresses to their blacklists and delay those transactions further. it would remove fungibility from the "bad" coins and i'm ok with that.
would you consider adding someone to your blacklist who took that bribe to include the transaction?
if everyone had an easy way to access this option would we not take it?
I would adhere to the original Satoshi model.
But I don't think it really matters what other people do. Like you pointed out, some people will start blacklisting the blacklisters, and the entire scheme falls into disarray. Transactions will always be propagated because information is easy to send but hard to stifle. Transactions will eventually get into a block because some miner somewhere will be thinking only in terms of profit and won't care about blacklists.
Your other comment about blacklisting the child transactions misses an important point: the taint slowly diffuses across the entire economy because child transactions form a tree and not a line. In fact, one could track the taint that "peels" of a blacklisted output in the form of a miner's fee, and say that "freshly mined coins" are also tainted. So you could never have "black coins" and "white coins"; all coins would instead be various shades of grey.
So, yes, some people will blacklist coins. And, no, it won't really matter.
June 13, 2014, 12:27:41 AM
If you run a bitcoin node, you can modify it to not relay coins on your blacklist. If you control a mining operation, you can choose to not allow coins on your blacklist into your mempool.
can the pools very easily give the individual miner access to this feature?
if a pool offered this feature would it not be very successful?
if it offered the feature to hate the major thieves and government agents, even with a list of most hated for morons to follow the pack?
even if it wouldn't be a complete stop to the coins (obviously), they would be devalued due to a constant delays in transaction from the followers of bad addresses.
it could be "made for dummies"
check box this address because we think its bad, and so do so many other people, if you would like your equipment not to include it
June 13, 2014, 12:16:19 AM
dont fuck with the protocol. instead flashmob email all the fiat gateway exchanges to blacklist such deposits and not allow fiat withdrawals.
while i'm doing that i'll send a letter to my congressman also.
i don't want the "foundation" to do anything,
i'd like a patch that tells my miner, that i paid for, to do what i want and not do what i want, when i tell it.
or i want the pool i'm mining on to give me the option, if it is in fact it's easily available?
from the programming side, is it easily available?
whats up with this p2pool ? what control does it give me? from looking at it i don't see anything different.
June 13, 2014, 12:09:15 AM
But can anyone really stop coins from being spent? For example, if those 144,000 DPR coins were on your blacklist, would you consider taking them off your blacklist for 1 BTC? For 100 BTC? For 10,000 BTC?
i understand based on simple math no one can STOP it. even the smallest percent can get it in there. it would only delay the sending. those obsessed with following the coins would add the new addresses to their blacklists and delay those transactions further. it would remove fungibility from the "bad" coins and i'm ok with that.
would you consider adding someone to your blacklist who took that bribe to include the transaction?
if everyone had an easy way to access this option would we not take it?
June 13, 2014, 12:00:44 AM
dont fuck with the protocol. instead flashmob email all the fiat gateway exchanges to blacklist such deposits and not allow fiat withdrawals.
June 12, 2014, 11:15:34 PM
i would like people who do want coins blocked to have a vote..
can the pool operators add a blacklist in their interface?
can each individual miner to decide who to blacklist?
can the pool operators add a blacklist in their interface?
can each individual miner to decide who to blacklist?
You can choose to block any coins you want. If you run a bitcoin node, you can modify it to not relay coins on your blacklist. If you control a mining operation, you can choose to not allow coins on your blacklist into your mempool. In fact certain miners already do this for on-chain gambling sites (which sadly makes it easier to double-spend 0-confirm transactions).
But can anyone really stop coins from being spent? For example, if those 144,000 DPR coins were on your blacklist, would you consider taking them off your blacklist for 1 BTC? For 100 BTC? For 10,000 BTC?
I have a feeling that the people most likely to implement blacklists are probably also the people most likely to accept bribes to look the other way.
June 12, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
No problem. Just block all your stuff first so that we know you're serious.
June 12, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
edit:
is this doable from the miner side?
how can we tell our miners not to include specific transactions?
sort of like the reverse of a double spend hack?
is this doable from the miner side?
how can we tell our miners not to include specific transactions?
sort of like the reverse of a double spend hack?
June 12, 2014, 10:20:28 PM
everyone talks about consensus in the network and miners having power.
all of this is total BULLSHIT. no one has any control now.. nor any vote on what happens.
no one mines their own coin. we all mine pools and do what the pool operator wants.
in a perfect world i don't agree with blocking coins or any pool having more than 5% of the hash rate.
i would like people who do want coins blocked to have a vote.. which they don't. there seem to be A LOT of people who want particular coins/addresses blocked or we wouldn't keep having this discussion on thread after thread day in and out whenever something happens.
can the pool operators add a blacklist in their interface?
can each individual miner to decide who to blacklist?
if enough miners wanted to block with a major concensus by not including, or delay only slightly with a partial agreement, a transaction, then they could. VOTING.
if a pool started with this feature i think people would flock like geese to have a real vote.
"this post has been edited for smartness"
all of this is total BULLSHIT. no one has any control now.. nor any vote on what happens.
no one mines their own coin. we all mine pools and do what the pool operator wants.
in a perfect world i don't agree with blocking coins or any pool having more than 5% of the hash rate.
i would like people who do want coins blocked to have a vote.. which they don't. there seem to be A LOT of people who want particular coins/addresses blocked or we wouldn't keep having this discussion on thread after thread day in and out whenever something happens.
can the pool operators add a blacklist in their interface?
can each individual miner to decide who to blacklist?
if enough miners wanted to block with a major concensus by not including, or delay only slightly with a partial agreement, a transaction, then they could. VOTING.
if a pool started with this feature i think people would flock like geese to have a real vote.
"this post has been edited for smartness"
Jump to: