pull down to refresh

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 23 Oct \ parent \ on: "Quasi-consensus": help me understand this conversation with Chris Guida bitcoin
if your transaction conforms to the policies of miners
yes! but this is the same as saying "if your transaction is a transaction a miner wants to mine", the mempool policy part is unimportant.
And this was the point I was trying to get to: in the case where many or almost half of all miners don't like your transaction, Bitcoin is designed to incentivize new miners to enter the game or current miners to change their mind. That's what's so great about it!
The censorship resistance comes from how difficult it is to block the path to miners and from having free entry into mining.
I believe my position is that only the latter matters. Free entry into mining is the important part.
Mempool policies really have very little to do with it. Due to the nature of electronic communication, it's pretty easy to get to a miner who is interested in mining your transaction (although how might look very different from a relay network run y nodes).
write
preview
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Oct
If it were easy to block someone's path to a miner, you wouldn't consider that a censorship issue?
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 23 Oct
I don't think it is possible to make it difficult.
If it was, then this would be a major vulnerability to bitcoin, and many of our previous assumptions about its usefulness would be in serious trouble.
see your point: #1263232
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Oct
We're saying the same thing.
I'm just pointing out that in the abstract this property matters for censorship resistance and you're saying that we have this property, which I'm not questioning.
reply