pull down to refresh
13 sats \ 3 replies \ @CruncherDefi 14 Jul \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Mechanic on Pretend Meritocracy in Bitcoin bitcoin
Which is not bad by itself. Centralized censorship is bad. But if every participant in a distributed system consensually agrees to apply some censorship it just becomes new part of a protocol.
Bad or not is irrelevant. The point is that censorship will not work.
reply
The point is that censorship will not work.
Well, if you treat it as a binary outcome then it is technically correct. But I don't think the filter-advocates are thinking in that terms (And tbh imho its just not a good way to think about it). It's more of spectrum thing.
For example If 30% of miners deem some transactions of type X unwanted and they don't include those in the blocks, the X transaction will have 30% less of blockspace to compete over. And it will cause them to pay larger fees thus decreasing amount of X transactions.
reply
Censorship didn't work for full-rbf. Once a non-trivial amount of money was available by mining full-rbf txs, just a few thousand a block, every pool quickly followed and turned full-rbf on.
reply