wouldn’t a mining pool filtering out inscription txs just increase the fees that the non-censoring pools will collect?
thereby rewarding the “pro-inscriber” pools via ideological protest?
can a new pool afford to forgo all those high fees?
Discussion
Yep. Censoooors will push fees to other pools that will collect more fees. Doesn't matter if it's inscriptions or Fincen transactions, censoring game theory works the same.
$boost
Interesting, this may #incentivize the Virtuous! true #Bitcoin #loyalist to join the #pool and drive the others into the ground..💀😩🧡😊
"That which you abuse, you lose"..😆
I gotta say, Luke and Ocean are very controversial to me. On one hand I believe he is genuinely doing what he thinks is best for the protocol. I commend that. On the other hand, he's positioned himself to be the arbiter of what constitutes a "legitimate" transaction. That's not for any one person to decide. No one made you the arbiter of truth.
That and Ocean is a wonderful concept shrouded in marketing to Beetcoiners for what Luke thinks. Not what the market thinks. There is no miner centralization problem and there are plenty of pools that don't KYC. IMHO at least. Ocean just had clever marketing. Mining is big business.
Mr "I was hacked and lost my coins"
I don't buy it.
Still mining with ocean ATM because I don't care what the politics are. I'm a rational market actor that will pursue the most sats for my hash. I don't care which pool provides it.
Although a day after Ocean Launch Braiins send me a notification that they're changing payout methodologies. i think I'll spin up another miner and do both to see who yields the best results.
And if he really thinks ocean is what's best for Bitcoin, why is it closed source?