Replying to Avatar Kevin's Bacon

Yes I know. It would be nice to enforce a bitcoin burn so to compensate noderunners, barring some unforeseen deleterious consequences to that, because this burn would be a form of compensation to noderunners who own bitcoin.

But at least this action is making them pay incrementally more of the hardest asset for the privilege of storing unwanted data on the noderunners computer, which does give them less of a say in the network, even if it merely subsidizes miners. Would miners be able to co-opt the network and encourage more spam? Would they want to?
Avatar
Kevin's Bacon 8mo ago

In addition to this, noderunners in the future (and some now) will likely be running Bitcoin heaters (free bitcoin mining from the perspective of you were gonna run a heat producing device anyway), and thereby this subsidy goes partly back to them. Using voluntary choice we can solve this problem with at least a partial, imperfect fix.

What I'm worried about is the question I posed: what are the incentives of miners, what would my solution do to them many steps into the future, how do we keep them incentivized to not spam the chain with things we don't want?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion