"This is as it should be and this narrow control is the only thing standing
between us and
a Bitcoin fueled crime wave. "
it's kind of a ridiculous assumption that crime happens because people are
enabled to commit it. how can you just claim that it will even cause a 1%
increase in crime, do you only mean ransom and kidnap? i hardly think
someone doesn't commit a ransom crime solely because they are worried about
collecting the cash, most people don't commit big crimes like that because
along the whole process and for their whole future it is dangerous? and
what about all the crimes it could prevent, maybe if people can buy their
drugs online they don't have to get involved with dealers and drug related
crimes may decrease..


On 15 November 2013 20:57, Luke-Jr <luke@???> wrote:

> On Friday, November 15, 2013 8:43:12 PM Robert Williamson wrote:
> > Miners might not be enough though, miners only incentive is transaction
> > fees, they can include whatever they want and they prefer the highest
> > payer.
>
> No, miners incentive is also to increase the value of their mined coins.
> If Bitcoin is unusable, that value will drop quickly.
>
> > It might be better for nodes to drop all transactions which have outputs
> > going to addresses that are already known, similar to what they already
> do
> > with low tx fees.
>
> Actually, this patch will theoretically do that too, since it's affecting
> the
> mempool acceptance.
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>