Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 23, 2014, 07:28:17 PM

Quote from: bitexch on March 23, 2014, 07:14:08 PM

1. What do you have to say to Peter's criticism of your proposal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5853114#msg5853114?

He knows what he's saying here is wrong.
Satoshi himself added the IsStandard restriction concept.

Actually that's incorrect, Gavin Andresen did in commit a206a23980c15cacf39d267c509bd70c23c94bfa

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 23, 2014, 07:28:17 PM

I have long since been opposed to using such restrictions when unnecessary: notice how Eligius is the only pool which allows non-standard transactions, and it has allowed them since nearly when I started it.
The problem here, why whitelisting is needed for mining on Eligius, is because of Counterparty's unique position (I am ignoring Mastercoin in this thread) where it is currently indistinguishable from spam, which needs to be blacklisted due to abuse.
Every other miner and relay node would require whitelisting no matter how it's done (other than abusing multisig, which will soon not work either).

I think this really says it all: You view of Bitcoin is one where you expect miners to heavily police "abuse" of it according to a politically-determined view of what Bitcoin is for. I don't agree, and I don't think the people here agree either.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 23, 2014, 07:28:17 PM

It is true that forcing miners to provide you with security will result in better security than giving them a choice, because it is inevitable that some miners will opt not to provide the service.
And yes, it is also true that blockchain-based decentralised systems are always at risk of 51% attacks by design.
However, it is pure FUD to try to scare everyone away from doing the right thing by implying it is a given they will be attacked.
If you're providing a service with your altchain, it's in miners' interest to support you, not attack you, unless you are doing something harmful.
Sure, there will perhaps always be exceptions, but as long as you have a majority of miners assisting you, you'll be fine.
This is also part of why Eligius goes out of the way to support legitimate altchains which support merged mining, even if they aren't necessarily useful to the pool (for example, we helped ChronoKings/HunterCoin test their blockchain-based game).

And again, you're advice to Counterparty is basically "play our political game and if you're nice and we like you you won't get killed off by the powerful centralized miners". This game is one where about a half dozen people decide what is or is not "harmful" and chose winners and losers based on their views of what is or is not good technology.

Hey, it's your pool, you do what you want. But it only makes sense for Counterparty and other systems like it to do what they can to avoid blacklists through technological means. Fortunately for us these technological means are available, much like how Tor has all sorts of tricks up it's sleeve to bypass censorship and get data flowing over ISP's networks against their consent. Yes, Tor is forcing those ISP's to provide a service they don't want to, and just as equally Counterparty can force miners to mine transactions they didn't want to. If you don't like that, tough.