More, the non-KYC miners will face legal challenges
Not at 50%, but a 10% KYC miner will have legal redress against other nodes who orphan their blocks.
I really don’t think people are thought this through. A miner with 10% of the total hash rate manages to set up a node and then starts filtering addresses that are under a KYC/AML ban and then other miners decide to orphan blocks that this miner is now creating.
Think about the outcome here. The argument is that you should be able to enable and facilitate crime without consequence. The node who is following the law will be the one that the court supports. So, if the node decides to take action for all of the lost blocks, not only will they gain compensation for any block that is orphaned but also the cost of taking and executing the enforcement action.
Think about the rational outcome to such a strategy. A miner who does not follow AML will end up with court orders against them and eventually have their assets seized. For every block that they allow, they create a competitive advantage that will help grow the smaller miners who are compliant.
The node operators will think about this. A node with 10% of the hash rate could end up capturing up to 25 to 30% of the total returns. Not by blocks but by recovery and this will lead to an economic incentivization others to do the same strategy. The rational choice is to follow this action.
Once a miner starts such a strategy, even a 2 to 3% total percentage of the network starts to become more profitable. By more profitable I mean 50 to 60% more profitable than other miners in the industry.
Think what that means.
CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2442
Not at 50%, but a 10% KYC miner will have legal redress against other nodes who orphan their blocks.
I really don’t think people are thought this through. A miner with 10% of the total hash rate manages to set up a node and then starts filtering addresses that are under a KYC/AML ban and then other miners decide to orphan blocks that this miner is now creating.
Think about the outcome here. The argument is that you should be able to enable and facilitate crime without consequence. The node who is following the law will be the one that the court supports. So, if the node decides to take action for all of the lost blocks, not only will they gain compensation for any block that is orphaned but also the cost of taking and executing the enforcement action.
Think about the rational outcome to such a strategy. A miner who does not follow AML will end up with court orders against them and eventually have their assets seized. For every block that they allow, they create a competitive advantage that will help grow the smaller miners who are compliant.
The node operators will think about this. A node with 10% of the hash rate could end up capturing up to 25 to 30% of the total returns. Not by blocks but by recovery and this will lead to an economic incentivization others to do the same strategy. The rational choice is to follow this action.
Once a miner starts such a strategy, even a 2 to 3% total percentage of the network starts to become more profitable. By more profitable I mean 50 to 60% more profitable than other miners in the industry.
Think what that means.
CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2442
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment