Post 9l3kU2Z35eIIbX4FnM by waxwing@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by waxwing@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #9l3kU1bUf4ehcpCgy0 by waxwing@mastodon.social
       2019-07-19T21:25:02Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       A somewhat interesting thread on the question "are miners intermediaries?" (put aside that Walch has been catastrophically wrong on the topic of BTC; the question itself is interesting).https://twitter.com/angela_walch/status/1152054148071866368I think it's easy to cut the Gordian knot here if you understand the cornerstone of Bitcoin:*there are, ultimately, no entities called "miners" in the protocol - state updates are signed by work, not by people or keys that they own*.
       
 (DIR) Post #9l3kU1w3Qd6Oeap70y by laurentmt@mamot.fr
       2019-07-19T23:09:31Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @waxwing well, this work is produced by machines which are operated/controlled by human entities. It seems difficult to deny this point.
       
 (DIR) Post #9l3kU2GyArpfhSbocC by laurentmt@mamot.fr
       2019-07-19T23:35:52Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @waxwing My answer to her question was that miners can't be considered intermediarires between the payer and the payee.One may argue that miners stand between the payer and the blockchain but the blickchain isn't an entity. Thus, a term like producers seems more adequate than middlemen.
       
 (DIR) Post #9l3kU2Z35eIIbX4FnM by waxwing@mastodon.social
       2019-07-20T14:14:16Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @laurentmt For sure, your answer is the more normal one.I still think my answer is better.Imo a big part of the confusion of the block size debate came out of thinking miners have identities, they don't.(I do accept that the centralization problem was very real, and that represented a kind of breakdown of bitcoin's model).Apologies if I'm stating the obvious :)