Defending the Indefensible: Censoring Miners

What do prostitutes, blackmailers, slumlords and Bitcoin miners who censor their transactions have in common? What if we told you that they are the heroes of the modern free market economy, courageously providing economic services in the face of universal contempt and lawlessness? These individuals are undoubtedly heroes shaped by unfair treatment by society and state institutions. If you don’t like the idea of ​​them being heroes, the only way to strip them of their status is to remove the shackles placed on them by the wrong people. This villain’s gallery of victims deserves our defense.

Defending the Undefendable is a 1976 book by Walter Block, a famous Austrian School economist and theorist of anarcho-capitalism. Defending the Indefensible challenges traditional perceptions of morality and economics by examining controversial figures who are often condemned by society. The core of the book explores the realms of liberalism and economic theory, using provocative examples such as prostitutes, blackmailers, and slums to illustrate basic principles.

Portraying prostitutes as archetypes of individual autonomy emphasizes the bloc’s position in favor of voluntary transactions in a free market. Despite social criticism, Block argues that consensual transactions between sex workers and clients are mutual agreements that should be protected, not banned. It emphasizes the concept of self-ownership and the right to engage in activities that do not infringe on the rights of others.

Likewise, blackmailers, often accused of being cunning extortionists, serve as examples that challenge preconceptions. Block argues that threatening to disclose embarrassing or damaging information, while morally questionable, is not inherently criminal. Instead, it amounts to freedom of expression and can be seen as a form of negotiation. Block emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between ethical concerns and legal prohibitions, advocating a principle of non-aggression that does not involve force or coercion.

The appearance of slums, which are generally depicted as callous and exploitative, is another thought-provoking example. Block argues that slums in slums provide housing options for individuals with limited resources. Their often misunderstood role is to meet market needs by providing affordable housing despite less-than-ideal conditions. Block emphasizes the importance of market dynamics and the role of competition in driving improvements in living standards over time.

These controversial cases included in “Defending the Indefensible” serve as a catalyst for debate about individual liberty, property rights, and the consequences of government intervention. Block challenges readers to reevaluate their views on morality, economics, and the role of authority in regulating individual choice. Ultimately, the book emphasizes the value of individual freedom and the unintended consequences of well-intentioned but restrictive policies.

If the block were Bitcoin users, I think it would be appropriate to include Bitcoin miners who censor transactions on the list of controversial economic heroes. The recent launch of Ocean’s mining pool sparked a lot of backlash within the Bitcoin community due to its decision to filter inscription transactions from block templates. Critics argue that supporting such actions undermines Bitcoin’s core attribute of censorship resistance, potentially jeopardizing its fundamental essence. This callous response may seem reasonable at face value, but further investigation will reveal that Block must defend this type of market behavior in the same light he did against prostitutes, blackmailers, and ghettos. Regardless of your position on the inscription, whether they are Bitcoin’s saviors or destroyers, in a market economy this type of voluntary action performs an important function in accurately expressing and coordinating market behavior.

This issue is fundamentally a question of property rights, particularly the property rights of the individuals who compose the block template. While many people structure blocks purely based on financial gain, with the goal of maximizing fees, it is important to note that there are more motivations than this. Moreover, this approach does not have a mandatory consensus requirement within the protocol. Individuals can form blocks based on the expected social or psychological benefits of their decisions. For example, with regard to the inscription, steps can be taken to exclude it from Bitcoin and censor its transactions in the block template. If enough markets agree, it can be effectively disabled. In a broader sense, someone could be benevolent by helping financially disadvantaged individuals confirm their transactions on the base layer chain by creating a block template that prioritizes low-fee transactions.

By respecting the property rights of individual building block templates, we allow free market mechanisms to appropriately and effectively coordinate the economic decisions of network participants. Profit-seeking dictates the decisions of the creators of these block templates, signaling that they are in sync with the preferences of network participants. As block template creators adjust their actions to market sentiment, you will see the hash rate rise. This increase increases the probability of finding valid blocks more frequently, increasing potential profits. Conversely, if the behavior of block template creators diverges from market sentiment, hash rates may decline, leading to reduced profitability and potential financial instability, ultimately leading to bankruptcy.

Opposition to the free market approach includes interventionism. In other words, you are pressuring the block template creator to form the block against his or her will. To advocate such coercion is to establish a dangerous norm. By restricting individuals from freely composing blocks, we not only violate their core property rights and autonomy, but also introduce a market mechanism that states can exploit, potentially enabling attacks on the integrity of the Bitcoin network. This not only violates individual freedoms, but also creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited to undermine the very foundation of Bitcoin’s decentralized and censorship-resistant ethos.

The Bitcoin network operates with incredible sophistication through special alignment of economic incentives. Unparalleled resilience to censorship is not enforced top-down through instructions to block producers. Rather, it thrives on the incredible freedom of market forces. The beauty lies in the amazing abilities of individuals. When exclusions occur in a transaction, simply adjusting the commission rate has incredible power. This miraculous action immediately stimulated other miners to prioritize their transactions, providing an incredible demonstration of the adaptability of the network and the incredible potential of free market mechanisms. This is an unparalleled display of how the Bitcoin ecosystem uniquely empowers participants while leveraging the incredible dynamics of the free market to ensure transactions reach the base layer chain.

In conclusion, “Defending the Indefensible” challenges societal norms and perceptions by showing how individuals often condemned by society play an important role within a free market economy. Walter Block’s provocative examples of prostitutes, blackmailers, and slums serve as a catalyst for discussions about individual freedom, property rights, and the consequences of government intervention.

Extending this framework to the realm of Bitcoin mining, the controversial issue of miners censoring transactions reflects the bloc’s insistence on individual autonomy and property rights. The debate surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of specific transactions within a block template highlights the complex balance between individual freedom and decentralized network functionality.

Respecting the property rights of those who make up the block template is essential to allow free market mechanisms to coordinate the economic decisions of network participants. Making a network more resilient to censorship is aligning individual behavior with market sentiment. Coercion or interventionism in dictating block creation not only violates core property rights, but also jeopardizes the very essence of Bitcoin’s decentralization and censorship resistance.

The Bitcoin network’s extraordinary adaptability and ability to prioritize transactions within a free market framework highlight its unique strengths. This system uniquely empowers participants to explore and influence network functions, demonstrating the incredible potential of free market dynamics to ensure that transactions reach the base layer chain. Ultimately, whether you’re defending a controversial figure or investigating the complexities of the Bitcoin network, the core principles remain the same. namely, the value of individual freedom, respect for property rights, and the incredible efficiency of free market mechanisms in coordinating complex systems.

This is a guest post by Michael Matulef. The opinions expressed are solely personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.