Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev schreef op zo 29-01-2017 om 11:37 [-0800]: > > On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > >> On 1/28/2017 10:29 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> a world of nodes in large datacenters is a world where it's very easy > >> to force the few Bitcoin nodes remaining to follow AML/KYC rules > > > > If that's true, why haven't we already seen AML/KYC required of mining > > pools? That would be comparatively trivial. > > It is true, there is no question. The fact that an attack does not appear to have occurred does not mean that the vulnerability exists. It is as you say a trivial exploit, which means it will happen when the economic incentive is great enough. Analogous attacks on other points of centralization are already well underway. What on first sight seems trivial may be totally different when looking deeper. People here seem to not realise that a lot of data centers (the IAAS ones) just are just grouping the computers and provide remote access. The client have full control over the machines. The center thus just provides the hardware, the power and the internet access. They typically don't inspect your internet traffic only reduce the speed if you are going above certain threshold. Additionally there are countries like Iceland that specifically make laws to not let the government get power over data and network traffic in data centers. Domestic ISP services typically want to prioritize traffic and thus have most of the time network traffic deep packet inspection (DPI) capabilities. These are thus much easier forced by government to filter certain traffic. Additionally these companies often fall under telecommunication laws also given government more control over them than in a typical data center. I host my Bitcoin node in a German datacenter and am sure it is more censorship resistant that a node going through any American ISP. greets, Staf.