"It is arguably difficult to conceptualise ‘rulebreaking’ within the context of cryptocurrencies. Functionally, double spending is not possible, as nodes within
the network will simply refuse to recognise such transactions."

eprints.lse.ac.uk/88095/1/Elliot…

This implies that double spending is the only way to "break the rules" of a crypto system.

I don't think that's right - I think that there is opportunity to manipulate the system (by miners) in transaction ordering, taking bribes, delaying particular transactions, etc.

So, the question is whether the system's 'rules' incorporate expectations that miners won't engage in these behaviors.

Maybe the expectation is that they will. If that's the case, then they aren't breaking any rules. #crypto

If they aren't breaking any internal rules by engaging in behavior like accepting bribes, delaying/ordering txns a particular way, then maybe no one in the system needs to be protected from this type of behavior.*

*Note that I think there are expectations by at least some participants in these systems that miners won't/shouldn't engage in these behaviors, but I'm suspending that belief for the moment.

The question becomes whether people outside of the system need to be protected in any way from these behaviors by miners.

I think there are strong public policy arguments that these behaviors by miners impact those outside the system, particularly when financial products are built that incorporate a crypto-token.

Thinking out loud here. :)