> There is no way that every transaction signer whose transaction is added to a block should be considered a client of the miner of that block.
This does not seem obvious to me; even if "client" is too strong a word, the transaction signer and miner have some social contract that's very similar to more traditional fiduciary duty, even if the technical details and enforcement mechanisms are totally different.
It is so curious that you use the term “fiduciary duty” to describe the relationship between a miner and the signers of the transactions it includes in its mined blocks.
The primary rationale of fiduciary duty is trust. In contrast, the whole reason that miners even exist is so that the service they provide can be performed in an entirely antagonistic environment, without trust.
I suppose it can be said that a miner’s “social contract is very similar to more traditional fiduciary duty”, but only in the sense that a thing is somehow conceptually related to the exact opposite of that thing.
This does not seem obvious to me; even if "client" is too strong a word, the transaction signer and miner have some social contract that's very similar to more traditional fiduciary duty, even if the technical details and enforcement mechanisms are totally different.