From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1F407D for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 07:29:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33ACDE4 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 07:29:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41B5820202; Thu, 12 May 2016 09:29:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Gregory Maxwell Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:29:13 +0100 Message-ID: <5366682.qrCZ1Gi3bP@garp> In-Reply-To: References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:50:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:29:19 -0000 On Wednesday 11 May 2016 22:58:48 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will > > inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware > > exists and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was > > only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork > > out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent > > existence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even > > more likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed). > > There are already many altcoins out there, we could not prevent that > even if we wanted to. New ones are created all the time. Comparing apples and oranges. Altcoins have their own genesis block, the example Timo was talking about was a fork in the Bitcoin blockchain. But its good to know you don't mind a fork in the Bitcoin chain, I'll remember that.