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 14D1015ED for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 06:13:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BFC17B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 06:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:13:24 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <560A2BFE.3080104@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:13:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin mining idea X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 06:13:32 -0000 > This is quite off topic, I see a number of people claiming they know what should be posted to this list but those claims appear to be without merit. The list states the subject is "Development discussion list for Bitcoin protocol and its implementation." That is a pretty broad description that appears to encompass a number of topics that are claimed to be "off-topic" by people who seem to be making up their own rules. One guy even contacts people and threatens to have the list moderated if you don't follow his rules even though it appears he has no such authority and there are no official rules he can reference. Maybe there should be a more precise description if the discussion is to be limited in some way beyond the "official" description. Russ