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 C556516A0 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 23:19:27 +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 458FD1AA for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 23:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 19:19:23 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <201510022131.22411.luke@dashjr.org> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <560F10EF.8020906@bitcoins.info> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 19:19:11 -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: <201510022131.22411.luke@dashjr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm 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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 23:19:27 -0000 > Restarting the mining with a new algorithm as a reaction and defence against > centralised hoarding of mining ASICs (as we are seeing now), would be > acceptable. It would not necessarily be contentions *to the economy*, as such > hoarding-miners do not participate in the economy in any meaningful way (they > do not accept payments from other bitcoin users). > > Luke I don't see any basis for these claims. Under this theory developers also do not "participate in the economy" either. These are questions for economists and not developers. Maybe "we" could change the language of Core to prevent the centralization of developers? Maybe switch over to FORTRAN? lol Russ