From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzXKh-00036y-W6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:33:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of outlook.com designates 65.54.190.211 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.54.190.211; envelope-from=thyshizzle@outlook.com; helo=BAY004-OMC4S9.hotmail.com; Received: from bay004-omc4s9.hotmail.com ([65.54.190.211]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzXKg-0007I2-Gi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:33:19 +0000 Received: from BAY403-EAS416 ([65.54.190.199]) by BAY004-OMC4S9.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:33:12 -0700 X-TMN: [Bc+M449l5MW82YD54irH7I0XZG5vP45x] X-Originating-Email: [thyshizzle@outlook.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_60d7cc6e-02cd-4743-b043-57ebd3b08e94_" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warren Togami Jr. From: Thy Shizzle Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:32:47 +1000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2015 21:33:12.0917 (UTC) FILETIME=[90154850:01D09CB2] X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (thyshizzle[at]outlook.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.54.190.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Headers-End: 1YzXKg-0007I2-Gi Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:33:20 -0000 --_60d7cc6e-02cd-4743-b043-57ebd3b08e94_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_9f28659d-6362-4430-9600-4edbf1913243_" --_9f28659d-6362-4430-9600-4edbf1913243_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Ah sorry=2C I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let 'e= m burn. If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said stu= ff you=2C I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now=2C if th= ey truly have >50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they can = build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of the n= etwork doing big blocks. They don't even have to propagate this chain to yo= u in a hurry right? And then they never have to receive a 20mb block from y= ou because they have a longer chain without 20mb blocks and always ahead of= your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is Authority so let= you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you create etc. then whamo= along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just coinbase only blo= cks which invalidates all your previous transactions and gives them all the= coinbase they stamped=2C while invalidating yours. But who cares about them right :p ________________________________ From: Warren Togami Jr. Sent: =E2=80=8E2/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 4:19 AM Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement was. I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe particular participants should be excluded. On Mon=2C Jun 1=2C 2015 at 3:06 AM=2C Thy Shizzle = wrote: > Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the > companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they > can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation=2C = but > don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going > to hurt them=2C esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power=2C why= would > you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of > adopters wallets? Same thing. > ------------------------------ > From: Warren Togami Jr. > Sent: =E2=80=8E1/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 10:30 PM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on > forever regardless of their internet situation=2C nobody has any inherent > "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China > can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewal= l *TO > THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK=2C too > bad=2C we'll have to carry on without them. > > > On Mon=2C Jun 1=2C 2015 at 12:13 AM=2C Mike Hearn wrote= : > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever > regardless of their internet situation=2C nobody has any inherent "right"= to > mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial > amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being > outcompeted then OK=2C too bad=2C we'll have to carry on without them. > > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node > on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so. > > --_9f28659d-6362-4430-9600-4edbf1913243_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Ah s= orry=2C I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let 'em bu= rn.

If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said stu= ff you=2C I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now=2C if th= ey truly have >=3B50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they= can build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of the network doing big blocks. They don't e= ven have to propagate this chain to you in a hurry right? And then they nev= er have to receive a 20mb block from you because they have a longer chain w= ithout 20mb blocks and always ahead of your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is Authority so = let you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you create etc. then wh= amo along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just coinbase only = blocks which invalidates all your previous transactions and gives them all the coinbase they stamped=2C whil= e invalidating yours.

But who cares about them right :p
From: Warren Togami Jr.
Sent: =E2=80=8E2/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 4:19 AM
Cc: Bitcoin D= ev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements=

By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situati= on I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive h= is statement was. =3B I am sorry to those in the community if they misu= nderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe particular participan= ts should be excluded.

On Mon=2C Jun 1=2C 2015 at 3:06 AM=2C Thy Shiz= zle <=3Bthyshizzl= e@outlook.com>=3B wrote:
Doesn't m= ean you should build something that says "=3Bfuck you"=3B to the co= mpanies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "=3BOh yea if they= can't mine it how we want stuff 'em"=3B is naive. I get decentralisati= on=2C but don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're go= ing to hurt them=2C esp. Miners that combined hold >=3B 50% hashing power= =2C why would you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin = out of adopters wallets? Same thing.
From: <= a href=3D"mailto:wtogami@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">Warren Togami Jr.=
Sent: = =E2=80=8E1/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 10:30 PM
Cc: <= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blan= k">Bitcoin Dev
Subject: R= e: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whilst it would be nice if miners in outside China can carry on forever regardless of= their internet situation=2C nobody has any inherent "=3Bright"=3B = to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in =3Boutside China can't get the trivial amoun= ts of bandwidth required through their firewall TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE<= /b> and end up being outcompeted then OK=2C too bad=2C we'll have to carry = on without them.

--_9f28659d-6362-4430-9600-4edbf1913243_-- --_60d7cc6e-02cd-4743-b043-57ebd3b08e94_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --_60d7cc6e-02cd-4743-b043-57ebd3b08e94_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --_60d7cc6e-02cd-4743-b043-57ebd3b08e94_--