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 D079C8C7 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:28:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF5A1C4 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lady2 with SMTP id y2so3331720lad.0 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:28:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=QtP8eewUs9YOcDMjeH3YQ5XT/j9fG9HU3doqUqebnFo=; b=zbfmFceGp+wEptJewWoBzyg2RikuL/n/W3l5K04cNvc06fYQdEcU0hlFs7BDcofXfF /Wwu35HqisrrJx1o+TxZsQ6khPl1MboATr+KUcedCLDzdkg16B+NZ7kqRB2AnFQWIRf4 rfBfxtFFVyCZ99/AoZP6qm79I0ySWOOqoDAfdd+qttc0OlISoqd1PiYNnwLyjzoUnMAs 6WhNFxF5A8p+MLUudrTmC3FQW7xMQdZxjM4dEq2VQdBn6yjW8aDtHieRKuln0GvWstJY WgEjT1ozzNSxWvMggcyMJBcWYIsGywzPgsDlH/tBybXKiNixNH4o0NfswCKyiVRUtEDz DiFg== X-Received: by 10.152.182.194 with SMTP id eg2mr3430484lac.71.1438694934249; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:28:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Hector Chu Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:28:34 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113491f27f072a051c7c44a8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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, 04 Aug 2015 13:28:57 -0000 --001a113491f27f072a051c7c44a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > 2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization: > the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus > rule to limit mining centralization. > Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it necessarily true. A block size limit won't prevent miners in the future from buying each other out. --001a113491f27f072a051c7c44a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 4= August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wr= ote:
2) It doesn't matter who is to b= lame about the current centralization:
the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus
rule to limit mining centralization.

Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it nece= ssarily true. A block size limit won't prevent miners in the future fro= m buying each other out.=C2=A0
--001a113491f27f072a051c7c44a8--