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 32F5F25A for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9AB18F for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o133so92779421vka.0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=eeGSnz887bRiYaP2jnA4HoprsuxbW+oonMtCuasKvT0=; b=PGuv56OnMV+xmCBIHDK3jQprqUpR58q2RGPEd1Yu4RujaR3uZRmBuQ6tc+C8GeT3h6 SEvNLx/hV8G67zd4qOSf7hivr1umAO/1KM0l9siDip31EMqb/PlFSEpvBIYXTq3tVVJg 9AcgDTlH3AUOI1T1PhFAUIhQDqRHf7QCuytW/ZQ8DUdW5k27CHvzWM2JS+pthVIO+mL+ P1rkIegS5qW4vzu4vTCSWMqA9kPlyR0rqBlcidvYTkV94yExEbnpeJpL364i4yVGDzLH IGbF1h/MZvDSDNUZn8OiksdBS3x+kcpCG1520YFPQef/rYeDzEu/SLO2XFGHA+RfQQ2w LHPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=eeGSnz887bRiYaP2jnA4HoprsuxbW+oonMtCuasKvT0=; b=YinImleOQCfYQWkSZ2FsAF0YiJktpAnBGUPXeYFlAQJScpxCHfW9DMC4Bav+TipxqZ gX/u2y1VFUXeBCfIKjLO0f46zyeXEohJjD+FSelwtJHOsbzvSNau0p9l3fQ56vNRXfsE zdrpZLBXHd39p6rH3Y3mNmwqUCvwzmOCoWV4JpPqTGRNX418ybjfuSZcR9FItMIoT9Qz AbKSFh815alOUQx3ulzznkJIVQ3FM5wwmlhba96FLVj0fLvT1MQWz0FGZIGGkN7Lfdrt HE0SKFiq9rqlu9LLN3Fvhdy2yT5IadPlazO/p0dEUdmdkJozepxOzptB9AZx+F1bcUik qdkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUIE1CT9QqGpH9zkYCdpuXtH3pCofYVU6njF6kC9V+cSksI1S0YbuWwf2ur1kXfGPU/4jHGW+ISLuYTgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.16.210 with SMTP id 79mr4267078vkq.63.1463051151782; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> <20160511103601.GC2439@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:05:51 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Timo Hanke , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 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 11:05:53 -0000 --001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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). You are wrong. Whether 2 chains survive in parallel or not depends SOLELY in whether both chains maintain demand (aka users). Anyway, this is a discussion I had with Gavin and Rusty on bitcoin-discuss already. I suggest we move this particular point there since it is more philosophical than technical. --001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org> wrote:
> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will ine= vitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware exi= sts 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 e= xistence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even more= likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed).

You are wrong. Whether 2 chains survive in parallel or not d= epends SOLELY in whether both chains maintain demand (aka users).
Anyway, this is a discussion I had with Gavin and Rusty on bitcoin-discuss = already. I suggest we move this particular point there since it is more phi= losophical than technical.

--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407--