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 44B52902 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 00:28:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f171.google.com (mail-yw0-f171.google.com [209.85.161.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E765C14C for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 00:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r204so399525629ywb.0 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:28:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+p4jpI01vG8s2HirybUR5qsCLdGhVPrHXQY/adm19LU=; b=RfSGSZk5pHUKAdqoRwuuWKH2V+g7/FY5wWmOZuQ3ajexuq4yLufkzjAwtHq0pB9SoU T6aUoBasSxm1IsmL2oV7jApD3Jd+ceX5BoACNjQXgvTtAmG1cmVza8QdWjSXQOdG7slH QFFJymfjU8/kEkoVPU+k5AIKXaFUjQnotS+27nnJQzGzemsb8XqcPW9hzR8SHTJ4MIDz ZvV8UO5WvxhzJToV0dJ/oP/PQML8Djn+MGkHbZDw6byUbYHM3PozVP7q9BYjO2k3A3LL qoH1CogGSk36fk40wbHdJ/z/yim1hxe1+jrcyZy54TWxUg5/ZBJxW4x+urPiFFYA3Zi7 Q+3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+p4jpI01vG8s2HirybUR5qsCLdGhVPrHXQY/adm19LU=; b=aMRGD8RoKXv+fH6UIFOOV8dl3l5rTWEdsR2orxn7DZeS0Gwx7lrD/wkOm1SmwFkM3o CIcywHienfV4/6a0q+eu4kGlJ53G8F1sJU5mzES8uSmrqhGIRJ5cI9c9Gc4gFYNA1R3B wnVFbfTWnbR1md3jgObJkCJL2FsB0u3ylQ2nhARvuytP/r8vXTglKbIvdgA7oNxBSAx1 y4Ykmf6uNXc7uCPMnyBZGsmdckuRcpCHwJHcJtv5ZV13EsiQSOSGATv398UeV1wkgN8S BShGvdG9neEQfy0prOvL/So0/4+kgHS7GMkWGbQsMc7vdu3Fl5Kk5dAHbIzTuZxzPgz7 wB0w== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLLoRuRc7Vqa8DzyPLS84GOyEZnrVi044T1N5rQLGvKm/JO9XTP5BcbrbH7Bdoy2a+Yv/s+Zz5BAyAo2A== X-Received: by 10.129.173.93 with SMTP id l29mr78324150ywk.351.1483835315217; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:28:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.109.138 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:28:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7169224.bI6Cz5OEL8@cherry> From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:28:34 -0800 Message-ID: To: Eric Voskuil , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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 Classic 1.2.0 released 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: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 00:28:36 -0000 --f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Can you guys please take this discussion elsewhere? Perhaps to bitcoin-discuss? This is not the place to rehash discussions that have taken place a million times already. The behavior of the network under contentious hard forks has been discussed ad nauseum. This mailing list is for the discussion of new ideas and proposals. Much appreciated. Thanks. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 01/07/2017 03:10 PM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Still wondering why you guys don't care about the ridiculous number of > > full nodes, no incentive to run one and what would happen if someone > > were to control a majority of full nodes > > The level of control over a majority of full nodes is irrelevant. If > this was truly a measure of control over Bitcoin someone would simply > spin up a bunch of nodes and take control at trivial cost. > > e > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can you guys please take this discussion elsewhere? Perhap= s to bitcoin-discuss? This is not the place to rehash discussions that have= taken place a million times already. The behavior of the network under con= tentious hard forks has been discussed ad nauseum. This mailing list is for= the discussion of new ideas and proposals.

Much appreci= ated. Thanks.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=
On 01/07/2017 03:10 PM,= Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Still wondering why you guys don't care about the ridiculous numbe= r of
> full nodes, no incentive to run one and what would happen if someone > were to control a majority of full nodes

The level of control over a majority of full nodes is irrelevant. If=
this was truly a measure of control over Bitcoin someone would simply
spin up a bunch of nodes and take control at trivial cost.

e


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0--