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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzVJk-00083r-4s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:24:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.181; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzVJi-00035H-Lr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:24:12 +0000 Received: by wibdq8 with SMTP id dq8so38741115wib.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:24:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.106.6 with SMTP id gq6mr24052853wib.39.1433186644648; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:24:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.136.196 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:23:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:23:43 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044519a5d9e9ff051779c4ed X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (btcdrak[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YzVJi-00035H-Lr 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 19:24:12 -0000 --f46d044519a5d9e9ff051779c4ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did wonder what the post actually meant, I recommend appending /s after sarcasm so it's clear. Lots gets lost in text. But I agree with you btw his response was not particularly tactful. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote= : > 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 belie= ve > particular participants should be excluded. > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, 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, b= ut >> don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're goin= g >> to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why wo= uld >> 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, 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 >> firewall *TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted >> then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> >> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever >> regardless of their internet situation, 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, too bad, 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 s= o. >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --f46d044519a5d9e9ff051779c4ed Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I did wonder = what the post actually meant, I recommend appending /s after sarcasm so it&= #39;s clear. Lots gets lost in text. But I agree with you btw his response = was not particularly tactful.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Warren Togami = Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wrote:
By reversing Mike's language to the reality of th= e situation I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and inse= nsitive his statement was.=C2=A0 I am sorry to those in the community if th= ey misunderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm wher= e I do not seriously believe particular participants should be excluded.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook.com= > wrote:
Doesn't me= an you should build something that says "fuck you" to the compani= es that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they can= 9;t mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisatio= n, but don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you&#= 39;re going to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing p= ower, why would you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoi= n out of adopters wallets? Same thing.
From: Warren Togami Jr.
Sent: =E2=80= =8E1/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 10:30 PM
Cc: Bi= tcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [B= itcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whils= t it would be nice if miners in outside China can carry on forever regardless of= their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to min= e if they can't do the job - if miners in=C2=A0outside China can't get the trivial amo= unts of bandwidth required through their firewall TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE<= /b> and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry = on without them.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--f46d044519a5d9e9ff051779c4ed--