From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzOqM-0002Ej-FK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:29:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.169; envelope-from=wtogami@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzOqL-00018Z-Em for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:29:26 +0000 Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so45570604pdb.2 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.70.38.10 with SMTP id c10mr39904208pdk.72.1433161759779; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.93.72 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 02:29:19 -1000 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfe9b6e98f0c4051773f9d2 X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) 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 (wtogami[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header 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 2.7 MALFORMED_FREEMAIL Bad headers on message from free email service -0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YzOqL-00018Z-Em 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 12:29:26 -0000 --047d7bfe9b6e98f0c4051773f9d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 so. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --047d7bfe9b6e98f0c4051773f9d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Whilst it would be nice if miners in outside = China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody h= as any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if= miners in=C2=A0outside China can't get the tri= vial 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.
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Mon, Jun 1, 201= 5 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Whilst i= t would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their= internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if t= hey can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amo= unts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompe= ted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.

But I'm not su= re why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on a server in T= aiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

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

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


--047d7bfe9b6e98f0c4051773f9d2--