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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzXyA-0006fW-FN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:14:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=pindar.wong@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzXy8-0004Ua-S0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:14:06 +0000 Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so125901010wgb.3 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:13:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.89.234 with SMTP id br10mr24805346wib.86.1433196838834; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.156.226 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:13:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:13:58 +0800 Message-ID: From: Pindar Wong To: Thy Shizzle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba2d578d9ba05177c2443 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (pindar.wong[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: 1YzXy8-0004Ua-S0 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 22:14:06 -0000 --e89a8f3ba2d578d9ba05177c2443 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It would be helpful to hear from the other miners, and perhaps arrange some testing and telemetry in China with 8 ... that's even a Chinese lucky number ;) p. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Thy Shizzle wrote: > Ah sorry, I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let > 'em burn. > > If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said > stuff you, I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now, if > they truly have >50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they > can build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of > the network doing big blocks. They don't even have to propagate this chai= n > to you in a hurry right? And then they never have to receive a 20mb block > from you because they have a longer chain without 20mb blocks and always > ahead of your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is > Authority so let you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you crea= te > etc. then whamo along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just > coinbase only blocks which invalidates all your previous transactions and > gives them all the coinbase they stamped, while invalidating yours. > > But who cares about them right :p > ------------------------------ > From: Warren Togami Jr. > Sent: =E2=80=8E2/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 4:19 AM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements > > 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, bu= t > don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going > to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why wou= ld > 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 firewal= l *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" t= o > 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 > > --e89a8f3ba2d578d9ba05177c2443 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It would be helpful to hear from the other miner= s, and perhaps arrange some testing and telemetry in China with 8 ...=C2=A0= that's even a Chinese lucky number ;)

p.


On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Thy Shizzle &l= t;thyshizzle@ou= tlook.com> wrote:
Ah sorry, I ju= st thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let 'em burn.<= br>
If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said stu= ff you, I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now, if th= ey truly have >50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they c= an build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of the network doing big blocks. They don'= ;t even have to propagate this chain to you in a hurry right? And then they= never have to receive a 20mb block from you because they have a longer cha= in without 20mb blocks and always ahead of your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is Authority so = let you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you create etc. then wh= amo along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just coinbase only = blocks which invalidates all your previous transactions and gives them all the coinbase they stamped, while = invalidating yours.

But who cares about them right :p
From: Warren Togami Jr.
Sent: =E2=80= =8E2/=E2=80=8E06/=E2=80=8E2015 4:19 AM
Cc: Bi= tcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [B= itcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the sit= uation I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensiti= ve his statement was.=C2=A0 I am sorry to those in the community if they mi= sunderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe particular participan= ts 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

<mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regard= less 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 th= e 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-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--e89a8f3ba2d578d9ba05177c2443--