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 1YQb6q-0000Zp-OF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:30:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YQb6o-0003gC-US for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:30:36 +0000 Received: by wggy19 with SMTP id y19so3255851wgg.13 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:30:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.93.134 with SMTP id cu6mr5483529wjb.79.1424867428940; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:30:28 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:30:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:30:28 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: W7Nt6Gf0MXPFCbymLoPboST1C5Q Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Chris Page Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1YQb6o-0003gC-US Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request for comments on hybrid PoW/PoS enhancement for Bitcoin 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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:30:36 -0000 --047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Chris, Just FYI you may not have received much feedback on this because Gmail put it into the spam folder for some reason. So I'm guessing a lot of people didn't see it. My main feedback is - I do not really see how this is different from actual mining. Mining also incentives the running of full nodes, miners are rewarded via coinbases, etc. I'm missing a crisp description of why your scheme is better than this, in particular, taking into account the difficulty of distinguishing full node sybils of each other. --047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Chris,

Just FYI you may not have rec= eived much feedback on this because Gmail put it into the spam folder for s= ome reason. So I'm guessing a lot of people didn't see it.

My main feedback is - I do not really see how this is diff= erent from actual mining. Mining also incentives the running of full nodes,= miners are rewarded via coinbases, etc. I'm missing a crisp descriptio= n of why your scheme is better than this, in particular, taking into accoun= t the difficulty of distinguishing full node sybils of each other.
--047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e--