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 1Wd1QE-0002z3-DG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:57:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd1QD-0006qI-IG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:57:26 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i4so1420795oah.1 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:57:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.76.194 with SMTP id m2mr14074198oew.47.1398275840236; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:57:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5357FD32.40200@gmail.com> References: <5357D394.7010908@gmail.com> <5357F634.2070300@gmail.com> <5357FD32.40200@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:57:20 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8xjJVuboOKFy87y_u-neqsqokJs Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Justus Ranvier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33cea6c1b21704f7b97676 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: 1Wd1QD-0006qI-IG Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks 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, 23 Apr 2014 17:57:26 -0000 --047d7b33cea6c1b21704f7b97676 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Non-developers are more comfortable using social media tools. Blog > posts can be shared, Tweeted, and commented upon using nothing more > than a web browser. > I don't think Twitter is an appropriate medium for discussing the details of byzantine consensus algorithms. I'm not going to bother arguing in replies to a blog post. Suffice it to say, miners are already handsomely compensated via both inflation and fees for doing their job of preventing double spends. Your suggestion is people should pay them EVEN MORE for simply not being corrupt. My proposal is simpler - how about we find the ones that are claiming people's money via coinbases yet not doing their jobs correctly, and take the money back (or destroy it). I think I prefer that one. Miners that are maliciously double spending cannot justify their existence, they offer no useful service and do not deserve compensation as a result. --047d7b33cea6c1b21704f7b97676 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Non-developers are more comforta= ble using social media tools. Blog
posts can be shared, Tweeted, and commented upon using nothing more
than a web browser.

I don't think T= witter is an appropriate medium for discussing the details of byzantine con= sensus algorithms.

I'm not going to bother arg= uing in replies to a blog post. Suffice it to say, miners are already hands= omely compensated via both inflation and fees for doing their job of preven= ting double spends. Your suggestion is people should pay them EVEN MORE for= simply not being corrupt. My proposal is simpler - how about we find the o= nes that are claiming people's money via coinbases yet not doing their = jobs correctly, and take the money back (or destroy it). I think I prefer t= hat one. Miners that are maliciously double spending cannot justify their e= xistence, they offer no useful service and do not deserve compensation as a= result.
--047d7b33cea6c1b21704f7b97676--