From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqP4N-0006S9-QD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 16:54:43 +0000 Received: from itsnt427.iowa.uiowa.edu ([128.255.6.109]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqP4L-00043h-Ej for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 16:54:43 +0000 Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (128.255.6.15) by email.uiowa.edu (128.255.6.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 7 May 2015 11:54:36 -0500 Received: by obcus9 with SMTP id us9so6597321obc.2 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.245.104 with SMTP id xn8mr2740578oec.51.1431017675662; Thu, 07 May 2015 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.190.70 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:54:35 -0500 Message-ID: From: John Bodeen To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134753639adf6051580c419" X-Originating-IP: [128.255.6.15] X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YqP4L-00043h-Ej Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase 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: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:54:43 -0000 --001a1134753639adf6051580c419 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" If the worry about raising the block size will increase centralization, could not one could imagine an application which rewarded decentralized storage of block data? It could even be build aside or on top of the existing bitcoin protocol. See the Permacoin paper by Andrew Miller: http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permacoin.pdf Regards --001a1134753639adf6051580c419 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If the worry about raising the block size will increase ce= ntralization, could not one could imagine an application which rewarded dec= entralized storage of block data? It could even be build aside or on top of= the existing bitcoin protocol.

See the Permacoin paper = by Andrew Miller:=C2=A0http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permacoin.pdf

Rega= rds
--001a1134753639adf6051580c419--