diff options
| author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2016-05-12 13:05:51 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2016-05-12 11:05:53 +0000 |
| commit | 4b2b8a1490b7a6ea42c3dc7a54034bd23ab5e82e (patch) | |
| tree | d4045f509e5d32244e38af252cfcf805bee1df76 | |
| parent | 9dd06adf77644eaec6d52e5191aac69d05699bcd (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-4b2b8a1490b7a6ea42c3dc7a54034bd23ab5e82e.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-4b2b8a1490b7a6ea42c3dc7a54034bd23ab5e82e.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
| -rw-r--r-- | 73/88df34edc874c7f048d617c5ea571655b725c0 | 115 |
1 files changed, 115 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/73/88df34edc874c7f048d617c5ea571655b725c0 b/73/88df34edc874c7f048d617c5ea571655b725c0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..835053e0e --- /dev/null +++ b/73/88df34edc874c7f048d617c5ea571655b725c0 @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F5F25A + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:53 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com + [209.85.213.46]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9AB18F + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:52 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o133so92779421vka.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:52 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc; bh=eeGSnz887bRiYaP2jnA4HoprsuxbW+oonMtCuasKvT0=; + b=PGuv56OnMV+xmCBIHDK3jQprqUpR58q2RGPEd1Yu4RujaR3uZRmBuQ6tc+C8GeT3h6 + SEvNLx/hV8G67zd4qOSf7hivr1umAO/1KM0l9siDip31EMqb/PlFSEpvBIYXTq3tVVJg + 9AcgDTlH3AUOI1T1PhFAUIhQDqRHf7QCuytW/ZQ8DUdW5k27CHvzWM2JS+pthVIO+mL+ + P1rkIegS5qW4vzu4vTCSWMqA9kPlyR0rqBlcidvYTkV94yExEbnpeJpL364i4yVGDzLH + IGbF1h/MZvDSDNUZn8OiksdBS3x+kcpCG1520YFPQef/rYeDzEu/SLO2XFGHA+RfQQ2w + LHPw== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date + :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; + bh=eeGSnz887bRiYaP2jnA4HoprsuxbW+oonMtCuasKvT0=; + b=YinImleOQCfYQWkSZ2FsAF0YiJktpAnBGUPXeYFlAQJScpxCHfW9DMC4Bav+TipxqZ + gX/u2y1VFUXeBCfIKjLO0f46zyeXEohJjD+FSelwtJHOsbzvSNau0p9l3fQ56vNRXfsE + zdrpZLBXHd39p6rH3Y3mNmwqUCvwzmOCoWV4JpPqTGRNX418ybjfuSZcR9FItMIoT9Qz + AbKSFh815alOUQx3ulzznkJIVQ3FM5wwmlhba96FLVj0fLvT1MQWz0FGZIGGkN7Lfdrt + HE0SKFiq9rqlu9LLN3Fvhdy2yT5IadPlazO/p0dEUdmdkJozepxOzptB9AZx+F1bcUik + qdkQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUIE1CT9QqGpH9zkYCdpuXtH3pCofYVU6njF6kC9V+cSksI1S0YbuWwf2ur1kXfGPU/4jHGW+ISLuYTgA== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.31.16.210 with SMTP id 79mr4267078vkq.63.1463051151782; Thu, + 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com> +References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> + <CAH6h1Ls_Dh_oBo-fUMoBtwCQ=U3XgBLhbuHvH+ra78bjHYNyXQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CABeL=0iSvOTqQ-JRuhQfc7spKaXi1eBMMm0D-ahVm3GwztQQ_w@mail.gmail.com> + <20160511103601.GC2439@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> + <CABeL=0ih+BB+AKO6uJRCDGZoVo5is4+GBUfQAJkE48Pd_4vzOQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:05:51 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABm2gDqOs=Qj6rjiG1-EWeaVO2b-maZoAzNj1PsTdHGvAabYUA@mail.gmail.com> +From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +To: Timo Hanke <timo.hanke@web.de>, + Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:53 -0000 + +--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will +inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware +exists and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was +only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork +out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent +existence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even +more likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed). + +You are wrong. Whether 2 chains survive in parallel or not depends SOLELY +in whether both chains maintain demand (aka users). +Anyway, this is a discussion I had with Gavin and Rusty on bitcoin-discuss +already. I suggest we move this particular point there since it is more +philosophical than technical. + +--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<p dir=3D"ltr"><br> +On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <<a href= +=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= +undation.org</a>> wrote:<br> +> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will ine= +vitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware exi= +sts and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was= + only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork = +out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent e= +xistence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even more= + likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed).</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">You are wrong. Whether 2 chains survive in parallel or not d= +epends SOLELY in whether both chains maintain demand (aka users).<br> +Anyway, this is a discussion I had with Gavin and Rusty on bitcoin-discuss = +already. I suggest we move this particular point there since it is more phi= +losophical than technical.</p> + +--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407-- + |