Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Wd1Gz-0003GR-8s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:47:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.160.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.171; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-yk0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-yk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.160.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd1Gy-0001qm-Ks for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:47:53 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q9so1090072ykb.16 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.147.211 with SMTP id t59mr15621900yhj.61.1398275267170; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.133.140 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5357F634.2070300@gmail.com> References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com> <5357D394.7010908@gmail.com> <CANEZrP0dxAOWxg8Nu9LqV1SGE1C1WD2m+EPhg3sFCnFQQVv4kQ@mail.gmail.com> <5357F634.2070300@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:47:47 -0400 Message-ID: <CABsx9T12e7rbbza9XFi1EY20+0xciWXMiXrOHjTMdj=7Pzsrxw@mail.gmail.com> From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303a2c8f99189304f7b95483 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 (gavinandresen[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: 1Wd1Gy-0001qm-Ks Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:47:53 -0000 --20cf303a2c8f99189304f7b95483 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > I've formulated my replies to you and this proposal in a more public > venue, where such discussions of existential changes to the protocol > more rightfully belong > > I strongly disagree. It makes perfect sense to discuss changes here, first, where there are lots of people who understand how the system works at a very detailed level. And why do you think your blog is more public than this open, publicly archived mailing list??? -- -- Gavin Andresen --20cf303a2c8f99189304f7b95483 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo= ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c= cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><br> </div></div>I've formulated my replies to you and this proposal in a mo= re public<br> venue, where such discussions of existential changes to the protocol<br> more rightfully belong<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I strongly d= isagree. =C2=A0It makes perfect sense to discuss changes here, first, where= there are lots of people who understand how the system works at a very det= ailed level.</div> <div><br></div><div>And why do you think your blog is more public than this= open, publicly archived mailing list???</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>-= -<br>Gavin Andresen<br> </div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div> --20cf303a2c8f99189304f7b95483--