MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c582369c-5463-611b-1c32-6348bdfb4a9e@voskuil.org>
References: <7169224.bI6Cz5OEL8@cherry>
	<CABr1YTfc0BZ21-mwMohqo8_v8D1QnYiGB_SMeCLwFChY2MV_zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAcC9ysBJcSyMoTAuyFL+1D4m=-LZOgQF_pb4AFC5vpv-yMAHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFVRnyqw2w1rHN=ShLBsadB3henEM9BZxxdXj+4QY6NQAyZ4Fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAcC9ysNPC1nHumY4giCi7ffVRviNZBNfoLdS0UsghSX8NRcmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<dd5072fe-be5b-52a6-7171-ed320c851f6f@gmail.com>
	<c582369c-5463-611b-1c32-6348bdfb4a9e@voskuil.org>
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:28:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CABr1YTfRDUQNivebMvsONV0na7j_sEyw3gii+5r4v8txu+O68w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released
Precedence: list

--f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Can you guys please take this discussion elsewhere? Perhaps to
bitcoin-discuss? This is not the place to rehash discussions that have
taken place a million times already. The behavior of the network under
contentious hard forks has been discussed ad nauseum. This mailing list is
for the discussion of new ideas and proposals.

Much appreciated. Thanks.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On 01/07/2017 03:10 PM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Still wondering why you guys don't care about the ridiculous number of
> > full nodes, no incentive to run one and what would happen if someone
> > were to control a majority of full nodes
>
> The level of control over a majority of full nodes is irrelevant. If
> this was truly a measure of control over Bitcoin someone would simply
> spin up a bunch of nodes and take control at trivial cost.
>
> e
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Can you guys please take this discussion elsewhere? Perhap=
s to bitcoin-discuss? This is not the place to rehash discussions that have=
 taken place a million times already. The behavior of the network under con=
tentious hard forks has been discussed ad nauseum. This mailing list is for=
 the discussion of new ideas and proposals.<div><br></div><div>Much appreci=
ated. Thanks.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 01/07/2017 03:10 PM,=
 Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; Still wondering why you guys don&#39;t care about the ridiculous numbe=
r of<br>
&gt; full nodes, no incentive to run one and what would happen if someone<b=
r>
&gt; were to control a majority of full nodes<br>
<br>
</span>The level of control over a majority of full nodes is irrelevant. If=
<br>
this was truly a measure of control over Bitcoin someone would simply<br>
spin up a bunch of nodes and take control at trivial cost.<br>
<br>
e<br>
<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--f403045e8a1ade6b0405458a54a0--