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 ) id 1YzMjL-0007qy-4M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:14:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzMjK-0003CW-8S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:14:03 +0000 Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so65991715wic.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 03:13:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.89.234 with SMTP id br10mr19231213wib.86.1433153636266; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 03:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 03:13:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:13:55 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EfcBDv6WSIyuiZW-IrJl2_fJt_s Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Alex Mizrahi Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba2d565f674051772157e 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: 1YzMjK-0003CW-8S Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements 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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:14:03 -0000 --e89a8f3ba2d565f674051772157e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them. But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so. --e89a8f3ba2d565f674051772157e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Whilst it would be nice if mine= rs in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, no= body has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the jo= b - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth requi= red through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, w= e'll have to carry on without them.
But I'm not sure why it should be a b= ig deal. They can always run a node on a server in Taiwan and connect the h= ardware to it via a VPN or so.
--e89a8f3ba2d565f674051772157e--