Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YQb6q-0000Zp-OF
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:30:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YQb6o-0003gC-US
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:30:36 +0000
Received: by wggy19 with SMTP id y19so3255851wgg.13
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:30:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.93.134 with SMTP id cu6mr5483529wjb.79.1424867428940;
	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:30:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEG8yzmS61H7uqWQuqx09T1NjiHrpK=3MYT+63AXb=_xkz831g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEG8yzmS61H7uqWQuqx09T1NjiHrpK=3MYT+63AXb=_xkz831g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:30:28 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: W7Nt6Gf0MXPFCbymLoPboST1C5Q
Message-ID: <CANEZrP11Ru2E8TgKZsPzWwSqK+ffUbWr2XtVptW+NRR6GAYKqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Chris Page <pagecr@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e
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: 1YQb6o-0003gC-US
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request for comments on hybrid PoW/PoS
 enhancement for Bitcoin
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, 25 Feb 2015 12:30:36 -0000

--047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Chris,

Just FYI you may not have received much feedback on this because Gmail put
it into the spam folder for some reason. So I'm guessing a lot of people
didn't see it.

My main feedback is - I do not really see how this is different from actual
mining. Mining also incentives the running of full nodes, miners are
rewarded via coinbases, etc. I'm missing a crisp description of why your
scheme is better than this, in particular, taking into account the
difficulty of distinguishing full node sybils of each other.

--047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Chris,<div><br></div><div>Just FYI you may not have rec=
eived much feedback on this because Gmail put it into the spam folder for s=
ome reason. So I&#39;m guessing a lot of people didn&#39;t see it.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>My main feedback is - I do not really see how this is diff=
erent from actual mining. Mining also incentives the running of full nodes,=
 miners are rewarded via coinbases, etc. I&#39;m missing a crisp descriptio=
n of why your scheme is better than this, in particular, taking into accoun=
t the difficulty of distinguishing full node sybils of each other.</div></d=
iv>

--047d7bb7092cf44594050fe8cc4e--