1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>) id 1UlxdI-0007io-SU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:39:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.53; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UlxdE-00049A-JM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:39:20 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fs12so3935058lab.26
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.28.129 with SMTP id b1mr1769313lah.51.1370853549800;
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.2.8 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UUNMzBUD4FToh72H_YYpZ5X3zCCkOdyX1_8CB7fR9Ec5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPaL=UWcKmnChw0zYGVduzHHdQ-AgG7uqbCLvjjuW6Q67zmS0g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKaEYhLsSm6KTr3YV+GxQGiBBNX0psxxOYkgwR1pm4ZpBY0Ymw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPaL=UUNMzBUD4FToh72H_YYpZ5X3zCCkOdyX1_8CB7fR9Ec5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:39:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJd==3qL3G326xo---Cw+i8X256ZyOppCumnLKYkqy-jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160bde0e0022d04dec8b613
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
(melvincarvalho[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: 1UlxdE-00049A-JM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Vote on the blocksize limit
with proof-of-stake voting
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: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:39:21 -0000
--089e0160bde0e0022d04dec8b613
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 10 June 2013 10:26, John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.
> >
> > However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.
>
> Indeed it was. Which is why as GPU's came onto the scene Satoshi was
> strongly
> against them. I have to wonder what he thinks of ASICs where just a
> handful of
> companies control the supply of Bitcoin hashing power.
>
Thanks for your reply. Do you have a pointer to Satoshi being strongly
against GPU? I'd be interested to see that. FWIW, I've read all his forum
posts a few times, I just dont recall this one, tho I'm sure it's there...
>
> Satoshi also never forsaw pools, which are why just 2 or 3 people control
> the
> majority of Bitcoin hashing power.
>
> > The asymmetry lies in psychological terms, in that new defaults tend to
> be
> > adopted 80% of the time, so core devs have disproportionate amount of
> power
> > as things stand.
>
> That's why I'm very clear that doing nothing is a vote for the status quo.
> Of
> course wallet authors can do what they want to try to get users to vote
> according to their wishes, or for that matter simply steal your vote, but
> we
> already must put a lot of faith into wallets to not steal our funds.
>
> > Unless there's a very good reason not to, e.g. miners are clearly abusing
> > the system, we should stick with 1 CPU one vote.
>
> People are proposing we put control of the blocksize entirely into the
> hands of
> miners, yet we all have an interest in auditing the blocks miners produce.
> There must be balance.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRtY2jAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPQEsH/0VNA7aJYdUbJjTnIiKoaCv3
> JtWS1MKHjAJE6ZPDt+T/QPkEdZI4kNz3DGcZL6EDJtvZxZHfvEIaZDF1gpaH6OkC
> oIZ0PkFPOxi0cncuAvT/a770evu7LzuT6fisY3EgGnlHujLQZ47LEa73Xo7pJVc7
> RJHamGwkj+3HZRIuZIAn87qws/zRyTx5SXvb56xCKb0oxE4ZO0dn+8/nNSPWw13i
> p3LpLlEQBBu+Du2nPSQupRjkz4MPP8v9EYefV5cjtNBK7ufAvA64OnwKB5dST+h+
> N/vBcj3EIj/WEOf4myGcVxKp+skJ2SJDwxLigevgkKYPDNTVfXIverdXB0ANrQA=
> =c8iU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--089e0160bde0e0022d04dec8b613
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On 10 June 2013 10:26, John Dillon <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D=
"mailto:john.dillon892@googlemail.com" target=3D"_blank">john.dillon892@goo=
glemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESS=
AGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<br>
</div><div class=3D"im">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho<br=
>
<<a href=3D"mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com">melvincarvalho@gmail.com</a=
>> wrote:<br>
> -1<br>
><br>
> Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.<b=
r>
><br>
> However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.<br=
>
<br>
</div>Indeed it was. Which is why as GPU's came onto the scene Satoshi =
was strongly<br>
against them. I have to wonder what he thinks of ASICs where just a handful=
of<br>
companies control the supply of Bitcoin hashing power.<br></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>Thanks for your reply.=A0 Do you have a pointer to Satoshi =
being strongly against GPU?=A0 I'd be interested to see that.=A0 FWIW, =
I've read all his forum posts a few times, I just dont recall this one,=
tho I'm sure it's there...<br>
</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Satoshi also never forsaw pools, which are why just 2 or 3 people control t=
he<br>
majority of Bitcoin hashing power.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> The asymmetry lies in psychological terms, in that new defaults tend t=
o be<br>
> adopted 80% of the time, so core devs have disproportionate amount of =
power<br>
> as things stand.<br>
<br>
</div>That's why I'm very clear that doing nothing is a vote for th=
e status quo. Of<br>
course wallet authors can do what they want to try to get users to vote<br>
according to their wishes, or for that matter simply steal your vote, but w=
e<br>
already must put a lot of faith into wallets to not steal our funds.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> Unless there's a very good reason not to, e.g. miners are clearly =
abusing<br>
> the system, we should stick with 1 CPU one vote.<br>
<br>
</div>People are proposing we put control of the blocksize entirely into th=
e hands of<br>
miners, yet we all have an interest in auditing the blocks miners produce.<=
br>
There must be balance.<br>
<div class=3D"im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)<br>
<br>
</div>iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRtY2jAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPQEsH/0VNA7aJYdUbJjTnIiKoaCv3<br>
JtWS1MKHjAJE6ZPDt+T/QPkEdZI4kNz3DGcZL6EDJtvZxZHfvEIaZDF1gpaH6OkC<br>
oIZ0PkFPOxi0cncuAvT/a770evu7LzuT6fisY3EgGnlHujLQZ47LEa73Xo7pJVc7<br>
RJHamGwkj+3HZRIuZIAn87qws/zRyTx5SXvb56xCKb0oxE4ZO0dn+8/nNSPWw13i<br>
p3LpLlEQBBu+Du2nPSQupRjkz4MPP8v9EYefV5cjtNBK7ufAvA64OnwKB5dST+h+<br>
N/vBcj3EIj/WEOf4myGcVxKp+skJ2SJDwxLigevgkKYPDNTVfXIverdXB0ANrQA=3D<br>
=3Dc8iU<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--089e0160bde0e0022d04dec8b613--
|
