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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F5F25A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com
[209.85.213.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9AB18F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o133so92779421vka.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc; bh=eeGSnz887bRiYaP2jnA4HoprsuxbW+oonMtCuasKvT0=;
b=PGuv56OnMV+xmCBIHDK3jQprqUpR58q2RGPEd1Yu4RujaR3uZRmBuQ6tc+C8GeT3h6
SEvNLx/hV8G67zd4qOSf7hivr1umAO/1KM0l9siDip31EMqb/PlFSEpvBIYXTq3tVVJg
9AcgDTlH3AUOI1T1PhFAUIhQDqRHf7QCuytW/ZQ8DUdW5k27CHvzWM2JS+pthVIO+mL+
P1rkIegS5qW4vzu4vTCSWMqA9kPlyR0rqBlcidvYTkV94yExEbnpeJpL364i4yVGDzLH
IGbF1h/MZvDSDNUZn8OiksdBS3x+kcpCG1520YFPQef/rYeDzEu/SLO2XFGHA+RfQQ2w
LHPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc;
bh=eeGSnz887bRiYaP2jnA4HoprsuxbW+oonMtCuasKvT0=;
b=YinImleOQCfYQWkSZ2FsAF0YiJktpAnBGUPXeYFlAQJScpxCHfW9DMC4Bav+TipxqZ
gX/u2y1VFUXeBCfIKjLO0f46zyeXEohJjD+FSelwtJHOsbzvSNau0p9l3fQ56vNRXfsE
zdrpZLBXHd39p6rH3Y3mNmwqUCvwzmOCoWV4JpPqTGRNX418ybjfuSZcR9FItMIoT9Qz
AbKSFh815alOUQx3ulzznkJIVQ3FM5wwmlhba96FLVj0fLvT1MQWz0FGZIGGkN7Lfdrt
HE0SKFiq9rqlu9LLN3Fvhdy2yT5IadPlazO/p0dEUdmdkJozepxOzptB9AZx+F1bcUik
qdkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUIE1CT9QqGpH9zkYCdpuXtH3pCofYVU6njF6kC9V+cSksI1S0YbuWwf2ur1kXfGPU/4jHGW+ISLuYTgA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.16.210 with SMTP id 79mr4267078vkq.63.1463051151782; Thu,
12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm>
<CAH6h1Ls_Dh_oBo-fUMoBtwCQ=U3XgBLhbuHvH+ra78bjHYNyXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABeL=0iSvOTqQ-JRuhQfc7spKaXi1eBMMm0D-ahVm3GwztQQ_w@mail.gmail.com>
<20160511103601.GC2439@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de>
<CABeL=0ih+BB+AKO6uJRCDGZoVo5is4+GBUfQAJkE48Pd_4vzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:05:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqOs=Qj6rjiG1-EWeaVO2b-maZoAzNj1PsTdHGvAabYUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Timo Hanke <timo.hanke@web.de>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:05:53 -0000
--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will
inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware
exists and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was
only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork
out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent
existence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even
more likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed).
You are wrong. Whether 2 chains survive in parallel or not depends SOLELY
in whether both chains maintain demand (aka users).
Anyway, this is a discussion I had with Gavin and Rusty on bitcoin-discuss
already. I suggest we move this particular point there since it is more
philosophical than technical.
--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will ine=
vitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware exi=
sts and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was=
only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork =
out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent e=
xistence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even more=
likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed).</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">You are wrong. Whether 2 chains survive in parallel or not d=
epends SOLELY in whether both chains maintain demand (aka users).<br>
Anyway, this is a discussion I had with Gavin and Rusty on bitcoin-discuss =
already. I suggest we move this particular point there since it is more phi=
losophical than technical.</p>
--001a11433b8e30c8a70532a32407--
|
