Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yh0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0eGDTafK+ZUBNcQBOe2JU_PqZVXMt0Ds-b8Ley7kbGrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTHrnSS9MGgKO-5+=fVhiOOvk12Recs11S0PcSUxQT1wdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1nx9rNf1q-nubP77U8RMABuLtmEB_P7UpY2zyFf-Ns-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTENbj+E7ypJASrM1r04eW3kYe+afwy+Rt3i9ubeT-=2mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0Z_EOmVgbvVmYDvegm6jfd1cKB52acXHocjRuM-qGEog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgc0i-XsN=g0V4Y0bko-Xb1AT5x=UWDa+opL3eFbBmJfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0eGDTafK+ZUBNcQBOe2JU_PqZVXMt0Ds-b8Ley7kbGrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:40:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiPhhrBh8f3QxJLtoysfywtVFSo2RH0WXVR+vpX9z6+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f57c072363405188c178c
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
Precedence: list

--001a114f57c072363405188c178c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

>
> Since you keep bringing this up, I'll try to clarify this once again.
>>
>
> I understand the arguments against it. And I think you are agreeing with
> me - Adam is bemoaning the way developers outsource stuff to third party
> services, and suggesting it is relevant to the block size debate. And we
> are saying, no, it's happening because it's easier than doing things in a
> decentralised way.
>

The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn't a good reason
IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic risk.

But in cases where using a decentralized approach doesn't *add* anything, I
cannot reasonably promote it, and that's why I was against getutxos in the
P2P protocol.

-- 
Pieter

--001a114f57c072363405188c178c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"=
ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.n=
et</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div>Since you keep bringing this up, I&#39;ll try to clarify this o=
nce again.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><d=
iv>I understand the arguments against it. And I think you are agreeing with=
 me - Adam is bemoaning the way developers outsource stuff to third party s=
ervices, and suggesting it is relevant to the block size debate. And we are=
 saying, no, it&#39;s happening because it&#39;s easier than doing things i=
n a decentralised way.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn&#39;t a good re=
ason IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic risk.<br><b=
r></div><div>But in cases where using a decentralized approach doesn&#39;t =
*add* anything, I cannot reasonably promote it, and that&#39;s why I was ag=
ainst getutxos in the P2P protocol.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br>=C2=
=A0<br></div></div><br></div></div>

--001a114f57c072363405188c178c--