Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com
	designates 74.125.83.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.83.43;
	envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com;
	helo=mail-ee0-f43.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhLsSm6KTr3YV+GxQGiBBNX0psxxOYkgwR1pm4ZpBY0Ymw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPaL=UWcKmnChw0zYGVduzHHdQ-AgG7uqbCLvjjuW6Q67zmS0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKaEYhLsSm6KTr3YV+GxQGiBBNX0psxxOYkgwR1pm4ZpBY0Ymw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:26:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPaL=UUNMzBUD4FToh72H_YYpZ5X3zCCkOdyX1_8CB7fR9Ec5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Vote on the blocksize limit
 with proof-of-stake voting
Precedence: list

-----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.

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-----