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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
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

--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">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:john.dillon892@googlemail.com" target=3D"_blank">john.dillon892@goo=
glemail.com</a>&gt;</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=
>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com">melvincarvalho@gmail.com</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; -1<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; However, Bitcoin&#39;s fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.<br=
>
<br>
</div>Indeed it was. Which is why as GPU&#39;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&#39;d be interested to see that.=A0 FWIW, =
I&#39;ve read all his forum posts a few times, I just dont recall this one,=
 tho I&#39;m sure it&#39;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>
&gt; The asymmetry lies in psychological terms, in that new defaults tend t=
o be<br>
&gt; adopted 80% of the time, so core devs have disproportionate amount of =
power<br>
&gt; as things stand.<br>
<br>
</div>That&#39;s why I&#39;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>
&gt; Unless there&#39;s a very good reason not to, e.g. miners are clearly =
abusing<br>
&gt; 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--