Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCE02847 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 00:26:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 380D089 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 00:26:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 20:26:01 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <1438640036.2828.0.camel@auspira.com> <3162BC78-EC0B-4DAA-A472-D143389DDD8A@hashingit.com> <3E3C6C76-DF1F-4F06-A01F-4E126B70C8F2@petertodd.org> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55C1581C.7080804@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 20:26:04 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3E3C6C76-DF1F-4F06-A01F-4E126B70C8F2@petertodd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 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] "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit"--new research paper suggests X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:26:11 -0000 >For those wishing to do actual research, esp. people such as profs mentoring students, ... >But keep in mind that you're wading into a highly politically charged research field >with billions hanging on the blocksize limit; understand that people aren't happy when >flawed papers end up on reddit being used to promote bad ideas. You'd be wise to run future >work past experts in the field prior to publishing widely if you dislike heated controversy. > Or, I could just point out the obvious rather than try to be polite: you know exactly why >the above makes no sense as a reply to this thread and are deliberately lying. >If the situation is the latter, your conduct is toxic to the development mailing list >discussion, not to mention a waste of all our time, and you should leave. Researchers should also keep in mind that some of developers are immature and have limited knowledge or experience beyond their Bitcoin expertise ("Idiot-savants"). Others want to be in "charge" of drama-laced posts on reddit and they get upset if others do the same things. In any case these rants and attacks by Todd and Garzik should be posted on their personal blogs or reddit instead of this list. Russ