Ah sorry, I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let 'em burn.
If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said stuff you, I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now, if they truly have >50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they can build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of the network doing big blocks. They don't even have to propagate this chain to you in a hurry right? And then they never have to receive a 20mb block from you because they have a longer chain without 20mb blocks and always ahead of your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is Authority so let you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you create etc. then whamo along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just coinbase only blocks which invalidates all your previous transactions and gives them all the coinbase they stamped, while invalidating yours. But who cares about them right :p ________________________________ From: Warren Togami Jr.<mailto:wtog...@gmail.com> Sent: 2/06/2015 4:19 AM Cc: Bitcoin Dev<mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement was. I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe particular participants should be excluded. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshiz...@outlook.com> wrote: > Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the > companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they > can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation, but > don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going > to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why would > you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of > adopters wallets? Same thing. > ------------------------------ > From: Warren Togami Jr. <wtog...@gmail.com> > Sent: 1/06/2015 10:30 PM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on > forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent > "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China > can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO > THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too > bad, we'll have to carry on without them. > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <m...@plan99.net> wrote: > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever > regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to > mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial > amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being > outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them. > > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node > on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so. > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
