📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01
📝 Original message: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 <thyshizzle at 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. <wtogami at gmail.com>
> Sent: 1/06/2015 10:30 PM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at 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 <mike at 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150601/4604b753/attachment.html>;
Warren Togami Jr. [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s5…zxem8
2023-06-07 15:36:09
in reply to nevent1q…8llz
Author Public Key
npub1s5p2xnl52ksr3a4qfa8re5znmja46ugm3x3ayy0x2c2mqrsw6ewsmzxem8Published at
2023-06-07 15:36:09Event JSON
{
"id": "8720e7a5adfbb18aa1c03a4b9f039b12b7d955220388315b34100b17dcc1eaca",
"pubkey": "8502a34ff455a038f6a04f4e3cd053dcbb5d711b89a3d211e65615b00e0ed65d",
"created_at": 1686152169,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"112d0de527f63b466f07e709b55d1d4965f1c304d12170877aafb66f5cb05c67",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c99bffd272fbac2d8f7783a3ec2c9f966389f628e4abe8d6283e65ea49a65303",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3c7421b6a5b9065ef5ba5b113416bc212a389a58853f668baffb4a8a04f2b35f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01\n📝 Original message:By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped\npeople would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement\nwas. I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I\nthought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe\nparticular participants should be excluded.\n\nOn Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle \u003cthyshizzle at outlook.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Doesn't mean you should build something that says \"fuck you\" to the\n\u003e companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say \"Oh yea if they\n\u003e can't mine it how we want stuff 'em\" is naive. I get decentralisation, but\n\u003e don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going\n\u003e to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold \u003e 50% hashing power, why would\n\u003e you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of\n\u003e adopters wallets? Same thing.\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e From: Warren Togami Jr. \u003cwtogami at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e Sent: 1/06/2015 10:30 PM\n\u003e Cc: Bitcoin Dev \u003cbitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements\n\u003e\n\u003e Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on\n\u003e forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent\n\u003e \"right\" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China\n\u003e can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO\n\u003e THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too\n\u003e bad, we'll have to carry on without them.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever\n\u003e regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent \"right\" to\n\u003e mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial\n\u003e amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being\n\u003e outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.\n\u003e\n\u003e But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node\n\u003e on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150601/4604b753/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "241c8ab0346fdac43aa96872294ffaf8e5123383cffac984dd88beacd0b9aa1fd124d4a0c4d9a5f3bae4aab28009e3581fe1fc4e42f539468abaa326e1ac9798"
}