📅 Original date posted:2013-06-10
📝 Original message:On 10 June 2013 10:26, John Dillon <john.dillon892 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho at 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-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130610/d2971bec/attachment.html>;
Melvin Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uv…saxrt
2023-06-07 15:03:05
in reply to nevent1q…96he
Author Public Key
npub1uvtfvcegcn9kds68r8he57emc480vqtx8t22kpsctxgjxae44gvsksaxrtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:03:05Event JSON
{
"id": "1a155ad7763addbae98acf3ce516ab001b5cfd423d64f98e430241d5253081a5",
"pubkey": "e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19",
"created_at": 1686150185,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9c65e0538c0c65dd524896d67b9a9f484c5068051e57f2d48f8752479be057b1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"25d0950afbfd9c85f7d39ca491528d69be1803539eb91234177c70707d1d791f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-06-10\n📝 Original message:On 10 June 2013 10:26, John Dillon \u003cjohn.dillon892 at googlemail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\n\u003e Hash: SHA256\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho\n\u003e \u003cmelvincarvalho at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e -1\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.\n\u003e\n\u003e Indeed it was. Which is why as GPU's came onto the scene Satoshi was\n\u003e strongly\n\u003e against them. I have to wonder what he thinks of ASICs where just a\n\u003e handful of\n\u003e companies control the supply of Bitcoin hashing power.\n\u003e\n\nThanks for your reply. Do you have a pointer to Satoshi being strongly\nagainst GPU? I'd be interested to see that. FWIW, I've read all his forum\nposts a few times, I just dont recall this one, tho I'm sure it's there...\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Satoshi also never forsaw pools, which are why just 2 or 3 people control\n\u003e the\n\u003e majority of Bitcoin hashing power.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e The asymmetry lies in psychological terms, in that new defaults tend to\n\u003e be\n\u003e \u003e adopted 80% of the time, so core devs have disproportionate amount of\n\u003e power\n\u003e \u003e as things stand.\n\u003e\n\u003e That's why I'm very clear that doing nothing is a vote for the status quo.\n\u003e Of\n\u003e course wallet authors can do what they want to try to get users to vote\n\u003e according to their wishes, or for that matter simply steal your vote, but\n\u003e we\n\u003e already must put a lot of faith into wallets to not steal our funds.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Unless there's a very good reason not to, e.g. miners are clearly abusing\n\u003e \u003e the system, we should stick with 1 CPU one vote.\n\u003e\n\u003e People are proposing we put control of the blocksize entirely into the\n\u003e hands of\n\u003e miners, yet we all have an interest in auditing the blocks miners produce.\n\u003e There must be balance.\n\u003e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\u003e Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)\n\u003e\n\u003e iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRtY2jAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPQEsH/0VNA7aJYdUbJjTnIiKoaCv3\n\u003e JtWS1MKHjAJE6ZPDt+T/QPkEdZI4kNz3DGcZL6EDJtvZxZHfvEIaZDF1gpaH6OkC\n\u003e oIZ0PkFPOxi0cncuAvT/a770evu7LzuT6fisY3EgGnlHujLQZ47LEa73Xo7pJVc7\n\u003e RJHamGwkj+3HZRIuZIAn87qws/zRyTx5SXvb56xCKb0oxE4ZO0dn+8/nNSPWw13i\n\u003e p3LpLlEQBBu+Du2nPSQupRjkz4MPP8v9EYefV5cjtNBK7ufAvA64OnwKB5dST+h+\n\u003e N/vBcj3EIj/WEOf4myGcVxKp+skJ2SJDwxLigevgkKYPDNTVfXIverdXB0ANrQA=\n\u003e =c8iU\n\u003e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130610/d2971bec/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "6a8448e7b9fd8db71d4695416bc4b1beeb291a971c87e1d14c6d5a42150363caefecc501c60b09c87a2140b417fb9d17e5d8815fec6983b2c47fc1a197bc0f5e"
}