<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 June 2013 10:26, John Dillon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.dillon892@googlemail.com" target="_blank">john.dillon892@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho<br>
<<a href="mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com">melvincarvalho@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> -1<br>
><br>
> Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.<br>
><br>
> However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.<br>
<br>
</div>Indeed it was. Which is why as GPU'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. 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...<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="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 the<br>
majority of Bitcoin hashing power.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The asymmetry lies in psychological terms, in that new defaults tend to be<br>
> adopted 80% of the time, so core devs have disproportionate amount of power<br>
> as things stand.<br>
<br>
</div>That's why I'm very clear that doing nothing is a vote for the 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 we<br>
already must put a lot of faith into wallets to not steal our funds.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Unless there's a very good reason not to, e.g. miners are clearly abusing<br>
> the system, we should stick with 1 CPU one vote.<br>
<br>
</div>People are proposing we put control of the blocksize entirely into the hands of<br>
miners, yet we all have an interest in auditing the blocks miners produce.<br>
There must be balance.<br>
<div class="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=<br>
=c8iU<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>