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@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.
Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
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@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.