Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D1EF279 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:34:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C082289 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com ([209.85.192.53]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MZW4R-1ZaEj82eiL-00LCXk for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:34:03 +0200 Received: by qgii95 with SMTP id i95so82413649qgi.2 for ; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 23:34:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.133.199 with SMTP id 190mr23590834qhf.12.1438583642679; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 23:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 23:34:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:34:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Jim Phillips Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11353390007277051c625b71 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:dlDTsyXia0OI/qsfxVHWrUFzVcaNoagpV/l+nZaTqy8lp7fmV4w AasJ4Xlpkkvp061PVqPG4DK1O4GFhA7PquRyUJlGUaiqkHTWINbN8BLzYNvrY3yrwoVyGoe U91eM6bo/l5u24My/wo4E/pt4al+4djYGxbkk/WrfRFbGAC1L0TYq8u+9k8yjTcY68oQsoz GkiNwBUbtuN0S4L0aVROg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Pd7snCkxoSo=:s75NVvpvlz09zE7H0TlNGZ U18+MJgg3TKVrK0BvBY3omd5+USnx2jvG1eFj3wNLMHQYLEBcuO4qbtafa1F+IcQb6zD6soNd 8LkUPr5eWVF68KoO7zg0jiHsNHpzJIeaLqZM+Q9I3u70NElZ0cLmJOei+OE53prFR73SGVuA6 CMG6UgSBv0DGSPWaQN4OSRgU7UUoH+elKlScnYLn2Ozc7/rmuWI6YB2HdyAVxR51Sg5+tANjC cis0hP5uW4zw3QsOI+w++iTa9ZRr5ZJhhuzUrrM9gyX2SY4aUksddvyH+ZwXnQnulCeTt+j/Z txduaVQZtQeQsG5e5Tu4gclTgpgPBFjbx5O34OevrsNbrakSbIQpdO/TnqwzjvWu0fYVgYCJz e7iUB84hDdgtr8qr1WDzXMebTxpFccLk3uOon1GGepF2T82nU6C67UQuGMcZHL9Bdq+CE+3hU YBB8/NrH/iqMt88yPKTLR+lflaF4+63sOvvoWQnrBnGRM6P7KOu5TP2ybW+Ot2O4IP1KTNdAW AAmT+miVfzNAXz/Z0GomEVGb2tiFFHhOUNREd+rzvJLYlfOgIDw21i+v3Pp9XNPMaPKpqfJ9q quIjY/Ui2zyA1+C3EXSjlx1WiEZqWz3aa1QGa+Lo1s0gU9ZFBN4vOVrY6BcqfTnZmdLGg+S2s hbTfxb292W0FFIy/G4IlT1UMqRV1xt/hyaXi5UulD9hM6gg== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_REMOTE_IMAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 06:34:08 -0000 --001a11353390007277051c625b71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 If block-sizes are increased in a way detrimental to the Chinese miners, it is not the Chinese miners that lose, it is all of the non-Chinese miners - this is because the Chinese miners have the slight majority of the hashrate. The relatively low external bandwidth connecting China to the net is actually the problem of the non-Chinese miners problem. Non Chinese miners will experience higher orphan rate once Chinese miners cease to build on top of blocks that are too large to sync in a timely fashion into China. Adam On 2 August 2015 at 23:02, Jim Phillips via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > China is a communist country. It is no secret that all "capitalist" > enterprises are essentially State controlled, or at the very least are > subject to nationalization should the State deem it necessary. Most ASIC > chips are manufactured in China, so they are cheap and accessible to > Chinese miners. Electricity is subsidized and essentially free. Cooling is > not an issue since large parts of China are mountainous and naturally cool. > In short the Chinese miners have HUGE advantages over all other mining > operations. This is probably why, between just the top 4 Chinese miners, > the People's Republic of China effectively controls 57% of all the Bitcoin > being mined. > > The ONLY disadvantage the Chinese miners have in competing with the rest > of the world is bandwidth. China has poor connectivity with the rest of the > world, and Chinese miners have said that an increase in the block size > would be detrimental to them. I say, GOOD! Most of the free world has > enough bandwidth to be able to handle larger blocks. We need to take > advantage of that fact to get mining out of the centralized control of the > Chinese. > > If you're truly worried about larger blocks causing centralization, think > about how, by restricting blocksize, you're enabling the Communist Chinese > government to maintain centralized control over 57% of the Bitcoin hashing > power. > > -- > *James G. Phillips IV* > > > > *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals." > -- David Ogilvy* > > *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think > twice before printing.* > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a11353390007277051c625b71 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If block-sizes are increased in a way detrimental to the C= hinese miners, it is not the Chinese miners that lose, it is all of the non= -Chinese miners - this is because the Chinese miners have the slight majori= ty of the hashrate.=C2=A0 The relatively low external bandwidth connecting = China to the net is actually the problem of the non-Chinese miners problem.= =C2=A0 Non Chinese miners will experience higher orphan rate once Chinese m= iners cease to build on top of blocks that are too large to sync in a timel= y fashion into China.

Adam
On 2 August 2015 at 23:02, Jim Phillips via bi= tcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&g= t; wrote:
Ch= ina is a communist country. It is no secret that all "capitalist"= enterprises are essentially State controlled, or at the very least are sub= ject to nationalization should the State deem it necessary. Most ASIC chips= are manufactured in China, so they are cheap and accessible to Chinese min= ers. Electricity is subsidized and essentially free. Cooling is not an issu= e since large parts of China are mountainous and naturally cool. In short t= he Chinese miners have HUGE advantages over all other mining operations. Th= is is probably why, between just the top 4 Chinese miners, the People's= Republic of China effectively controls 57% of all the Bitcoin being mined.=

The ONLY disadvantage the Chinese miners have in = competing with the rest of the world is bandwidth. China has poor connectiv= ity with the rest of the world, and Chinese miners have said that an increa= se in the block size would be detrimental to them. I say, GOOD! Most of the= free world has enough bandwidth to be able to handle larger blocks. We nee= d to take advantage of that fact to get mining out of the centralized contr= ol of the Chinese.

If you're truly worried abo= ut larger blocks causing centralization, think about how, by restricting bl= ocksize, you're enabling the Communist Chinese government to maintain c= entralized control over 57% of the Bitcoin hashing power.

--
James G. Phillips IV=C2=A0=C2=A0
"Don= 9;t bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals."= -- David Ogilvy

=C2=A0This message= was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printi= ng.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a11353390007277051c625b71--