1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
Return-Path: <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B42BC25A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:34:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com
[209.85.215.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F078E89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:34:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labsr2 with SMTP id sr2so5374614lab.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=honp5obqEwmHXZffqIgkagm29N8897MFeSPiKiYo6nA=;
b=yzcJBB02ceyOAdsbbg3Tfk6jf0WGYYtdJfmhDtAtuBofPMGZh8w1siaKuNUMR6A/vg
yZrXFjw7GrenQQacWiLUwdXyptnn44fnR5YKvwbGiF57TchEV1z8gegHgE1JjhM076vD
3CcmFuHqpI/1kfVv4t6dIvwUznhLj0GD+XNYc30Bg4OvRDjGt16jeiMVTk3p0P6+quhs
bqcqNayO6paj9pLaYar71aspH4XCD3rncsolgKH6Pvby76IovTBT/6tP7Kb5FSVAPiff
o6cMMRRphYdmjG0yzNuggMYvEZ8rDwy6Xb8iPW61YZ9FdZMtHpGqF2ifDzBuR/sX0XnZ
xG2w==
X-Received: by 10.112.161.40 with SMTP id xp8mr15334670lbb.71.1438587260151;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com>
References: <CANe1mWxsAPzWut_gDqe4R-SkDPBYM392NzeVqbUzjwh+pydsWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com>
<55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com>
From: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:34:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAO2FKEBBS5wxefGCPcurcRGg76sORrBMHvd2SSNiW1q_zWBWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25f529eaf0e051c633202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 07:34:22 -0000
--001a11c25f529eaf0e051c633202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 3 August 2015 at 08:16, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Increasing the block size shouldn't be a problem for Chinese miners.
> Five of the largest - F2Pool, Antpool, BW, BTCChina, Huobi - have
> already signed a draft agreement indicating they are fine with an
> increase to 8 MB: http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2
What's the current stance of the Chinese pools on Bitcoin XT, should
Bitcoin Core refuse to increase the block size to 8 MB in a timely fashion?
Would they run it if the economic majority (e.g. Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.)
publicly stated their support for big blocks?
--001a11c25f529eaf0e051c633202
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 3=
August 2015 at 08:16, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitc=
oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">Increasing the block size shouldn't be a problem for Chi=
nese miners.<br>
Five of the largest - F2Pool, Antpool, BW, BTCChina, Huobi - have<br>
already signed a draft agreement indicating they are fine with an<br>
increase to 8 MB: <a href=3D"http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2<=
/a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What's the current stance of the Ch=
inese pools on Bitcoin XT, should Bitcoin Core refuse to increase the block=
size to 8 MB in a timely fashion? Would they run it if the economic majori=
ty (e.g. Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.) publicly stated their support for big bloc=
ks?</div></div></div></div>
--001a11c25f529eaf0e051c633202--
|
