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
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
|
Return-Path: <simon@bitcartel.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8695C99
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:16:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com (mail-pd0-f179.google.com
[209.85.192.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B0BC89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:16:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdrg1 with SMTP id g1so70629780pdr.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=OluH6tG+0Jh5h1IHGq9ol4jAx9Wg6TsRCtvWkTsI28k=;
b=Bj7I22XJrUIZztg1MrCLXsFlYR9nHosgRU1k5WjicCxmNklcX257nTknG6OifgIyOg
ulIVLfzzdlCsxlf6ZLTr8eIhPlB7qCpHPKAVWo/1kHctCl+VqsdnypcwDEQ8JICttSHg
ciHa/0aHhphoZaVHzdQZ5irylnmg2j1mlj4NZ0JhZyIYs11duzPWFeO0gwEyPHajRYa+
BgA+Fb5DrR5U9HX7+UV5Xtm8SsLuFMait5vUBnQaPBoAJI8IkHzLEt7OlF/3oO5Kfnf/
7AdKM7C3c1wkZImmJlyxWhmE/YF3Fm4iEfb+xrFMIx5uUh53KlMmHyxy/FU19NsHkGMV
TmHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmorYS8YwvRko8dCxli0a2wH1+okyFcnyAIMt7Ym/3jA/OwSj+TPfCzUE1uZX1DbB0/2aXQ
X-Received: by 10.70.109.199 with SMTP id hu7mr33142314pdb.71.1438586177986;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.15] (c-24-5-43-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
[24.5.43.190]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
ud2sm6737976pbc.57.2015.08.03.00.16.12
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:16:11 -0700
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
References: <CANe1mWxsAPzWut_gDqe4R-SkDPBYM392NzeVqbUzjwh+pydsWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 07:16:22 -0000
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
With regards to China's international bandwidth, not only is intra-Asia
capacity improving all the time, a major consortium cable FASTER is
coming online Q2 2016. Backed by Google, China Telecom and others, it
has a capacity of 60 Tbps, making it the highest-capacity data link ever
created across the Pacific.
Interactive map: http://www.submarinecablemap.com/
FASTER: https://plus.google.com/+UrsH%C3%B6lzle/posts/haJzDXnp9Z4
--Simon
On 08/02/2015 11:34 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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* <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>
> /"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
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
