Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF7F74D3 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:46:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB3E89 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f48.google.com ([209.85.192.48]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lu6Fc-1YuMGI3Ty2-011PB7 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:46:52 +0200 Received: by qgii95 with SMTP id i95so83127828qgi.2 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:46:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.165.5 with SMTP id l5mr23496714qhl.85.1438588011719; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:46:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com> References: <55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:46:51 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Simon Liu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:40KG7m/YW//0hTBwu3hz69sJrosWUavS5Mu4djviR9xQ+fh6dwS 9e9f0hpQPnSMXQpIrFUePZJpMXFewQvcFymewhxDa/L07WhfCiU0eUYe7o4YxabqRfQc1Tc 9SoNCiT6Eb/+goxVldV59i4DVCYL1kfNvCRZC8AJM7qy/7T+GJ2xTZ4LUD+CVd665DAlB/n XxYilVrEHDmgyffTTICBQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:moP+USzvgpA=:MezO4WoiiPBoiXzj6bw8eI 8xAY7nD0nlwn1V/U9xzljj2YP20Kn/SHGkG8P3HM6PDJf+JEjOBph+dOu+xKc+G+kPxGTwxYM vmH7o6SEbeBnM1zGcM7pUndX5N8WynWYi5wR880TzVexiG22CAhIypKvPUIMZi/v8r5RIm8l8 lleJS2utL0g5eTbCcUgskJqSpF1zo9t6mNEU2VqvcHCFucquKaupWF2iIQ5Ict018EhmgoiZP 6J5NJ36wfXOBAHMKkB4omTeD/VnK5/CxvQkGMVYqFPYc7uPSadRfvs++T8PKLI1gM7U2WMsvw G1hPXBLoe7oYznyKxw9WbWfWQelBP7jC8ygYL8eaZviM7O3tLeTSiIGzXNWE7/6w3QzRUlJg9 YaVNdGn5F6UB9sYYrCg9CDpDzeYciOAJTsIgOtHEAs2ZHWiHrq//rPqhZpmuqZrmwpiafOKTX tLUyCbhTc8rX72rxugpi+I8rlsfsmmkkweVkSVmXGvKzdK40jQmG5Yrk1kQNZdLhwtVLIxa4J ax+gxKxwDgWTli48pqQvcQh+AhAAykMrp5ZP5y8jBw7S6oBNfBrB939aW1PIPait5ZEosXDdq 55k65avol9PeRTRjGbc/6jAlFRq7QgO6Teespmsn36SGmRSWr53BAh6cIeRdRu9tj4OS30yun F1f+E2LibNPkbTNwDq/gxf7d2xDjKXIwQ3Oi/bRbb2Bu98w== 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 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 07:46:58 -0000 On 3 August 2015 at 09:16, Simon Liu 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 There are two problems with this statement. Firstly we can not be doing protocol design via political lobbying - this is not a scientific approach and for sure leads to disaster; it is not the colour of the paint on the box, it is the security of the system. Secondly as I understand it the Chinese miners did this under duress of threats of worse as a compromise beyond what they felt they could safely cope with. > 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. That is good news. Aadm