Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <1240902@gmail.com>) id 1YzNm1-0000ll-7p for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:20:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=1240902@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzNm0-00055D-8C for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:20:53 +0000 Received: by wizo1 with SMTP id o1so100440197wiz.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 04:20:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.78.136 with SMTP id b8mr19579333wix.44.1433157646266; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 04:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.208.69 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 04:20:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:20:46 +0800 Message-ID: From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (1240902[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (1240902[at]gmail.com) -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YzNm0-00055D-8C Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:20:53 -0000 I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution lower than 10MB in its first two years. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn 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. > > Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We > suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your > turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or > if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China, > or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not > us. Because we have 50%+. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn 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. > > Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We > suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your > turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or > if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China, > or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not > us. Because we have 50%+.