From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4D8F273 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:13:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CF2510E for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:13:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from piha.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D37B40C3D for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:13:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1438571602; bh=tpnf49+GoPgPAX0XGXvHuX31WLK4ZADISyr0FIoGqwY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QjBcLx6+jNwhv1VjSDn0X2NY2iK0HCrGvdwcItLm454l+tgNC3FHJQRHIGVf+sp/q vg3zqANDGQEKoIemMU3pXmNqrVMWQCCkVuibK7t4buSsT5E8GZAjKnX/RyDByYFd4s wjyW6OyqewxNJqmmniOtqm/sqMe077AdZLjoih50= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id CB5C0140431 Message-ID: <55BEDC51.9050600@riseup.net> Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:13:21 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:13:23 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim, some good points... People are rightly concerned about any given regional or nation-state's dominance in mining, but China has certainly become more of a subject of concern as of late, and not simply because it is a communist country and because its economy is highly centralized and state-run, but rather, because of the advent of newly proposed or adopted laws (not unlike those which we see being proposed in the UK or those recently adopted in France, so that no-one may say I am unfairly targeting China). Further, the recent shots off the bow between the USA and China in the latest crypto-wars saga (whether bluster or ultimately not) mean that we should be seriously concerned about too much mining happening in one specific region; thus there shouldn't be too much incentive for that to happen, yet at the time being (as you've rightly pointed out) the subsidization of electricity there, combined with the availability of certain environmental conditions for cooling and / or hydropower, means that China dominates the mining realm. Recently I took the time to ask someone associated with a new bitcoin mining operation in China some questions about the new (apparently developing) National Security Law of China. According to an early draft of this National Security Law, "the State maintains the basic economic system and order of the socialist marketplace ... safeguarding security in important industries and fields that influence the populace's economic livelihood ... as well as other major economic interests." The Chinese government is currently reviewing another national security related law, which in its first draft would mandate ALL Internet companies operating in China to provide backdoor access and encryption keys to the government. (One would imagine that would include any exchanges and mining operations as well.) The US FBI Director (Comey) has also, of course, made plenty of arguments for backdoors in encryption. But as security expert Bruce Schneier points out, there "really is no way" to keep users' data safe while providing backdoors. He said: "I have two options. I can design a secure system that has no backdoor access, meaning neither criminals nor foreign intelligence agencies nor domestic police can get at the data. Or I can design a system that has backdoor access, meaning they all can." (Reference: http://www.zdnet.com/article/because-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-secure- backdoor-gosh-darn-it/ ) Anyway, the response of the individual (eric@haobtc - of haobtc.com) to my questions can be seen here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1072474.msg11914077#msg11914077 His responses were provided to me before the recent "Crypto Wars" announcements which I think will only think make things worse: https://twitter.com/helios_unbound/status/627648646985719809 So, I try to be optimistic, but I'm leaning pessimistic right now about the situation with the effect of the Crypto Wars combined with the dominance of Chinese mining plus China's development of new laws that seem to involve further attempts to backdoor hardware and / or software. Obviously this doesn't break bitcoin for mathematical reasons that everyone on this list is already familiar with I'm sure, but it is concerning to me, and now I will /endrant On 08/02/2015 02:02 PM, Jim Phillips via bitcoin-dev 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 > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVvtxQAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CkVEIAJu9XsUzF4CKFD6xF3yofZ6R l2KcYjX1UegUi5mYAv8BLJVd5ZbRrUfjoIR6dbjMu2q4bYADCt57ZXx7zV8bdHQT Si9puYe3BboeeKJceS1jU5rkQbXrh/T4owqVMf8VAhDHQHVUVtSEvvx9gmxjFhze zz/aeWtCKH44EJB8/PqO3nN6iOIhq7QoKmiqqO1HL6lMXNTck8wq07UmhXziGK2F /5kX/uDM2BlAQs2E1IMeWe9GUJhHOQEqLfUPopfCTS7uTDt8FERWvobe5kPSV/vp RNmQ5ojhQl7qWIq/I7zmtzDJNNi16PsKxFFl358bXAPzw4bq7ymzniVLqo4C5LE= =eKYy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----