From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block size
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:16:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com>
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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-03 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-02 21:02 [bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block size Jim Phillips
2015-08-03 1:21 ` Pindar Wong
2015-08-03 4:33 ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-03 3:13 ` odinn
2015-08-03 6:34 ` Adam Back
2015-08-03 6:53 ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-04 10:53 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-03 7:16 ` Simon Liu [this message]
2015-08-03 7:34 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 7:53 ` Adam Back
2015-08-03 8:06 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 8:20 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-03 8:31 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 8:38 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-03 8:52 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 9:01 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-03 9:22 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 7:46 ` Adam Back
2015-08-03 13:57 ` Michael Ruddy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com \
--to=simon@bitcartel.com \
--cc=adam@cypherspace.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jim@ergophobia.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox