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 A1E2F3EE for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 03:02:58 +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 6A6B4102 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 03:02:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cotinga.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.161]) (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 B96FCC19D6; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:02:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1440212576; bh=KzGq5Ym9ICbOooFahtqt3Saj+/Ox1642319lVqctSLM=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DmPodeQ5OLwSvrPsYo8VxoBJ214J0BubNP7+gcoilQsw9gAUfOmtk63oJc7eODOEA 5yvydJxVAl6qpijBs+J2WQudzsOT8+rRLeYgOq8xSEPCDTEeePj2qf6rjH/PdHpAJo zcKDzFxFCcuL7I6+kZ/QGAR73vz36Lo3gcTHlJMs= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 17F911C008A Message-ID: <55D7E654.9040004@riseup.net> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:02:44 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Btc Drak , Yifu Guo References: <3B2A58B3-6AF6-4F1C-A6FA-7AEC97F48AD0@petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1.riseup.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 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 Cc: Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all BIPs on this website ? 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: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 03:02:58 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bitcoin will be neutered and die if the big Chinese mining pools utilize XT. Specifically the text of @JihanWu's tweet was, "I support increasing the block size. @BITMAINtech 's AntPool will be prepared to switch to XT, IF we see majority has switched." Since there are many people who are supportive of increasing the block size, but have spend much time calling attention to the many problems of XT (which I need not repeat again here), it is odd that Jihan Wu would see a need to suggest that AntPool will be prepared to switch to XT at a time when there has not yet been time for fully assessing other proposals; not all proposals have gone through a voting process, nor have even people had a chance yet to attend upcoming workshops on the subject which are partially or wholly intended for development of consensus ( one example being the upcoming one in Montreal, but I think this is not the only one https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/ ). See also Pindar Wong's post on this list regarding the Montreal workshop : https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/0101 35.html This is also a good time to remember again some of the pressures being placed by the state on Chinese internet-based businesses. These pressures have increased, as has been recently discussed on this list, here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/0098 61.html Take a good read of these issues (linked to above) relating to Chinese mining and the influence of the Chinese state, and it becomes clear how the state pressures might cause Chinese miners to adopt XT in light of: Hearn's disabling Tor in XT https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007167.html http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-e xits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses Hearn's move to support blacklisting https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qmbtu/mike_hearn_chair_of_the _bitcoin_foundations_law/ A recent post that sums it up pretty well: http://qntra.net/2015/08/collected-notes-on-the-xt-client-and-xtcoin-for k/ I encourage people still reading this list to: - - Not use XT - - Work to develop consensus on an alternative that increases block size (e.g. BIP 100) - - Attend a conference if you can such as the one which is coming up in Montreal https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/ and if you go there as a developer / engineer / miner, AGREE ON SOMETHING (other than XT) - - Visualize different proposals and votes on them so people can see what is happening - - Please see also (how end users can deal with this situation) at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157545.msg12189776 and contribute to the discussion if you like Thank you. On 08/21/2015 04:28 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Yifu Guo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> I like the intend of this attempt to bring more clarity to the >> blocksize debate, however it would be more help to make this a >> information site about the current outstanding BIPs and summarize >> their differences rather than voting mechanism. (ofcourse the >> author of the BIPs would "vote" for their own proposals.) >> >> It would be good to include supporting and counter statements >> regards to these BIPs on the site. in addition to highlight >> certain things like pools in china have voiced their opinion that >> increase should happen, and 8mb is something they are comfortable >> with, which is not directly related to a single BIP, but never >> the less relevant in this discussion. > > I was rather surprised by the tweet from AntPool[1] today saying > that they support big blocks and would be prepared to upgrade to > XT. Pools have stated that they are willing to increase to a > maximum of 8MB, but upgrading to XT puts them on a schedule towards > 8GB which is clearly not what they have agreed to. > > Do you have any insights into what's going on there? > > Also do you have any insight into what Chinese pools would accept > as a compromise in terms of raising the blocksize limit? > > Drak > > [1] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314 > _______________________________________________ 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 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1+ZRAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CzIEH/jQQzFHz2IUxh8CIDIyBEMFA FxVqgcTcs2gdL0R4Nprj+PoKUYSDbanDSr+5QVt6Qp8l4jbQEC/QlFWlmwRL9AlC tUxd5VAubWCuAcg2xADD4lEFedJlxZcDZ8VHp/TMUgPuWWLP0lvnXtef/FlgmPik xAZzsHfujD1u0trwwvVSF4pjpbV1mKQcI5lkA9nGZI5yg7+bQDDEMjmCSh2xhyCe 5Tc0b7xQqJiamPgjbauKmZFfLpCM6UdHFiT19syJ1YB9F1JmpXWz3Kpxy1w6uFNH HSseqGIUHjQDCq3rRwoXOYPf8aVfACXPxc00HH1SbUA5dgQs4lo+i6z71dcMgs4= =4d+B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----