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 7E21F68 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:53:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA14FFD for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com ([209.85.192.53]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MgdbV-1ZXUSA2Ovv-00NvOH for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:53:41 +0200 Received: by qgeh16 with SMTP id h16so82974725qge.3 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:53:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.141.23.199 with SMTP id z190mr23808074qhd.34.1438588420101; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:53:39 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Hector Chu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4CejQsGh4xJ8qkKjtx+EDS5a3bJEE2Rui2TM5Ahdrh6laYFuZ/P vYyH9h4gsjmJXUT4lruP/f3uxlDfaFjFgm5SiLzyB8MSrCFL9nkyF9OODI/bnVAfDFAhtAS O/S8xX3rdzG2jk0k43IzSMw5LjjxcSOMs46xUcov4nCCGltGaTE0hoGEP2LDEYMgVXsgCYJ iC7t3X9ctjWg0ngagwcJQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:RctHmcxygi8=:QA4OC15QZBucDUDdbgs7oq WyidPHX/rFa86da1MeZ7UG0NHZ2itFAFZx8YjDOlQfrO3Gsi3snuVYM/z22b2IS1dxjcmUoIu d9gDlgUAVW2S9QM0z+zcVRpB/ySkf4+CJUGekdMtoY4bIhRcjCIO8PbtkprnV6yWN3kZQkrUZ Vyc1YSQ9U1LtdioROBeZawsCy6OUw7pYmC/ocv2+ePeyjKf/uyQVn4M4sNX6q0K0K02zXpkH6 vmPlV592aVyCjri0cyPvrilZLhtwRPi/oSTOqptu0nD+DA1B9+o+v1+yt1hO5/PT2nmlH2u7E 4CQhxNZK0lLL9bKfmbVg/+ujVtVCRb+ZWY4wv7eBpXsc/EKyJjuWyJKbH7y3H8esBt/SUoKHK vxRFsIuRxtuA8s57j+WMmi0D+16cvqmfGurq2OHIKsPQQPiJTodj1pBrAvxtI7FKta5CvEyCy BS2wS6FXvXqfCEtj1PEu+AaADpjzBsmKPDP4QLh8+xPajRNIyZr3oste/McgXqI4YGsI/DCU4 EYbwUBHd9Uy7VsVy4V2RkDj2D9qNlHyO3M1KLREinrtiskVG0LF+48LlsR8NBz/BJo/nV+dfb 613ufw3lHPV3uG0HmmfkADHPq1ELa1izuUcjwRYpk6u0RELlheqrYk8MsYnfLlT5QXZKripjT OBKjYtDZYyOwTf1yItFcakqRx8rj6K+ZHmdpWp1Nb65GNLg== 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 07:53:43 -0000 Again this should not be a political or business compromise model - we must focus on scientific evaluation, technical requirements and security. But specifically as you asked a group of Chinese miners said they would not run it: http://cointelegraph.com/news/114657/chinese-mining-pools-call-for-consensus-refuse-switch-to-bitcoin-xt Imagine if we had a nuclear reactor design criteria - we would not be asking around with companies what parameter would they compromise on. We'd be looking to scientific analysis of what is safe, based on empirical and theoretical work on safety. If we're risking $4b of other peoples money (and a little bit of mine) I would strongly want a scientific approach. A closer analogy would be the NIST SHA3 design process. With crypto building blocks it is a security / speed tradeoff, a little analogous to the security / throughput trade off in Bitcoin. They do not ask companies or governments which algorithm they like or what parameter they'd compromise on. They have a design competition and analyse the algorithms and parameters for security margin and speed optimisation in hardware and software. Much effort is put in and it is very rigorous because a lot is at stake if they get it wrong. Adam On 3 August 2015 at 09:34, Hector Chu wrote: > On 3 August 2015 at 08:16, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev > 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 > > > What's the current stance of the Chinese pools on Bitcoin XT, should Bitcoin > Core refuse to increase the block size to 8 MB in a timely fashion? Would > they run it if the economic majority (e.g. Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.) publicly > stated their support for big blocks?