public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: 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, 3 Aug 2015 08:34:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANe1mWxsAPzWut_gDqe4R-SkDPBYM392NzeVqbUzjwh+pydsWQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2535 bytes --]

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> 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
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3683 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-03  6:34 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 [this message]
2015-08-03  6:53   ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-04 10:53     ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-03  7:16   ` Simon Liu
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='CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=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