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 78AF79B for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 04:33:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A513EA for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 04:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so119502531wic.0 for ; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cqnACHE+8XVqLkFMHnTrSnQnkm/z2PCBgxiolg98/+0=; b=ZElfbDdOGzBI+q+SX4jnmaWZONfmCgzrB8vEh55At6Y9KwY2tuN5/uOSGHJJJsqhPe +pi+owRhyW0ay97rg4LoLRxeH1uVXt+HxfTs6ohdGx1Zdk9s17I3kTNkNQDiTctcQznA O0poSeR89g1ylHGP+ouLJ4pG5mxIAfjkMc4arWmh+m2ai2+VcxaKDGdiOS/gt9Na/dOj IxGeH2U7OIFeqTMjH02CiQ0mb9BrekIoh4U2B5USmPHDvTeIceADIBAXWrlYWXA+g7vV WvC/L35/bdXMzIBXzw0nURokE801+uVMUmX88S38dSuMUHva7qVlCIHuqMlzIkWcdlLl i04Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmc25afhbrMhikZuhqXHiZO+VcJ6Az36l6KoIcBm/gB8tJ6Cgho+BStiGSMh820r5ywZUYC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.107.138 with SMTP id hc10mr29642286wib.2.1438576411835; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 21:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.15.193 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.15.193 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:33:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 23:33:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jim Phillips To: Pindar Wong Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f235739029381051c60ac66 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_REMOTE_IMAGE 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@lists.linuxfoundation.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 04:33:34 -0000 --e89a8f235739029381051c60ac66 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I realize that my argument may have come across as anti-Chinese, but I can assure you that my concerns are not nationalist or racist in nature, so I apologize if they came across as such. I was raised under another oppressive regime, the US government, so I am sympathetic to the problems of the Chinese people. I am in fact only concerned with the very real fact that a majority of the Bitcoin network's hashing power is centralized within the political borders of one country and consequently the entire Bitcoin economy is at risk of political manipulation. I have seen frequent instances within my own homeland where the government has seized control over private businesses through draconian regulation. I have witnessed in other countries where businesses are seized and nationalized more directly. I am concerned that the Chinese government might decide to nationalize the Bitcoin mines within its borders, and what they might do with 57% of the network hashing power. If it were any other country I would be equally concerned. But it's not any other country. It's China. And I don't trust the Chinese government any more than I trust any other government not to take actions that might harm Bitcoin. On Aug 2, 2015 8:21 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > Dear Jim, > > Thank you for sharing your view w.r.t. the so called 'Chinese Miners'. > > Diversity of opinion, and mining, are IMHO both good and it's indeed a > free world.... so others who wish to mine bitcoin should be encouraged to > make the capital and technical investments to do so. > > May I ask what is your technical suggestion to move this discussion > forward beyond your anti-Chinese/anti-China rhetoric? e.g. I would be > particularly grateful if you could share your views w.r.t. colluding miner > attacks in draft 0.5.9. of Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja's 'Lightning > network' paper, found here:- > > http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf > > Respectfully, > > p. > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:02 AM, 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* >> >> >> >> *"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 >> >> > --e89a8f235739029381051c60ac66 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I realize that my argument may have come across as anti-Chin= ese, but I can assure you that my concerns are not nationalist or racist in= nature, so I apologize if they came across as such. I was raised under ano= ther oppressive regime, the US government, so I am sympathetic to the probl= ems of the Chinese people.

I am in fact only concerned with the very real fact that a m= ajority of the Bitcoin network's hashing power is centralized within th= e political borders of one country and consequently the entire Bitcoin econ= omy is at risk of political manipulation. I have seen frequent instances wi= thin my own homeland where the government has seized control over private b= usinesses through draconian regulation. I have witnessed in other countries= where businesses are seized and nationalized more directly. I am concerned= that the Chinese government might decide to nationalize the Bitcoin mines = within its borders, and what they might do with 57% of the network hashing = power.

If it were any other country I would be equally concerned. B= ut it's not any other country. It's China. And I don't trust th= e Chinese government any more than I trust any other government not to take= actions that might harm Bitcoin.

On Aug 2, 2015 8:21 PM, "Pindar Wong" = <pindar.wong@gmail.com> = wrote:
Dear Jim,

Thank you for sharing your view w.r.t.= the so called 'Chinese Miners'.=C2=A0

Diversity of opinion= , and mining, are IMHO both good and it's indeed a=C2=A0 free world....= so others who wish to mine bitcoin should be encouraged=C2=A0 to make the = capital and technical investments to do so.

May I ask what is your = technical suggestion to move this discussion forward beyond your anti-Chine= se/anti-China rhetoric?=C2=A0=C2=A0 e.g. I would be particularly grateful i= f you could share your=C2=A0 views w.r.t. colluding miner attacks in draft = 0.5.9. of Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja's 'Lightning network' = paper, found here:-

http://lightning.network/lightning-netwo= rk-paper.pdf

Respectfully,

p.


=

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Jim Phillips via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
China is a communist coun= try. It is no secret that all "capitalist" enterprises are essent= ially State controlled, or at the very least are subject to nationalization= should the State deem it necessary. Most ASIC chips are manufactured in Ch= ina, so they are cheap and accessible to Chinese miners. Electricity is sub= sidized 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, bet= ween just the top 4 Chinese miners, the People's Republic of China effe= ctively 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 th= e world, and Chinese miners have said that an increase in the block size wo= uld 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 causin= g centralization, think about how, by restricting blocksize, you're ena= bling the Communist Chinese government to maintain centralized control over= 57% of the Bitcoin hashing power.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--e89a8f235739029381051c60ac66--