Topic: 5 Chinese mining pools propose 8MB block size - page 2. (Read 5465 times)
Listen to them!
Gavincoin's idea of doubling every 2 years is not a good one.
"Why upgrade to 8MB but not 20MB?
1.Chinese internet bandwidth infrastructure is not built out to the same advanced level as those found in other countries.
2.Chinese outbound bandwidth is restricted; causing increased latency in connections between China & Europe or the US.
3.Not all Chinese mining pools are ready for the jump to 20MB blocks, and fear that this could cause an orphan rate that is too high."
I know the advanced level in China is not the same as in other countries, for I have kept contact with Chinese companies.
1.Chinese internet bandwidth infrastructure is not built out to the same advanced level as those found in other countries.
2.Chinese outbound bandwidth is restricted; causing increased latency in connections between China & Europe or the US.
3.Not all Chinese mining pools are ready for the jump to 20MB blocks, and fear that this could cause an orphan rate that is too high."
I know the advanced level in China is not the same as in other countries, for I have kept contact with Chinese companies.
When the bitcoin is adopted by several states/governments, they will mine it to make sure there is no 51% attack. It is in their interest.
i don't think so, it is just that they find 8 mb the most valid choice, for their business, and since they are situated all in china, they will share similar goals
yet i still believe that something aginst the 51% problem must be done, something that will tell the network to not count the longest chain, but the more legit block, i don't know how it can be implemented
Maybe PoW+PoS.
When BTC becomes popular, most people will mine it, if they can make the cost low. Even (every) governments will mine it. So there will not be 51%
Most people won't mine it unless you go back to including the miner in the client and it doesn't use the CPU 100%. That would be a good solution if you can convince the virus scanner people that bitcoin mining software is not a virus anymore. Relying on unproven psychological incentives is a political solution not technological and I prefer relying on the maths.
i don't think so, it is just that they find 8 mb the most valid choice, for their business, and since they are situated all in china, they will share similar goals
yet i still believe that something aginst the 51% problem must be done, something that will tell the network to not count the longest chain, but the more legit block, i don't know how it can be implemented
Maybe PoW+PoS.
When BTC becomes popular, most people will mine it, if they can make the cost low. Even (every) governments will mine it. So there will not be 51%
Bitcoin is independent...now bitcoin is supposed to follow 5 chinese mining pools? Fail....
Even 8mb makes sense
Even 8mb makes sense
well those 5 chinese mining pool don't belong to one entity, so bitcoin is indipendent from a single decision, but not from general consensus, for obvious reasons
don't bring the whole "mining is centralized" again, because it isn't
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
That's correct. The miners control Bitcoin. They determine what is a valid block. Those five mining companies have over 60% of the hash rate.For the first time, they're now acting together to take control of the network. The original developers no longer matter.
i don't think so, it is just that they find 8 mb the most valid choice, for their business, and since they are situated all in china, they will share similar goals
yet i still believe that something aginst the 51% problem must be done, something that will tell the network to not count the longest chain, but the more legit block, i don't know how it can be implemented
The problem is, that if the miners have 60% of the hash rate, your network remains, best case, with 40% of the hash rate, which means it is less secure.
less secure for what? for an attack like 51%... my whole point was that, if the longest chain does not matter anymore, than you not have to worry about who holds the largest percentage of the network
something like
"ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)" would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they'd pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people's transactions or have their chain rejected."
but this is not the best solution
Bitcoin is independent...now bitcoin is supposed to follow 5 chinese mining pools? Fail....
Even 8mb makes sense
Even 8mb makes sense
well those 5 chinese mining pool don't belong to one entity, so bitcoin is indipendent from a single decision, but not from general consensus, for obvious reasons
don't bring the whole "mining is centralized" again, because it isn't
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
That's correct. The miners control Bitcoin. They determine what is a valid block. Those five mining companies have over 60% of the hash rate.For the first time, they're now acting together to take control of the network. The original developers no longer matter.
i don't think so, it is just that they find 8 mb the most valid choice, for their business, and since they are situated all in china, they will share similar goals
yet i still believe that something aginst the 51% problem must be done, something that will tell the network to not count the longest chain, but the more legit block, i don't know how it can be implemented
The problem is, that if the miners have 60% of the hash rate, your network remains, best case, with 40% of the hash rate, which means it is less secure.
Bitcoin is independent...now bitcoin is supposed to follow 5 chinese mining pools? Fail....
Even 8mb makes sense
Even 8mb makes sense
well those 5 chinese mining pool don't belong to one entity, so bitcoin is indipendent from a single decision, but not from general consensus, for obvious reasons
don't bring the whole "mining is centralized" again, because it isn't
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
That's correct. The miners control Bitcoin. They determine what is a valid block. Those five mining companies have over 60% of the hash rate.For the first time, they're now acting together to take control of the network. The original developers no longer matter.
i don't think so, it is just that they find 8 mb the most valid choice, for their business, and since they are situated all in china, they will share similar goals
yet i still believe that something aginst the 51% problem must be done, something that will tell the network to not count the longest chain, but the more legit block, i don't know how it can be implemented
I wonder what Satoshi thinks about the fact a bunch of Chinese miners can decide the fate of BTC for coming decades. He predicted that mining would get more and more centralized tho, but not sure about development decisions.
If the community follows the 8 MB block size, then it is not determined by the Chinese miners. It is the consensus of the community.
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
That's correct. The miners control Bitcoin. They determine what is a valid block. Those five mining companies have over 60% of the hash rate.For the first time, they're now acting together to take control of the network. The original developers no longer matter.
I wonder what Satoshi thinks about the fact a bunch of Chinese miners can decide the fate of BTC for coming decades. He predicted that mining would get more and more centralized tho, but not sure about development decisions.
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
That's correct. The miners control Bitcoin. They determine what is a valid block. Those five mining companies have over 60% of the hash rate.For the first time, they're now acting together to take control of the network. The original developers no longer matter.
Yeah, I know. I wasn't really joking. You've been here long enough but most of the newer people in this thread don't remember when Tycho at Deepbit held Bitcoin hostage over OP_EVAL/BIP16/17 and he was just one pool operator. Miners control the direction of Bitcoin more than anyone realizes.
Bitcoin is independent...now bitcoin is supposed to follow 5 chinese mining pools? Fail....
Even 8mb makes sense
Even 8mb makes sense
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
That's correct. The miners control Bitcoin. They determine what is a valid block. Those five mining companies have over 60% of the hash rate.For the first time, they're now acting together to take control of the network. The original developers no longer matter.
Doubling every two years sounds good as it is similar to Moor's law trend. Original Moor's stated that computing ability doubles every 1.5 years . However, it slows down to about 2-3 years now. In 2012, the top of range AMD card had 2048 core, in 2015, the top card has 4096 core.
Here we go again. Stop spreading false information. In the original paper back in 1965 he described a doubling every year, later in 1975 he revised the forecast time to two years. This has nothing to do with the number of cores found within a GPU, it is about the number of transistors that should double approximately every 2 years. I read somewhere that its due in Bitcoin Core 0.11
I've verified this, it was pushed back to 0.11. Gavin's latest update to BitcoinXT will increase the block size to 8MB, then double it every two years afterwards. It doesn't sound like he will be happy to update Bitcoin block size to 8MB and leave it a that for 5 years. It sounds like he wants to keep on increasing it after two years like with BitcoinXT.
It doesn't just sound like he wants to do it, he is doing it. He has already pushed the changes to Github. well at least they are willing to negotiate. 8MB is fine for now, but im sure some of the venture capital behind bitcoin has other plans
Maybe 8 MB is fine for the next 5 years if side chain becomes working.
Gavin's latest update to BitcoinXT will increase the block size to 8MB, then double it every two years afterwards. It doesn't sound like he will be happy to update Bitcoin block size to 8MB and leave it a that for 5 years. It sounds like he wants to keep on increasing it after two years like with BitcoinXT.
Doubling every two years sounds good as it is similar to Moor's law trend. Original Moor's stated that computing ability doubles every 1.5 years . However, it slows down to about 2-3 years now. In 2012, the top of range AMD card had 2048 core, in 2015, the top card has 4096 core.
well at least they are willing to negotiate. 8MB is fine for now, but im sure some of the venture capital behind bitcoin has other plans
Maybe 8 MB is fine for the next 5 years if side chain becomes working.
Gavin's latest update to BitcoinXT will increase the block size to 8MB, then double it every two years afterwards. It doesn't sound like he will be happy to update Bitcoin block size to 8MB and leave it a that for 5 years. It sounds like he wants to keep on increasing it after two years like with BitcoinXT.
well at least they are willing to negotiate. 8MB is fine for now, but im sure some of the venture capital behind bitcoin has other plans
Good point. Bitcoin should not be limited by special interests. It should be unlimited by general greed. 
...
Although someone definitely needs to work on that pruning feature soon.
Although someone definitely needs to work on that pruning feature soon.
I read somewhere that its due in Bitcoin Core 0.11
well at least they are willing to negotiate. 8MB is fine for now, but im sure some of the venture capital behind bitcoin has other plans
Maybe 8 MB is fine for the next 5 years if side chain becomes working.
Jump to: