Topic: BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status - page 5. (Read 6464 times)

Look up pool mining protocols.  The data transferred from the miner to the node is miniscule, and it doesn't get even a single byte bigger if the block size increases.  The whole discussion of block size impact on China-based mining operations is a red herring.

If they move the full node out of China, then how do they mine inside China? If they are concerned about latency, then there will also be latency from their miners inside China to the full node outside of China.

Given that you blacked out your location and distance, I'm not sure how I was supposed to know how close you were.  I was obviously speaking of my own connection, which is... halfway around the world from China, and a faster connection to them as well.

Are you really sure you know the difference between mining operations and full nodes?  Are you aware, for instance, that the mining hardware doesn't need to know anything about transactions to do its work?  The entire discussion of China and its great firewall is a red herring.  It doesn't matter in the slightest.  The moment that a China-based mining operation becomes concerned with their latency or bandwidth in regards to transaction volume, they will move the full node outside of China.  Assuming, of course, that it's even there now.

Halfway? I'm actually around 3.5k miles away from them, so much closer than you are. Are you really sure that you should be discussing the technical details of this? Are you really sure that you know what orphans are and how they get created?
Blocks that are too big are going to result with problems and advantages (for some nations, while others will be at a disadvantage).

imho its more likely that other countries will put their mining nodes into china... as china seems to have the most hashrate why should they move?

So this other 32MEG limit is not a limit that is contained within BIP101, like BTCChina claims it is. Why would they say that? So is what BTCChina is saying factually incorect?

The limit doubles every two years with BIP101, starting with 8MB.

There is nothing that requires a mining operation in China to run its full node inside China.  The full hash power of the mining operation can remain inside China, and connect via a node anywhere in the world.  The transactional data is absolutely not required for the mining hardware to operate.

They wouldn't. But the slow part is any traffic going into and out of China due to the Great Firewall of China.

I ran 2 tests one to Taipei, Taiwan (near china but not in China) and one to Fuzhou China which is right across the strait from Taiwan and roughly the same distance.


As you can see, going into China drastically reduces the speed. And the problem is because of the Great Firewall of CHina. Since a lot of miners are Chinese, we need to take into account their network speed to the rest of the world when doing block time calculations.

That is very interesting, and their arguments are compelling. I support BIP100 over BIP101 because of the 32MEG limit within BIP100. However if that 32MEG limit also exists within Bitcoin XT and or BIP101. For me this would actually change my opinion in support of BIP100. Since I do think that the miners are the people that are best incentivised to do what is best for Bitcoin. I certainly do trust proof of work more then I do any development team. lol

Can anyone here with a deeper technical understanding confirm that even if the network forked to XT that this 32MEG limit would still be in place? Since that was the only reason why I preferred BIP101 compared to BIP100.

I have one more concern however, which is that no client that I can download now has BIP100 implemented and no plans for a hard fork have yet been made. Which means that for me to truly and wholeheartedly support BIP100 we would need these things in place and introduced in similar way that Bitcoin XT was. Since I do not want to just trust or believe that the Core team will implement BIP100 into the client themselves, since that was the entire reason for the existence of XT in the first place, since the Core development team seems to be unable to implement any of the BIP proposals. Which is why it will most likely need to be another alternative client that should push for this change. However since this does not exist yet, is why on some levels BIP100 is not a viable solution yet. I do hope that this will change soon.

It looks more and more like we'll be going the BIP100 route.

Why on Earth would miners in Beijing make all their connections directly to someone halfway around the world. That's not the way the Internet works.

But fine, let's test your theory.  Here's my connection from eastern coast US to Hong Kong:

Bobby Lee (BTCChina) announced they will be supporting BIP100 and explains why
https://vip.btcchina.com/page/noticetemplate?id=100

Please stop throwing random numbers here and using speedtest with servers in your vicinity. When it comes to testing the Bitcoin network you need to calculate China first else the big blocks will give more orphans (=more centralization).


This happens with a 60/6 Mbit connection to Bejing.

You are the one who asked for my upload speed. I provided it.  Let's stick with the 5 megabit transfer rate, shall we?

The discussion at hand was about the time to transfer blocks in ten years.  Under BIP 101, in ten years from today, the maximum block size will be 128 MB, not 8 GB.  At 5 mbit, 128 MB takes ... just over 2 minutes to transfer.

You are already doing that now. You are blindly trusting miners to include your transaction, to actually mine and to secure the network. As kingcolex said, miners could have completely destroyed the network if the wanted to. They could all stop mining now and the network would be dead. They could refuse to include people's transactions or include their own.

BUT, it is in their best interest to include your transactions and to continue to allow Bitcoin to grow. They are after profits, so it is in their best interest to get people to use Bitcoin and to get more transactions into their blocks for more fees.

That is true, any reckless decision now can lead to a collapse. But these aren't reckless proposals and have been thought out for several years. Remember, the discussion about increasing the blocksize has been around for a very long time. It was even around when Satoshi was still here and could weigh in.

If you don't like BIP 100, what do you want? What kind of voting scheme do you propose?

You're blindly trusting miners to be not evil. I would like to remind that #1 reason for people using Bitcoin is that we don't have to trust anyone with our money.

Mining centralization is the problem that even Satoshi didn't foresee it when he designed Bitcoin and POW. So why would we want to make this problem worse ?

People are thriving to see bigger blocks and they are willing to jump in any "proposal" satisfying that without thinking about long term consequences, first BIP 101, now this. Any reckless decision now can lead to collapse of system.

Your math is off.  At 5 mbit, the transfer time in 10 years would be just over 2 minutes, not 27.


Sure. From my house:

the same is true when we dont change anything.
all the problems you listed where there with 1mb blocks.

there are a lot of problems we can get when we stay at 1mb.

i cant see the future, do you? if we dont do anything thats not a guarantee that there wont be a new problem...

Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong. History of Bitcoin has proved that: 0day exploit, MtGox collapse, BTCGuild having 50% hashpower, ....

And there are so many way that Bitcoin can go wrong with BIP 100. Giving miner more power to control Bitcoin is horrible idea, it's even worse than keeping 1MB limit. Oh wait, Jeff Garzik is working for a mining firm, that why he has this proposal.

Miners should only do the job that they are designated to do: include transactions to blocks.