Topic: chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase (Read 4847 times)

I agree with the assertion of faked volume in Chinese exchanges. However, larger (20 MB) block size will put pressure on Chinese miners.

seriouscoin is saying about Chinese exchanges. https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+bitcoin+exchange+fake+volume

The number of bitcoins mined in China is not faked.

  we need pump the fking price over 2k usd and make hashrate to 1000P after that hardfork would be no big deal

The block solving does not need a lot of bandwidth. Chinese is powerful because their hashing power. Suppose that someone in China controlling a quantum miner, he can solve a block in 5 seconds, no matter where he is located, as long as he managed to get block-solving hash work from a pool that is located on internet backbone, and deliver the solved result back to the pool, that pool will broadcast the finished block to the whole network

Of course if they could control the pool inside main land China, that will give them some convenience, but it is not a must

And I think bitcoin's growth in China provide a good diversification. In western, the bank rules, if banks refuse to open business accounts for bitcoin companies (which is the case today), then bitcoin will not go anywhere(even the merchant accept them will have to convert them to fiat money). However in China it is more complicated, because Chinese banks are controlled by the government officers, and government officers may have different interest. When a government officer decided to go with bitcoin, the banks that he controls will ignore the warning from the central bank (Which had happened in China already, otherwise all those Chinese exchanges would be shutdown already)

2 Bitcoins.

Chinese Bitcoin vs Gavin Bitcoin

 


 

Politics should never get into bitcoin, just like it never got into gold. But unfortunately, human has so far no better way than politics to deal with uncertain things

People can reach 100% consensus on 1+1=2, but they can't reach a consensus on block size, because that is an unknown scenario, there is no sure answer for that question, unless it has been proved hundreds of times

The decision making principle when facing uncertainty is conservative instead of aggressive, reduce the risk exposure instead of increase the risk exposure

Having a bad day are we ?

Is this why the price is dropping ? Neato. Just picked up some more cheap coins !

/hodl

It's not just people and exchanges in Asia that will try to profit from the chaos.

https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Well as much as it has been fun to have you try and troll me (you failed but don't worry - none have succeeded) I have other things to do so I am going to *unwatch* this topic now.

Of course that is going to "piss you off" as being the troll that you are you want to keep me engaged with your stupid stuff - but I am not your therapist or your helper so I guess you'll just have to find me on another topic if you want to keep trolling me.

I think you must have missed my post so here it is again.

You should just put seriouscoin on ignore because he is a serious idiot that thrives on confrontation. He doesn't really care what the issue is he just wants to argue. He does it in every thread.  He starts off every conversation by name calling to start the argument then keeps it up until you give up. It's not worth the effort.

This is so true haha 

I'm glad we have the ignore button.

Yup - you are so desperate that you'll take any trophy whatsoever and are too afraid to even try and live in China (as you know that you are so weak that you wouldn't even survive one week here).

If anyone on this forum took any of your posts seriously before then you have *fucked that up totally now*.

So well done on being the "morons of the month" - we should probably have a trophy for you (and your alt).

Yet it was Gavin who said 8MB (you can check the article that the OP linked to - no mention of 8MB there at all).

So either Gavin is the *devil* who proposed 20MB or he is the *devilI* that accepts 8MB - somehow you seem to have everything twisted up that it has anything at all to do with what *I say* or most others.

My guess is now that you must now think that somehow Gavin is *involved with the Chinese* about all this.

tbh I'm quite done with this thread as is going nowhere but down in mud throwing between each poster, and quite frankly I'm gonna enjoy my Sunday before the beginning of work week because if bitcoin dies tomorrow it won't affect me at all but some mega-farms are stand to loose boat load of money so they would do everything they can to skew the general opinion toward their position.

But one thing is sure if the block size increases to 8mb as the Chinese want it to be then that's no way is a consensus because theoretically they say my way or the highway

I am lazy to look through your post history atm but by looking posts in *this* thread, it seems like you have some problem in reading or interpreting posts and thus it *looks like* you are trolling.

   you see unlike some people I don't have time to keep posting to raise my status to legendary because in real life I actually don't have much free time to keep arguing about nonsense plus I've got much better stuff to do with my free time than trolling . Go thru my post history and please show me  one instance that I was trolling a thread?!?    

It seems you've come short and are relying on " I'm a troll argument" well good for you hopes that makes you happy.

You cannot scale up any "decentralised" system to work as efficiently as any "centralised" system.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is "deluded" (as even Gavin has stated the same).

That doesn't mean that Bitcoin can't "scale up" but it means that VISA/Mastercard could always scale up bigger.

Show me my contradiction. If you are telling the bolder lines are contradicting, yes, they are but the lines means two different things. You should read carefully before jumping. No offence.


It's not just about miners but full nodes too.


People *outside* China are also pointing their miners to Chinese pools. Also Chinese pools aren't huge to call mining is away from decentralization.


I didn't say Bitcoin shouldn't scale up, instead, I said we should observer the problems and/or to increase it limit to a reasonable size like 8MB but not by 2000% and not in the current way of Gavin's proposal, i.e. asking miners, companies and such if consensus is not reached.


Like I said, it's not only about mining but full nodes too.


No offence but do you have any problem in reading? CIYAM said "Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard" and not "it can't never scale up".

So go ahead and demonstrate what you have done that actually *matters* in the last ten years.

(yes - I have a post to show what I have done but I am going to wait for you to show me first as I somehow doubt you have done anything of any significance at all apart from trolling on forums)

   you want to get to see who has a higher education here...  I have no problem with that I show my MD degree and you show me yours?  ok?  let's see who is more educated?  

It's not my usual standard to get low to your level or try to show off but at this instance I feel like teach you a lesson so you don't randomly challenge people's education  

You're the first person that I respect on this forum that has actually told the truth instead of just spouting the party line. Bravo!

Edit: You should just put seriouscoin on ignore because he is a serious idiot that thrives on confrontation. He doesn't really care what the issue is he just wants to argue. He starts off every conversation by name calling to start the argument then keeps it up until you give up. It's not worth the effort.

@seriouscoin - you are a serious racist.

No-one in this forum actually care much for your rubbish.

But go ahead and post more rubbish - it only shows why you have negative trust and why no-one gives a fuck about your retarded views.

Seriously - you don't know the first thing about me but presume to actually know all my motives?

So either you are some kind of "genius mind-reader" or just a "retarded bitcointalk.org poster".

Hmm.. my bet is on the latter.

I see you're coming from the camp of " it can't never scale up " but I want the Bitcoin somehow magically becomes main stream so I can keep profit from mining on it    good luck with that    

well if you're not bitcoin enthusiastic then why the heck you spending your time here in BCT ??!!!   what are your motives for being here?

No but it's one of the few countries in the world with restricted internet access (GFW) . Now name me how many other countries are in that category? 

No it won't be a USA coin, as a matter of fact everybody can access the Blockchain and send/received transactions even in China or Africa or even moon but mining of it becomes more difficult because it's not like before anymore where all you needed was cheap hardware along with cheap power equals to profit.

Lets get this straight,  being able to accessing the network is not the same as being able to mine on it. You keep bundling these two together to benefit your flawed argument.

Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard and anyone who thinks so is really "kidding themselves".

In the world of "remittance" Bitcoin can be king but in the world of general transactions it is never going to get there.

When will you guys realise that "normal people" actually *want* reversible transactions and the safety of their banks. They are *never* going to want to lose their money to scammers who want to take advantage of irreversible payments.

It is so funny that Bitcoin fanatics just seem to forget all about "customers" (probably because most of them are scammers trying to steal their customers money).

You're contradicting yourself    , bitcoin mining as is right now is CENTRALIZED in China that is a fact that you can't ignore. Again raising block size limit won't make bitcoin inaccessible in China or Africa , it would make only MINING harder due to connection restriction, which is nobody's fault. The network has grown over past several years, you can't keep using the same old tricks and praying that everything would be fine.

Also you can't just keep setting up shacks in remote locations with cheap power and poor internet connection just because you want to mine bitcoin and dump it to profit from it. As a matter of fact those mega-farms couldn't careless about mining being centralized in a single location . All they care is ROI and profit.

It amazes me people keep defending these mega-farms and at the same time they bring up decentralization , it's oxymoron . There's saying that goes as " you can't patch stupid " it fits perfectly here.

If Bitcoin does't scale up  it would just collapse, then who cares about stability and decentralization when it's already collapsed because of not being able to scale up. Get your priority  straight .

 

To make it to two, I splitted those into two paras. Sorry if it wasn't clear.


Off-chain transactions are low.


I have no problem but most users have problem because they ban users who receive Bitcoins from sites they blacklisted.


If Gavin & Mike settle their control over the project in this way firmly, they will be able to do whatever they want. Storage is not a big issue but if storage, internet etc... are considered, I think many nodes will have to drop and hence, less nodes which will lead to more crntralization.

That's the best you can do?

I am disappointed - at least previously you got some things right (such as the fact that I live in China and am married to a Chinese woman) but now you are rather lacking in anything coherent at all. Are you too drunk to actually keep trolling?

Maybe you'd better have a sleep and get back to trolling me tomorrow.

(btw - if you'd bothered to even look at my profile you'd know that I am *not* a VIP)

Extremely rude people with negative trust equals *who cares what the fuck they post as it is of no concern nor importance*.

As you can see no-one is really interested in your view at all - but don't let that stop you - please continue to make an ass of yourself with your ridiculous posts.

Every rubbish thing you say about me just makes me laugh more about just how ignorant you are - so let's see if you can make me LOL again (you've managed to do that at least 3 times already today).

I know. The size of the blocks earlier were not big like now and still a limit was put to prevent spam and DOS attacks. In fact, number of transactions were much lesser than it is today. You think this has changed now? NO! We should not only consider about scaling but stability and decentralization too.

The current way of proposing by Gavin actually says about him asking miners and companies to adopt new fork which is essentially hurting decentralization.

"I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design." - This is exactly the reason I posted it. We didn't "compromise" the design. Bitcoin's design is decentralization, ".... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Bitcoin must carry on but 20MB is not needed now. Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. IMHO we should first observer what are the problems when blocks reaches 1MB and then we should consider increasing maximum block size but not to 20MB *yet*.

I don't really care what rubbish you want to post about me but it is rather obvious that most of the people that are posting here don't actually care about Bitcoin at all but instead just want to either post for the sake of their ad-sig or big-note themselves and "breast beat" how everyone needs to do things the way that *they say* it should be done (who are the same kind of people who were attacking Gavin last week about the 20MB limit funnily enough).

Well good luck with that attitude and am sure you'll win friends and influence people all over the world.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it.

You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea.

As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).

When they have indicated that a more modest increase in max. block size (such as the 8MB that Gavin has stated he would accept) would be acceptable then why do you keep trying to turn this "storm in a teacup" into some sort of  Others vs. China battle?

If China ends up abandoning Bitcoin then I really don't see how that would be any sort of victory for Bitcoin at all.

China is not the only country in the world with bandwidth issues so I guess next you want to get rid of any developing countries as well and after a while pretty much Bitcoin will just be USA coin. To that I say - no thanks.

Actually that would be a good idea since in China the government can take over the farms if they wish to without any recourse, just make bitcoin mining illegal and confiscate the hardware and perform a 51% attack on the rest of the network.  having all this hashing power centralized in china is a liability for the rest of the network.

Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.

So what if they can't get access to better connection is not other people's fault, instead you expect everybody else bend over to their wishes? how long you plan on bending over and take it just for the sake of it?    plus having more than 50% of hashing power centralized in one location is not good either and is not called " hashing strength "  it's rather a weakness where the government can take over it if they wish especially in China. I see rather as liability for the network rather than strenght

Simply they either need to relocated to somewhere else or slowly die while dragging the rest of community with them.
 

You do understand that >50% of the hashing rate comes from Bitcoin mining farms located in China?

If they decide to not adopt a change then put simply *no change will occur* (as they will still be creating over 50% of the blocks making any 90% consensus simply impossible to reach) so chest beating is hardly going to help here.

This is not about politics but about finding a practical solution that will let Bitcoin grow without causing a collapse in the hashing strength or confidence in the Bitcoin blockchain.

It has nothing to do with connection equipment and everything to do with the Great Chinese Firewall and a smaller increase in block size was seen as been acceptable by both the exchanges in question so it actually seems to me that an 8MB block size limit will satisfy all parties (as Gavin has already said he'd be okay with 8MB).

Cutting out the Chinese would not actually be a very good idea for something that is designed to be a world-wide revolution in person to person payments and a non-inflationary store of value.

well i thought the whole point of this discussion is about Chinese miner not being able to mine bigger blocks because of their poor internet connection ( stale/orphan blocks ) hence rejecting the whole idea of increase block size because they stand to loose money to those with better internet connection.

Also dumping prices to singles digits is a guarantee death sentence for the mega-farms since they won't be able to sustain their operation cost. They stand to loose millions of dollars if that happens  . Maybe the price goes into singles digits for a few months and once the mega-farms are all bankrupt we can start again but this time any Chinese mega-farm investor will think twice before setting up a shop in some remote location in china just because they have access to cheap power!!


The whole point here is the Chinese mega-farms are holding a choke point on further progress of Bitcoin/Blockchain as a whole . to them profiting/ROI  is more important than survival/Scaling  of bitcoin itself . As is now, the whole mining is centralized mainly in China, a country with restricted internet access and censorship.


I believe in the end the Chinese mega-farms are either way doomed if they can't get access to some sorta fiber optic connection or relocating their operation to somewhere else, because once we reach the transactions limit something needs to be done otherwise the whole Bitcoin will collapse

Please think it over again: If Chinese decided to work further on the original blockchain, let's call it bitcoin legacy, then what will they do with their coins on the new blockchain bitcoin XT? They will dump them all, that will be millions of coins dumped on western exchanges, sending bitcoin's value to single digits, maybe cents, thus the whole XT coin ecosystem will collapse. Similarly XT people will dump all their coins on the bitcoin legacy chain, causing their coins to become worthless, both coins dead

Why should I spend a coin that will increase in value long term wise while I could spend fiat money which is decrease in value long term wise?

Unless every time I always first purchase bitcoin with fiat money from exchanges and then spend them, in order to promote bitcoin awareness. But it seems not a lot of people are interested (I have made some suggestions but people are too lazy to bother, maybe because the effect is too small comparing with long term holding
An easy way to make bitcoin worth millions of dollars)

Well, that's about the smartest thing I've heard yet. It's not about if it will work, if it won't work, if it alienates one group or another or if the change is blessed by Jesus. It's about consumer confidence and perception. Screw that up and we all lose.

that's true only if you live in China , outside of it you can actually use it now a days to buy stuff, pay bills, send money across the globe, etc etc

that would be truly awesome, also that would cause less selling pressure since small miners don't sell everything they mine unlike mega-farms. again another win win strategy     it seems the rest of the community is better off without the Chinese and their bickering  

Exactly, this is not a China specific thing. Currently, I count 90% of the bitcoin utility is coming from speculation and long term investment, only very tiny amount of bitcoin were used as payment medium (and mostly were used in mining, drug dealing and money laundering). International remittance have the potential to grow, but that also requires bitcoiners to be extremely good on IT and have good exchanges on both end, not an easy task

Because speculation and investment is the major demand for bitcoin, it is very important not to bring in uncertainties in bitcoin, that will hurt speculators and investors' confidence and affect the demand negatively, even increase the difficulty in regulation front

That works for me. It would be kind of cool if they refused to upgrade, the difficulty drops massively and westerners are able to mine again for a reasonable profit. lol

It has very little to do with nodes, you can setup thousands of nodes overnight, but the largest power in bitcoin ecosystem is miner, the second are exchanges. It is miners' hashing power decide where the blockchain goes. If you suddenly lose 50% of hashing power, there are much more danger on the way ahead: First, your transaction would not be able to process in time for at least 2016 blocks. Second, your chain's hash power would be the same as the other chain, so the hashing power on the other chain could easily 50% attack you and double spend/reverse transactions on your chain, causing your chain to be useless for serious business transactions

And exchanges are more important now than 2 years ago. Without exchanges, most of the people would never be able to get some bitcoin to do transactions, because mining are now concentrated on large mining operations

In a way the Chinese miners are hindering any further progress that could've taken place already.

They should've not set up mega-farms in a country with restricted internet to begin with but their greed of making money  didn't stop them from doing it and now the rest of community needs to suffer just because they can't access internet is their own fault and not anybody's else. I say if they can't keep up let them sink for good.

They can go on and make a Chinese version of it and trade it among themselves  and the rest of us can progress further without any limitation and a better decentralization.  it's a win win strategy  

I'm thinking more along the lines of blocksize increase and their limited internet capability. We've been discussing Chinese farms fighting the increase. If the increase happened anyway they will be forced to take some kind of action. I do agree that it would be good for Bitcoin if they were out of the picture.

that's equal to shooting yourself in the foot. Lets say hypothetical they go for it, what they gonna use the Chinese version of bitcoin for (they already had QQ coin)? passing hot potato from one hand to another  do more speculation?!?!  while the rest of the world uses the real bitcoin with better features and increased transaction per seconds.

 As is stand today, bitcoin has no utility in China, expect for dumping and taking profit ( there is no real economy at all, it's all speculative) if they cut themselves from the rest of the world , then they have severely limited their market . Heck there might not be enough buyers alone in China to absorb the dumping from mega-farms  hence price sinks and subsequently the mega-farms need to close down if they can't meet their operation cost. It would be their demise .

Also it might be better for the Blockchain as a whole since having majority of hashing power centralized in China is not a good thing at all. What if tomorrow their government starts to crack down on mega-farms?  i think that would actually be good for bitcoin since it would result in spread of hashrate  and take out their majority.

You're right. All mega farm owners are in it just for the fiat. That's not just a Chinese thing. In the Middle Ages alchemy was a study where people tried to convert base metals into gold. They wanted to figure out how to make money out of nothing. For farm operators, Bitcoin is modern day alchemy that actually works. They can take a bunch of electronic parts and manufacture money. I'm sure none of them said, "hey, I want the world to be a better place. I'm going to spend millions of dollars to mine Bitcoin to empower the people then donate all the mined Bitcoins to African relief, save the whales and feed the children." Mining farms are about profit. Profit doesn't come from holding Bitcoins. It happens when you sell them for fiat.

If the Chinese think about it long enough, they might decide to separate their Bitcoin from the rest of the world and mine their own version. They have most of the economy right now anyway and could increase their profit by excluding all of the other miners around the world. The Bitcoin hashrate would immediately drop by +50%.

but but but majority of Chinese exchanges have fake volume, with organized pump and dump     . It's beyond me to understand how people can trust any of these " major"    Chinese exchanges .  All it takes for them to crumble/disappear overnight with your bitcoin  is a little bit of government crack down........  aaaaannnnnnnd its gone     then you would see people start crying and complaining about their stolen coins    
 
IMO all these " major" Chinese exchanges are operating in grey area of law in China hence very susceptible to shutdown at any moment law changes or a ban comes to effect

As for Chinese mega-farms miner, they're simply greedy and are init to purely profit from it by dumping their mined coins every day. All they're are after is fiat money, they don't really give a fuck about bitcoin since it has ZERO utility in China.  

Plus majority of mega-farm are located in very remote locations so obviously getting a proper internet connection would really hurt their profit margin hence if they could have their way, they would never want to upgrade at all. It's like asking a kid to give up it's candy voluntarily  

What you don't get is that the major Chinese exchanges are very tightly tied to major Chinese mining operations and those nodes *matter* (as the majority or at least close to it of all Bitcoin hashpower is in China).

It doesn't matter if the china exchanges are against it or some other entitiy. it's all about nodes. if the people follow the fork, chinese exchanges have to follow.

Unfortunately 100% consensus is probably never going to happen.

There might be people still running the earliest version of Bitcoin and apart from them finding out that their software is no longer usable there is not much you can do if they stubbornly decide they are "never going to upgrade".

I think that 90% is actually a quite reasonable figure to hard-fork and as long as there is plenty of notification about the change then I don't see it as being such a big deal.

Also note that there is no rush to upgrade as the 90-95% figure is in regards to the last 1,000 blocks (giving people a fair bit of time to upgrade).

You're assuming that everybody upgrades their nodes swiftly. I believe a substantial part of that 10% is people that don't care upgrading. If we go by 100%, then we'd never do the change. The line has to be drawn at some point but 100% isn't it. 90 or 95% seems like a perfect spot to me.

Even a 90% consensus will still compromise 10% of the user, the best way is to reach a 100% consensus that left out no one. I think the conflict of interest are largely caused by differences in different actors' knowledge of bitcoin network. So lots of education and discussion is needed to reach consensus

Just like 1+1=2, there is only one truth in this world. If you fully understand how bitcoin network works, you will not get second conclusion when you face a problem. But besides a handful of core devs, most of the actors have very limited knowledge about how bitcoin works under the hood

I have seen some education material that is not very objective and gone political, e.g. boast their solution in the name of decentralization. And due to the complexity of their solution, most of the actors can not make further decision simply because they don't have time to dig into those solutions

So I think to reach 100% consensus, the most important thing is that the change should be simple enough for every people to understand. And the change should be as small as possible

Just remember gold, no political decision can affect the character of gold, that's the reason it is used for several thousand years in many different nations with different culture and political interest. And gold is simple enough for every people to understand

Is that clear enough (okay - not an exact mention of a figure but clearly indicating that a lower figure would be acceptable IMO)?

Not sure now why I had thought I had read any exact figures now - probably confused by all the FUD being posted myself.

I was replying to the first part. I have read the article and I know that their director of engineering Mikael Wang explained it a bit. As I've previously stated, if we do not see an increase in the block size (at least not an exponential one) there won't be any problems with bandwidth. They are going with the assumption that blocks will get filled rapidly because of the increase.

I'm not seeing the bolded part. I know that they're fine with gradual growth, however I have not seen them mentioning 4 or 8 MB?

This implies that I've read the whole article.

The majority here are both. I can't believe how they don't realize this. I mean it would have been okay I it was only mentioned once in some thread, however this mistake was mentioned multiple times.
Yet the majority can't stop talking about 20 MB blocks which were a calculation mistake.



Update: Yes, that is clear. However, they didn't exactly specify 4 or 8 MB.

This! Bolded and colored the relevant part just in case nobody is aware of the news!

Next time someone mentions 20MB they will get a retard star from me. It was stated so many time that the 20MB is off, but people are either stupid or ignorant.

here their reason, has to do with the bandwidth

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

They do state that the reason they think it is too big is due to potential orphan block issues due to poor bandwidth between China and the rest of the world (as I previously mentioned).

They also stated that 4MB would be fine and 8MB might be okay also (so you didn't read it properly either).

Unfortunately this forum has no longer become a platform for any sort of meaningful communication - so even those actually trying to do so are just lost beneath all the FUD and ad sigs useless posts.

I am not claiming to understand it 100% ... Hence my conspiracy theory type post.

What I can see, is a clear split... giving someone who might want to have a bigger share a opportunity to do just that.

If a exchange can force people to accept only a specific forked coin, it's adoption would grow as time goes on. China has a big enough market to ban the fork, they do not want to support and to force people to use the fork they want to dominate.

We can see a scenario in future where we can for example have a "Western" & "Eastern" version of the same coin.

As I said, I am just throwing ideas around and thinking out of the box... If this is a way for people or countries to dominate Bitcoin, they might just jump on the opportunity, while we are fighting amongst each other.

When the exchanges force this, the nodes will follow and then the miners... {That is, if my lack of information or understanding is not flawed}

As I post this, I am still asking questions and reading up on the matter...

Have you read the link completely? Their understanding of the situation doesn't seem to be good enough.
They don't even state why. We've already concluded that the increase doesn't mean that the block size will be 20 MB tomorrow or if ever. We won't have increased costs of anything tomorrow, however this might change in the future.
Besides we should have stopped talking about 20 MB blocks long ago as it should be 8 MB. I've already pointed this out in several places, but people don't seem to like reading anything before posting (not to mention doing proper research).
As I've previously stated the best approach would be to increase the limit to 4 or 8 MB (depending on which is likely to get consensus) to give enough time for other solutions to be ready (e.g. side chains).

OK um I think some people are misunderstanding what will happen here.  If there is a 50/50 split, or a 20/80, or 30/70, or whatever, nothing happens.  The new version is not adopted.  There will not be multiple versions of bitcoin, coins will not be doubled, and everything will have rainbows.  If there is 90% or whatever then the fork will happen, and the other 10% will join or die.

er with the current herding of cats in this 20mb block direction (leaving out the view one way or another if it is correct or not)

NO WAY

will you 90% and a new fork to appear imho..... seems the argument is too evenly split..so what happens when you flat out have stalemate? you break the toy?

is there a plan B in all this or is it just they are gonna let go of the rudder on the bitcoin canoe and see which fork in the stream it takes?

(hmmm..that had me pucker up a bit at the thought.....and the sense of 'bankers' giggling)

But it's almost their baby to do with as they see fit. If the Chinese farms got together they would control an easy majority of the hashrate. Tycho wielded that kind of power over a change in the past when DeepBit had a lot of the hashrate. They wouldn't hurt Bitcoin because it's their gravy train but they will attempt to apply pressure to make sure their interests are met. You can't ignore them.

chinese should also understand that bitcoin isn't their baby only because they are running the biggest farm(i think they will end forking their own bitcoin in the future) and that something about this current limit must be done, no matter what they think

Ok, this might sound like a conspiracy theory... but I would like to put it out there. {Sorry if I sound like a idiot}

Let's say China wants a bigger percentage of the pie... with Bitcoin as it is now, everyone concentrate efforts on a single coin.

If a fork happens, the resources would have to be split, and this will give China a better chance to control it's own currency. {fork}

The part I am not clear on, is this .... Will Bitcoin mining still mine one coin or do they choose between Bitcoin Core or XT?

The exchanges might be gearing up for the fork they want to dominate? As I said, this is only a conspiracy theory based on flawed knowledge. { I am still researching this part }

Let's just play with the idea...

If you actually read the article (and I am guessing from what most people are posting that they simply haven't) then you'll see that an increase to say 4MB (and maybe even 8MB) is something that would likely get acceptance from BTCChina and Houbi (the two exchanges that are mentioned in the article).

The main reason for Chinese concern with a very large block size increase (at least at this point in time) is that internet between China and the outside world works very slowly (anyone who lives here knows that) and this could potentially disadvantage Chinese mining operations (due to a potential increase in orphan blocks due to slower propagation).

I am not sure how real this potential issue with orphan blocks is but I do know that it is virtually impossible to run Bitcoin Core on standard home internet in China now (and using a VPN or similar doesn't help as the bandwidth "throttling" prevents the peer from ever catching up no matter how you connect).

we already have consensus that we have to make some little steps first and an automatic increase over time:

example: 8MB, 10MB, 13MB and so on...



maybe the exchanges should buy one of these:

http://www.cnet.com/news/microdia-will-sell-a-1000-ish-512gb-microsd-come-july/

 

Did he somewhere say so?



Of course a fork happens. Any change in the protocol is a fork (ok actually it isn't ). Same 90% rule, but in BCore instead of XT.



He'll do nothing. The code will do it, just like it's being done at this very moment with the introduction of BIP66. We're almost there (70% upgraded and rising fast).

You say exactly the same thing in every thread and soon there won't be anyone that can see your posts at all.

The volume can very well be faked, as people already said.

And the topic is about chinese exchanges rejecting the new size. If miners accept it, then they will die from no trade volume, and new chinese exchange that accept the fork will emerge and replace them

lol wtf are you smoking China is buying more bitcoins then the rest of the world combined. They are in control of the majority of mining and trading volume now.

If Chinese play it right there is not doubt that they are gonna win. It's easy to forget that bitcoin was thrust upon the masses because of the economic collapse in 2008.
Since that time Chinese has some serious monopoly on ASICs and mining field right now without their market bitcoin would collapse probably. If they try to ditch bitcoin and go for their own coin I wouldn't be surprised that bitcoin price would decrease to 1/3 of its current value.

Large part of today's bitcoin value is due to Chinese speculation and capital outflow through bitcoin at the end of 2013 (Thus their central bank banned financial institutions from doing bitcoin transactions, and bitcoin's value has been dropping since then)

First and second ASIC miner was invented and produced by Chinese, and now they are holding significant percent of hashing power. They are also important part of bitcoin ecosystem and contributed a lot for bitcoin's success

But again, this is become political, and politics is all that we want to avoid. Bitcoin is so attractive because it gives everyone the possibility to get away from central banks' monetary policy, they get the maximum freedom. If some day they have to give up that freedom because others decided to use a vote to deny their right, then bitcoin is no more different than the FED. In fact, a fork will double the amount of coins and cause 100% inflation, after a couple of forks, devs are doing as good as FED. Then people will just return home and pick up their USD notes

True, so that means that both the mining and exchange operations will do the same thing.

There actually is a vote, based on the number of a client run. If the super-majority (>90%) run a node that supports the new protocol, then that means a super-majority voted "yes" for increased block size. Those running older versions are voting "no" for the change.

Gavin suggested the 20 MB because he thought it was a safe enough size for a long time. However, he is willing to compromise. Looking at the emails in the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, it looks like Gavin is willing to have the block size increase to 4 MB or 8 MB. More people would like this smaller jump than the big one to 20 MB.

In China, exchanges typically also own mining farms and wallet services, or at least have very close relationship with miners

Voting is not a solution, bitcoin is invented just to avoid voting of monetary policy. To reach universal consensus is the only way, why could not Gavin take the 4MB approach and make the change gradually?  I think everyone could make some compromise and reach a universal consensus. This is more like diplomatic negotiations between countries, no vote is possible

I don't think this kind of thoughts (politics) is good for bitcoin

If bitcoin's future can be decided by a group of powerful people of their own interest, who can guarantee that some day in the future, another group of more powerful people will make another majority vote and change other aspects of bitcoin? Then the different developers will focus on how to lobby the powerful actors to agree on their view of bitcoin's future

FED can vote to change the money supply, but no one in the world can vote to change the character of gold, that should be a guidence when we design the decision making mechanism of bitcoin

If no one uses it, it is worthless. With the current situation, then nothing will happen at all.

The miners hold the negotiation power, not the exchanges. It is the miners who decide whether to switch or not. They are an integral part of the current consensus voting system. If 50% of the miners don't agree, then they don't switch. If they do agree and the switch happens, then the exchanges must switch too because they would begin losing money from being on a stale and insecure chain. The miners can always find another place to exchange, or just keep the Bitcoin and use it.

No need for so many steps, now step 1 will not happen for those chinese exchanges, together with their corresponding mining hashing power and wallet services

Take an extreme example, if all Chinese miners connected towards several mining pools in Taiwan and HongKong, and those pools do not upgrade to XT, it means more than 50% of the hashing power will stay on the original chain. If Chinese exchanges won't change to XT, then it is very likely Chinese miners won't change too. They do hold lots of negotiation power in this case

I think that we should have a way for Bitcoin node owners to vote. Maybe you should make a BIP for some kind of voting mechanism which can then be used in Bitcoin Core.

Of course 90% is a major consensus, but it could also be a 40/60 or 30/70 situation which we are stuck in right now

In fact you can fork the chain anytime, just run a different version of clients that is not compatible with the core (currently XT is still compatible, but it has the potential to be incompatible if the block size limit is raised). You can even support your version of bitcoin with your own hash power and your exchange, but that will most likely become some alt-coin

It is not just a routine upgrade. Increasing the block size itself is inherently a hard fork. There is no way to increase the size without forking, no matter what client is used.

You clearly did not understand how it is going to happen...

1. People will start running Bitcoin XT if they wish.

2. If more than 50% runs on XT, Gavin will approach the Devs again to change bitcoin core itself.

3. If that happens, it is just another routine ugrade and hard fork does not happen.

4. If that does not happen, Gavin will wait for 90% of the netowrk to be run on XT.

5. Then he'll do the hard fork.

In the whole process described above, Chinese exchange/American exchange has no extra wightage or contribution. It is all about the nodes that is running the network. Whoever does not comply with the majority will just be left behind and that happens almost everyday on bitcoin netowrk when a block gets orphaned.

The decision making is based entirely on how many people support the new protocol and how many blocks mined are of the new version. The fork only occurs when >90% (probably more like 98% though) of the full nodes and miners are a client which supports the new blocks. Only then does the fork occur. There would not be enough hash power remaining on the old chain to support and secure it.

He's say
He's referring to the fact that if there a fork and the Chinese exchanges refuse to use the new fork, then there will technically be two separate "Bitcoin" block chains.  I'm not stating my opinion either way, just informing.

What do you mean, which coin they will trade? Bitcoin, They will trade Bitcoin.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Now some chinese exchanges have rejected the 20mb approach, it is getting complicated. I think a important part of the consensus is that all the exchanges should reach agreement on which coin they are trading

And the problem is not only this, if you take democracy approach, it is similar to an election where no party can win the majority, eventually some small party that stay in the middle would become the weight to decide the result of the election

We definitely need a decision making mechanism in bitcoin, chain fork is not the way to go, democracy does not work either. It is easy to say "just fork your own chain and be satisfied", but in reality if you can not get the hash power to secure the network, and can not get exchange and merchant support, the new chain will almost be useless

Bitcoin protocol itself is very centralized, it is established on science and coding, the decision making mechanism should also be based on science and coding