The 20 MB Miner War That Could Destroy Bitcoin

12inchdick

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 0

Quote from: Kprawn on June 17, 2015, 01:37:43 AM

Quote from: FloodZone on June 17, 2015, 12:00:36 AM

Quote from: randy8777 on June 16, 2015, 05:23:02 AM

it's all about money. no matter where the miners comes from, they are looking for profit. no one wants to destroy bitcoin while they can make good money.

Well I guess it's not that they want to destroy it, right?

You cannot kill the cow you are milking, but you can suggest changes to the equipment doing the milking to increase your chances to milk more than your competitors.

Some people will milk the cow until it starts to bleed... for them it's all about profit... they do not care about the cow.

They use their poor internet infrastructure and their government as a excuse, to justify changes to suite their situation.. They do not want to understand, that within a free market, everything goes. {The guy with the bigger guns, win}

The change will be done, with or without them..... They have the option to choose, when a fork happens.

The suggestion they have made, is also the option I would take, because it just make sense. {Do small changes, before bottlenecks are anticipated}

That makes perfect sense to me.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: FloodZone on June 17, 2015, 12:00:36 AM

Quote from: randy8777 on June 16, 2015, 05:23:02 AM

it's all about money. no matter where the miners comes from, they are looking for profit. no one wants to destroy bitcoin while they can make good money.

Well I guess it's not that they want to destroy it, right?

You cannot kill the cow you are milking, but you can suggest changes to the equipment doing the milking to increase your chances to milk more than your competitors.

Some people will milk the cow until it starts to bleed... for them it's all about profit... they do not care about the cow.

They use their poor internet infrastructure and their government as a excuse, to justify changes to suite their situation.. They do not want to understand, that within a free market, everything goes. {The guy with the bigger guns, win}

The change will be done, with or without them..... They have the option to choose, when a fork happens.

The suggestion they have made, is also the option I would take, because it just make sense. {Do small changes, before bottlenecks are anticipated}

FloodZone

newbie

Activity: 62

Merit: 0

Quote from: randy8777 on June 16, 2015, 05:23:02 AM

it's all about money. no matter where the miners comes from, they are looking for profit. no one wants to destroy bitcoin while they can make good money.

Well I guess it's not that they want to destroy it, right?

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Seems like 8MB and side chains is the way we will be going.

Gleb Gamow

vip

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1145

Quote from: Xialla on June 16, 2015, 04:15:11 AM

chinese miners are so heavily invested and depended on bitcoin, that they will not shoot to their own legs..at least I hope, that they are smart enough.

Chief Coders: Implement the following draconian changes.
Miners: We no like, so we will fork.
Chief Coders: Your call! Implement, and we all win; Fork, and we all lose.
Miners: You're fuckin' lucky we're ONLY in this for the money, damning any ideals.
Chief Coders: Nice, miners. Here's a bone.

Xialla

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1001

/dev/null

Quote from: Klestin on June 16, 2015, 09:44:45 AM

Quote from: ajareselde on June 16, 2015, 09:06:58 AM

It's not just few TB disks, when you multiply it by a number of rigs they have

Why on Earth would they store the block chain on each rig? They, of course, would not. It really is just a few TB disks. The storage cost is entirely inconsequential.

yes, I thought the same. anyway is mentioned above and I can sign it:

Quote from: ajareselde on June 16, 2015, 09:06:58 AM

they are calculating every penny,

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ajareselde on June 16, 2015, 09:06:58 AM

It's not just few TB disks, when you multiply it by a number of rigs they have

Why on Earth would they store the block chain on each rig? They, of course, would not. It really is just a few TB disks. The storage cost is entirely inconsequential.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

The blocksize limit itself is the problem. Simply remove the limit and let blocks be as big or small as necessary. We certainly won't be needing anything over 1 mb for the next year or 2, so amping it up to 20 mb is idiotic.

20MB is "idiotic" because we won't need it for the next year or 2, but removing the limit is good? I think this can only make sense if you've incorrectly understood the proposed change. 20MB is an upper limit, not a minimum size. Blocks will continue to be only as large as they need to be, just as they are today. When we run into a block which needs to be more than 1MB, the new code will allow it.

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Quote from: littlebeetle on June 16, 2015, 03:58:46 AM

The issue of Bitcoin block size is coming to a head within a matter of days.
Could a battle over block size between Western businesses and Eastern
miners leave Bitcoin in danger of self-destruction?

No. There are approximately four billion incentives for bitcoin to not implode. Any other questions?

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: Xialla on June 16, 2015, 07:39:57 AM

Quote from: ajareselde on June 16, 2015, 05:53:59 AM

It's all about maximizing profits for them, both on the network traffic side, and on the disk storage, but at the end of the day it just shows how petty they are.
Chinese and indians, i don't want to sound racially discriminate, but it's hard to do business with either of them.

ahh, so they are paying thousands for dollars every single day just for electricity, and they can't effort few TB disks (which costs "nothing" these days) and faster connection and because of those "small investments" they are against whole thing? and agree on this chinese/indians statement, I had some experience with them within IT field..

It's not just few TB disks, when you multiply it by a number of rigs they have; but none the less, trust me when i say that they are calculating every penny,
i can't begin to describe how many issues i had with them over at the rig rental site, it's just horrible that in the end i refused to do any business with any of them.
You said it yourself that you had similar experience, so you should understand how it's hard to do business with such people, but i can not claim that all of them are like that, although majority seams to be.

cheers

Xialla

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1001

/dev/null

Quote from: ajareselde on June 16, 2015, 05:53:59 AM

It's all about maximizing profits for them, both on the network traffic side, and on the disk storage, but at the end of the day it just shows how petty they are.
Chinese and indians, i don't want to sound racially discriminate, but it's hard to do business with either of them.

ahh, so they are paying thousands for dollars every single day just for electricity, and they can't effort few TB disks (which costs "nothing" these days) and faster connection and because of those "small investments" they are against whole thing? and agree on this chinese/indians statement, I had some experience with them within IT field..

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Just add this to the list of the 100 or more other things that could 'potentially' destroy Bitcoin and haven't come close to doing so. This goes one of two ways. Either we have some minor upheaval during the fork before the blocks start filling up and everything settles down again. Or we wait and hit the blocksize limit, the forum turns into a raging shitstorm of threads complaining about delayed transactions until the fork is rushed through out of necessity and then everyone realises we should have got the fork over and done with much earlier and that it was all a load of fuss over nothing. It's going to happen either way, but sooner will be much less damaging than later. We've never run the network with full blocks before and we don't want to start any time soon. Every 10 minutes would effectively become a bidding war and having to guess what fee you need to pay to guarantee making it into the next block doesn't sound like my idea of a reliable and fast transaction.

98problems

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

The blocksize limit itself is the problem. Simply remove the limit and let blocks be as big or small as necessary. We certainly won't be needing anything over 1 mb for the next year or 2, so amping it up to 20 mb is idiotic.

but wouldnt it be bad if there would be random big blocks? also making it to 20 is like safety from having big ones, and it will be ok for a few years i think its a good idea to increase it to 20 mb

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

Quote from: DarkHyudrA on June 16, 2015, 06:01:35 AM

This discussion is becoming to be boring.
The thing is, a 20MB block is not the best solution to avoid full blocks, but what other option we have NOW?
None. So it's easier to accept it and wait for another proposal to avoid the problem for now.

I feel you. It reminds me of discussion from year ago why do we need DVD drives. After all CD was perfectly capable of storage everything we had! And we already had the technology for it too!
Some people are just don't understand progress and necessity of it. They need learn about it hard way.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: zetaray on June 16, 2015, 06:00:38 AM

I don't understand the Chinese miners' thinking. They can still mine 1M blocks under the new fork if they wanted, they can modify their own limit in the code. 20M is a limit, not a requirement.

what you're saying will create another fork, their own fork, and disrupting what bitcoin is right now, they cannot do it, or simply they are not that stupid to destroy their business

fact is, they are controlling more than 60% of the network, we are lucky that multiple farms are under that enormous percentage, otherwise they might dictate the route of bitcoin

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

It is not the West vs the East. Not everyone here (including myself) are for the 20MB block increase. I am actually against this very much, and will not switch to the altcoin known as XT.

DarkHyudrA

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

English <-> Portuguese translations

This discussion is becoming to be boring.
The thing is, a 20MB block is not the best solution to avoid full blocks, but what other option we have NOW?
None. So it's easier to accept it and wait for another proposal to avoid the problem for now.

zetaray

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

I don't understand the Chinese miners' thinking. They can still mine 1M blocks under the new fork if they wanted, they can modify their own limit in the code. 20M is a limit, not a requirement.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: Xialla on June 16, 2015, 05:49:36 AM

btw what is issue for mining farms in relation to block size? higher data bandwidth for networks? I really don't get it..

It's all about maximizing profits for them, both on the network traffic side, and on the disk storage, but at the end of the day it just shows how petty they are.
Chinese and indians, i don't want to sound racially discriminate, but it's hard to do business with either of them.

Quote from: el kaka22 on June 16, 2015, 05:47:28 AM

In fact, some Chinese pools are proposing 8MB block (as stated here) and I have stated how it will waste our hard disk space. This will scare off some newcomers, as well as their purchasing powers to bitcoin. The price will be affected, to the negative extent.

They may propose what they like, but their opinions are biased. You can not be on the paying side of the bitcoin and lead the incentive on the changes that are to happen.
Miners only have profits in their minds, they are not looking at the bigger picture, which makes me believe that they are dumping as soon as they mine blocks.
It is the whole community that will decide what will happen, and if there are some miners that dont like the change, they are free to stop their part of the mining, there will always be ones that will take their place.

cheers

Xialla

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1001

/dev/null

btw what is issue for mining farms in relation to block size? higher data bandwidth for networks? I really don't get it..

Topic: The 20 MB Miner War That Could Destroy Bitcoin (Read 1986 times)