On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Jim Phillips via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Yes I've had a couple other people point that out to me as well and the logic
is sound. Unfortunately that doesn't help solve the actual issue that mining
is currently consolidated
On 3 August 2015 at 10:01, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. But again, once we’ve identified specific issues, it is
irresponsible to continue to pretend they don’t exist…and to more highly
prioritize changes that can only make the problem worse.
Again, for the record, I am
On 3 August 2015 at 08:16, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Increasing the block size shouldn't be a problem for Chinese miners.
Five of the largest - F2Pool, Antpool, BW, BTCChina, Huobi - have
already signed a draft agreement indicating they are fine
Increasing the block size shouldn't be a problem for Chinese miners.
Five of the largest - F2Pool, Antpool, BW, BTCChina, Huobi - have
already signed a draft agreement indicating they are fine with an
increase to 8 MB: http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2
With regards to China's international
Again this should not be a political or business compromise model - we
must focus on scientific evaluation, technical requirements and
security.
But specifically as you asked a group of Chinese miners said they
would not run it:
On 3 August 2015 at 08:53, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Again this should not be a political or business compromise model - we
must focus on scientific evaluation, technical requirements and
security.
I will assert that the block size is political because it affects nearly
all users
On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:52 AM, Hector Chu hector...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2015 at 09:38, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com
mailto:elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
We already have much more efficient, far more scalable systems that allow
this kind of cooperation you speak of without the
What's wrong with a little cooperation to resolve things now and then? Man
is not an island unto himself, we compete with each other and we cooperate
with each other occasionally if it's mutually beneficial.
You said yourself that a lot of money would have been lost if the two hard
forks cited
On 3 August 2015 at 09:38, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
We already have much more efficient, far more scalable systems that allow
this kind of cooperation you speak of without the inconveniences of
blockchains and such.
There is a degree of difference between cooperation in
Bah, I don’t know if you’re just trolling me, Hector…but I’ll give you the
benefit of the doubt and act like you aren’t.
We already have much more efficient, far more scalable systems that allow this
kind of cooperation you speak of without the inconveniences of blockchains and
such. These
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.
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
