Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

d > gives them all the coinbase they stamped, while invalidating yours. > > But who cares about them right :p > -- > From: Warren Togami Jr. > Sent: ‎2/‎06/‎2015 4:19 AM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Incre

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> 50% hashing power, why would > you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of > adopters wallets? Same thing. > ---------- > From: Warren Togami Jr. > Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-developm

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:01:49PM +0100, Roy Badami wrote: > > What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get > > consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet > > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is > > REALLY important).

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get > consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is > REALLY important). TL;DR: Personally I'm in favour of doing something relatively unco

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

t just start stripping bitcoin out of >> adopters wallets? Same thing. >> -------------- >> From: Warren Togami Jr. >> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM >> Cc: Bitcoin Dev >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements >&

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

So lets rephrase that and say instead more correctly it is the job of miners (collectively) to be well connected globally - and indeed there are incentivised to be or they tend to receive blocks at higher latency and so are at increased risk of orphans. And miner groups with good block latency in-

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I don't see this as an issue of sensitivity or not. Miners are businesses that sell a service to Bitcoin users - the service of ordering transactions chronologically. They aren't charities. If some miners can't provide the service Bitcoin users need any more, then OK, they should not/cannot mine.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

not just start stripping bitcoin out of > adopters wallets? Same thing. > -- > From: Warren Togami Jr. > Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements > > Whilst it would be nice if miners i

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth is simply not true, but if you look at data points like http://www.netindex.com/upload/ which will show we are at least on the right track, but this is flawed still. The fact of the matter is these speed tests are done from local origin to local destination wit

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Hi everyone, I'm a long-time lurker of this mailing list but it's the first time I post here, so first of all I'd like to thank all of the usual contributors for the great insights and technical discussions that can be found here. As this is such a momentous point in the history of Bitcoin, I'd ju

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I'm OK with a smaller size + a formula that ramps it up over time. We are far from having enough demand to fill 10MB blocks, let alone 20MB today. To put it in perspective, to be feeling squeezed inside 10MB within two years, we would need to double usage five times. I wish I knew a way to make th

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

The current max block size of 100 bytes is not power of two anyway. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: >> What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get >> consensus? Scaling up a little less tha

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get > consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is > REALLY important). > > I chose

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

That is good. I oppose 20MB because I estimate it may increase the overall orphan rate to an unacceptable level. 5MB, 8MB or probably 10MB should be ok. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I cannot beli

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my > name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the > community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows > when the 95% goal can

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> > Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We > suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your > turn. Then please enlighten me. You're unable to download block templates from a trusted node outside of the country because the bandwidth requirements are to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage. >> So? >> > > Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks > give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.) > You s

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

il.com> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM Cc: Bitcoin Dev<mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobo

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO THE MAJORI

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Two very valid and important points. Thank you for making these observations Peter. p. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > > Whilst it would be nice if mi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless > > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if > > they can't do the job -

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must take one year or more to be ad

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

oin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job -

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I think it would be helpful if we could all *chill* and focus on the solid engineering necessary to make Bitcoin succeed. p. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China c

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they > can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of > bandwidth require

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if > they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of > bandwidth requir

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it > should. He only said that AFTER I called him on his bullshit. Before that he wrote it like there is 100% certainty that only the party producing big blocks is punished: "That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is produc

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > 2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong : > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe < > ricardojdfil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it > >> should. There is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong : > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe > wrote: >> >> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it >> should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same >> between the miners. > > > Hi, > > Is that an assum

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it > should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same > between the miners. Hi, Is that an assumption? If there is a difference in network speed, the > min

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same between the miners. If there is a difference in network speed, the miner is incentivized to invest in their network infrastructure. 2015-05-31 23:55 GMT+01:00 Alex

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> > Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage. > So? > Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.) You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a disa

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > >> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB >> blocks, NOT you. >> > > This depends on how miners are connected. > > E.g. suppose there are three miners, A and B have fast connectivity > between then, and C has a s

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Yifu Guo wrote: > comments, question and grievances welcome. > Thanks for chiming in with facts, Yifu! Do you have any real-world data on latency/bandwidth/cost through the gfw ? Chung Wang's post was very helpful to get away from hypotheticals to "what would i

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I will abstain on this wrangle of "when", Instead I'd like to address some of the network topology health issues that's been brought up in this debate. Due to how blocks are being broadcast by miners at the moment, it is not difficult to find the origin node of these blocks. These more influentia

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> On 31 May 2015, at 13:52, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com > > wrote: > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks, > NOT you. > This depends on how miners are connected. E.g. suppose there are three miners, A and B have fast connectivity between then, and C has a slow network. Suppose that A miners a block and B receives it in 1 seco

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one > percent orphan rate increase. That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is prod

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one > percent orphan rate increase. That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is prod

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Thank you very much Chun Wang for the details below. While I'm based in HK, but I'd like to propose that the miners in China work together with Gavin and others to run an experiment of sorts next month to gather more details for the community. p. On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Chun Wang <12

[Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: >> Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial >> big blocks. > > > How? > > I ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big > miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner