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 m...@plan99.net wrote:
Whilst it would be nice if miners
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net 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
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 p...@petertodd.org 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 m...@plan99.net wrote:
@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 - if miners in China can't get the trivial
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
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
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
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.com
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
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
too
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 be
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.
.
--
From: Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com
Sent: 1/06/2015 10:30 PM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 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).
: Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com
Sent: 1/06/2015 10:30 PM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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
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
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
2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong pindar.w...@gmail.com:
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 no disadvantage if the network speed is the same
between the
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ricardo Filipe ricardojdfil...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong pindar.w...@gmail.com:
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,
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
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 producing
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
On 31 May 2015, at 13:52, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang 1240...@gmail.com
mailto: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,
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 influential
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.com
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
