I traveled around in China for a couple weeks after Hong Kong to visit with 
miners and confer on the blocksize increase and block propagation issues. I 
performed an informal survey of a few of the blocksize increase proposals that 
I thought would be likely to have widespread support. The results of the 
version 1.0 census are below.

My brother is working on a website for a version 2.0 census. You can view the 
beta version of it and participate in it at https://bitcoin.consider.it. If you 
have any requests for changes to the format, please CC him at [email protected].

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=0

Or a snapshot for those behind the GFW without a VPN:
http://toom.im/files/consensus_census.pdf

HTML follows:

Miner   Hashrate        BIP103  2 MB now (BIP102)       2 MB now, 4 MB in 2 yr  
2-4-8 (Adam Back)       3 MB now        3 MB now, 10 MB in 3 yr BIP101
F2Pool  22%     N/A     Acceptable      Acceptable      Preferred       
Acceptable      Acceptable      Too fast
AntPool 23%     Too slow        Acceptable      Acceptable      Acceptable      
N/A     N/A     Too fast
Bitfury 18%     N/A     Acceptable      Probably/maybe  Maybe   N/A     
Probably too fast       Too fast
BTCC Pool       11%     N/A     Acceptable      Acceptable      Acceptable      
Acceptable      Acceptable, I think     N/A
KnCMiner        7%      N/A     Probably?       Probably?       "We like 2-4-8" 
Probably?       N/A     N/A
BW.com  7%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
Slush   4%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
21 Inc. 3%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
Eligius 1%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
BitClub 1%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
GHash.io        1%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
Misc    2%      N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A
Certainly in favor                      74%     56%     63%     33%     22%
Possibly in favor                       81%     81%     81%     40%     33%     
0%
Total votes counted                     81%     81%     81%     40%     51%     
63%
F2Pool: Blocksize increase could be phased in at block 400,000. No 
floating-point math. No timestamp-based forking (block height is okay). 
Conversation was with Wang Chun via IRC.
AntPool/Bitmain: We should get miners and devs together for few rounds of 
voting to decide which plan to implement. (My brother is working on a tool 
which may be useful for this. More info soon.) The blocksize increase should be 
merged into Bitcoin Core, and should not be implemented in an alternate client 
like BitcoinXT. A timeline of about 3 months for the fork was discussed, though 
I don't know if that was acceptable or preferable to Bitmain. Conversation was 
mostly with Micree Zhan and Kevin Pan at the Bitmain HQ. Jihan Wu was absent.
Bitfury: We should fix performance issues in bitcoind before 4 MB, and we MUST 
fix performance issues before 8 MB. A plan that includes 8 MB blocks in the 
future and assumes the performance fixes will be implemented might be 
acceptable to us, but we'll have to evaluate it more before coming to a 
conclusion. 2-4-8 "is like parachute basejumping - if you jump, and was unable 
to fix parachute during the 90sec drop - you will be 100% dead. plan A) 
[multiple hard forks] more safe." Conversation was with Alex Petrov at the 
conference and via email.
KnC: I only had short conversations with Sam Cole, but from what I can tell, 
they would be okay with just about anything reasonable.
BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't 
include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to 
start running a fork. Conversation was with Samson Mow and a few others at BTCC 
HQ.
The conversations I had with all of these entities were of an informal, 
non-binding nature. Positions are subject to change. BIP100 was not included in 
my talks because (a) coinbase voting already covers it pretty well, and (b) it 
is more complicated than the other proposals and currently does not seem likely 
to be implemented. I generally did not bring up SegWit during the conversations 
I had with miners, and neither did the miners, so it is also absent. (I thought 
that it was too early for miners to have an informed opinion of SegWit's 
relative merits.) I have not had any contact with BW.com or any of the smaller 
entities. Questions can be directed to [email protected].

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to