What I had read in terms of the recent fork had mentioned SPV mining so if that *is* the relay network then yes the same thing (and yes reading that link does look to explain why the fork happened in terms of minimal validation being performed).

@Peter R - the link points out that it is not centralised so what makes you say that it is (or do you mean just that the number of nodes is very limited)?

Okay - I get what you mean now and that has some merit (although I guess it is an extra hassle for them to set that up so there is the question of whether they would do so but perhaps enough fees earned per block might make that worthwhile).

I don't think that SPV mining (at least how it is being done currently) works that way though as my understanding was that there was no proper block validation being done at all (which is why the fork happened).

And yes how miners propagate blocks (well block headers actually) to their hashers is not really relevant to the main protocol at all (which is why things like SPV mining already occurs).

The internet within China itself is actually very fast as my wife and I can both watch two different HD movies (that are sourced from within China) at the same time from our fairly standard home connection (hint: the issue with communications outside of China is not really a technical one).

The point is that their mining operations are in China so having a server running in the US is of zero use.

You have to get the txs sent to China (it doesn't matter whether you are using a VPN or whatever as I pointed out).

Again - to make the point clear - it is easy to get around the blocks to YouTube but you can't watch HD videos because the bandwidth to the "outside world" is just slowed down too much (on purpose).

The US is just too expensive in terms of electricity costs so the Chinese mining operations are not likely to want to set up there.

Except that it is simply not possible to do this (unless perhaps you own your own internet infrastructure that has fibre cables between China and the outside world and which is not subject to government control and I've certainly not heard of such a thing).

Setting up a VPN or whatever method you want to use to get around the Great Chinese Firewall will stop things like website access restrictions but you can't do anything about the bandwidth restrictions (i.e. you are slowed down to the 1990s).

So it is quite easy to get around blocks to YouTube but forget about trying to watch a HD video.

Firstly zipping is unlikely to reduce the size much at all (as was pointed out) due to most of it being random bytes.

Next I would like to point out that unfortunately, when you use the internet in China, speeds for transmitting (or receiving) data outside of China is actually often much like that in the early 1990's (with home-grade internet at least and even with business-grade it is very slow compared to data transmission between western countries) and the majority of hash-power is currently located in China.

This bandwidth issue is why so-called SPV mining has already been happening in China (which I understand was what had led to the most recent fork that occurred). So even if the block size can be reduced by only including tx hashes the problem will be that some (or maybe many) of the miners in China might still have a problem in keeping up with the TPS (which will likely result in blocks with few txs or perhaps only the coinbase tx).

There is no rule in Bitcoin that says you need to include any tx beyond the "coinbase" (or block reward) and we have seen at times new blocks appearing with no other txs (wasting the potential TPS dramatically). So if the network bandwidth is being pushed too far don't be surprised to start seeing blocks with only one tx in them which would actually mean supporting much larger blocks might simply fail to get txs even included at all.

I think Nick Szabo's comments in regards to the block size debate are among the most sensible that have been made and if people have the time it is also worthwhile to watch this interview with Adam Back about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic&feature=youtu.be

This interview with Adam Back is I think worthwhile watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic&feature=youtu.be

(also it appears that Nick Szabo pretty much agrees with his views)

It really isn't so simple (which is why it is an issue) and mostly this is because the majority of mining hashrate is in China which has much poorer bandwidth internet (especially when it comes to communicating with the outside world).

Already at least a few of the Chinese mining pools use SPV mining which was what led to the recent fork after the new block versions had achieved a super-majority.

If the block sizes are massively increased then SPV mining will probably become what is being used by the clear majority which would mean that Bitcoin will be less secure and more prone to future accidental forks.

There is really nothing you can do to stop SPV mining and as the Chinese have invested millions into their operations they are not going to just stop doing that because some core devs or other people think that they should do that in order for people to buy a coffee at Starbucks (which seems to me to be an odd idea when people aren't even being paid in BTC in the first place).

Personally I don't see the urgency of any of this - Bitcoin has failed to even make inroads into the remittance market (worth billions per year) and that is by far its easiest target (a so-called low hanging fruit). So instead of trying to get it to become a replacement for the entire financial system overnight why not first wait for it to actually succeed in doing what it should be able to do better than anything else?

I am not advocating that Bitcoin should only be used as a settlement layer but I think it would make more sense for that to be the focus for the next few years.

Your own point about SPV mining shows that even with the current 1MB limit we have some issues.

Without a doubt if we change that to 8MBs we are going to have more issues and the further that increases the more problems I expect we'll see.

I guess it simply comes down to what we want Bitcoin to be - for me it should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Okay - you can say it that way if you like.

But I think you are missing that a "coffee" is not really the same as a "car" (and also that this doesn't benefit the consumer - we are only talking about the seller wanting to get the BTC tx really).

Already all places like Starbucks are dealing with stolen credit cards - they just take that into account and use the information they have available to try and avoid being scammed (that won't change much).

But when you go to buy something more significant then there is generally a waiting period and less trust.

The "buyers" of this world are not asking for BTC txs to buy coffees but of course the sellers would prefer that (it amazes me that so many people on this forum just want to help the sellers and actually don't care about the buyers at all).

I think if it comes down to "coffee" txs it really isn't so essential is it?

There are mechanisms with other things that can still give your recourse to your tx but that could be taken care of in a less permanent manner.

If you really want your "coffee tx" to be noted in the blockchain then pay for it (my guess is that most people are not going to demand that).

That is interesting as most Australians would not (so would you consider most Australians to be rude?).

What matters is the "control". If it leads to more centralised control then I think it undermines what we currently have (and yes I do realise we already have SPV mining but I think that fact just actually supports my concerns).

It is a matter of bandwidth so not quite so simple but yes if you keep upping the size of the blocks then more and more countries end up not able to mine.

I think that is not the way we should go forward as that risks the very idea of decentralisation.

So the consensus is just decided by a few western countries with fast internet (that hardly seems like a "broad consensus" then does it)?

Also if you keep scaling that up (as per BIP101) then it will likely just end up with one country deciding the consensus (no medal for guessing that one).

So far BTC is not useful for buying "coffees" and the like anyway (and won't be even at 100x the current blocksize) - but it is extremely useful for moving money between countries. If you end up centralising the mining then you begin to make its current best use look problematic (i.e. subject to political control).

Personally I'd rather see decentralised Bitcoin mining that doesn't supports coffee purchases over a centralised Bitcoin mining that does.

A big problem with Gavin's stuff about his home-grade internet is that it is rather superior than most of the developing world (about 10x at least). To make that clear I can't even run Bitcoin Core in China (it never catches up).

So if we only want Bitcoin to be for the "developed world" then I guess we should all just follow Gavin and Mike.

If we want Bitcoin to be for everyone then we actually need to think a bit harder.

It should be noted that Gavin and Mike tell us we need to decide this ASAP and this is not good. I am actually glad to see that XT is failing due to lack of support. There is no such big rush (all the "full blocks" have basically been due to spam attacks).

One point I'd like to make that might surprise some westerners is that Chinese think it is extremely rude to not take off your shoes when walking into someone's home (and would never do that themselves - so you always see indoor sandals or the like at the entrance to any typical Chinese home).

Yet many westerners will come into a Chinese home and just "walk in with their shoes on".

So things that people think are disgusting or inappropriate do vary from country and country.

I'll just also state that whilst living in China I do regularly see people spit on the pavement (often after "hocking" it up and then usually done by stopping and spitting on the ground immediately in front of them between their legs) and even worse I have seen some people (generally elderly people) even spit on the floor in a bus or train (although I've only ever seen very uneducated countryside people do that - you won't see anyone well-dressed doing that).

This does tend to vary from city to city and without a doubt you'll see this mostly in the very polluted cities of China (and having lived in Beijing for some years I can actually understand it as very polluted air does tend to make you want to spit out the extra mucous that arises from the dust and other particulates). Unfortunately it tends to become a "habit" so even when placed in a pristine environment some may still feel the need to spit.

Spitting itself - if done in say a drain or a bin (or better yet in a toilet) is not so offensive to myself (without the hocking) - but I do think that spitting on the ground where someone is likely to be walking on is a bit disgusting (and of course is much worse if done in a vehicle or an indoor place). Note that the pamphlets that I had mentioned that tourist agencies generally show to potential tourists do tell Chinese that spitting is considered very bad in other countries (unfortunately I guess some just don't care or didn't bother reading the pamphlet or it is just a habit that they are not even really aware of).

All tourists tend to take a lot of photographs so I don't think that is anything special to the Chinese (actually I thought Japanese tourists were more famous for the amount of photos they take).

The toilet seat thing is a little more complicated than you may at first think - as many Chinese consider "sit on" toilets to be unhygienic (and squat toilets are more the norm throughout mainland China), however, if there is plenty of toilet paper available then often they'll just cover the top of the toilet with paper to sit on. Once again I am fairy sure that the tourist advisory pamphlets do mention this one as well (and I've even seen Chinese movies that make it very clear that this behaviour is not appreciated).

If you look at what China was like in under Chairman Mao it was a lot more similar to what Russia was under Stalin (and although the term "socialist" is probably preferred you could use "communist" for that era if you like).

They basically didn't even have banks or cash, most of the people were forced to work on collective farms and nearly everyone with any degree or education was denigrated if not put in jail or executed (this peaked during the Cultural Revolution but there had been other harsh treatment of educated people well before then).

After Deng took over he (re-)introduced capitalism to China (famously calling it "Communism with Chinese traits" or something like that) and that actually changed everything for the Chinese (who had been basically ruined and were starving after the disaster of the Cultural Revolution).

So when China was socialist/communist there were no "five star hotels" or anything like what there is today. Also there are plenty of 60yo Chinese around you can ask all about what it was like when they were children (and you won't find many of them saying that it was a great time).

Indeed - the problem is mostly due to uneducated people suddenly having enough money to travel (and nothing to do with the type of government and in fact if China really was "communist" then such people would never be affording overseas trips).

Uneducated people are generally the ruder people in most countries as typically better manners are consistent with a better education (if no-one teaches you what is rude or what isn't then how are you going to understand that you are being perceived as being rude). Certainly I've met plenty of very well behaved Chinese and for the most part they are the far better educated. Mind you I've also met some very nice "countryside" Chinese as well - so one should be careful not to blindly stereotype.

Many might be surprised to know that when mainland Chinese go to travel agencies (at least in the bigger cities) they are often given pamphlets asking them to "not behave badly" that have been created by the government (so the government is clearly aware and trying to address this problem).

Also "drunken Aussies" abroad in Bali or Thailand (and even in mainland China) can be even more annoying.