This topic is bordering on science fiction  How can the Chinese miners and pools filter out USA traffic and deny foreign transactions? Is this even possible to segregate an entire country or continent from the Blockchain? its not possible once a transaction relays to another node, and then another its not possible to then know the origin of the tx.. so a pool cannot decide to accpt or deny based on geographic origin. the op lacks research and understanding and is just trying to sell his racial mindset. not any real technical details |
|
|
|
|
lol
a wiki link (facepalm)
research properly
try your hand at the realisation that BW / bitbank / antpool have farms in mongolia
f2pool have farms all over the world
bitfury have farms predominantly in georgia, finland iceland
etc
so hash power is not all chinese!!
do some number crunching
they are also not administrated in china.
do some number crunching
then come back with some actual rational, realistic and factual numbers
have a nice day
|
|
|
|
[waffle and showing no technical proof]
[just shouting china many times]
vs china has less hash power then you think BW.. are in mongolia aswell as other locations haobtc.. are in tibet aswell as other locations BTCC.. are around the world bitfury.. are in Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia. f2pool.. world wide miners put down your racist hats and put on some research glasses take f2pool. largest pool there is.. its hashpower is spread out across the world. its stratum servers are spread across the world. even the guy that runs the pool is not even in china he is in thailand Admin Name: Wang Chun Admin Organization: F2Pool Admin Street: Soi Naklua 16, Naklua Sub-District,, Admin City: Banglamung Admin State/Province: Chonburi Admin Postal Code: 020150 Admin Country: TH Admin Phone: +66.973040750 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax:+66.973040750 Admin Fax Ext: Admin Email: admin@f2pool.comto add: bitfury http://bitfury.com/contactsAmsterdam Office
Spaces Zuidas
Barbara Strozzilaan 201 1083
HN Amsterdam. The Netherlands
San Francisco Office
456 Montgomery St., Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94104
United States
Washington DC Office
600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20003
London Office
Level39
One Canada Square
Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AB
|
|
|
|
lol thats a summarised % that does not explain the physical location... but anyway: f2pool, run from thailand. hashpower international.. servers international you cannot win a debate just by screaming a %. without knowing how that % is made or were its made or who/where its controlled. % is meaningless unless you research the context |
|
|
|
55%
60%
70%
51%, 55% 60%, 70% your just making up numbers in just 8 hour you have been throwing out random numbers backed by no researched evidence. but instead quoting others who have not actually researched. quoting an article that quotes an article is not proof. go research properly f2pool. has ZERO chinese government influence. hashpower not in china, servers not in china administrators not in china domain not in china. so discount f2pools from your random number bitfury. has ZERO chinese government influence. hashpower not in china, servers not in china administrators not in china domain not in china. so discount bitfury from your random number actually do the research beyond biased human opinion. look at where the adminstrators are, servers and actual hashpower. and come back with a factual number that doesnt change 4 times in ~7 hours |
|
|
|
near on 100 international banks are already dveloping their crypto currency.
research hyperledger.
Nice read on the hyperledger, but apparently I cringe on the idea that banks participate in an "open-source, collaborative" effort to create a system which will back each industry up in the near future. As per the OP's view, it's not possible. First off, how would bitcoin back fiat in any way? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Second, authority, regulation and control—bitcoin doesn't have those. How would we, as a community, do desicion-making on fiat events? Consensus? Lol. banks and bitcoin wont mix. banks wont offer bitcoin at the bank teller counter or a banks own ATM bitcoin wont overtake fiat. bitcoin will continue separate as an alternative to FIAT2.0 (hyperledger) there are laws to keep fiat dominant. such as tax and minimum wage laws (legal tender) that are there to keep fiat as the controlling circulated currency of a nation. the banks will basically switch how their database is stored, (via hyperledger) but essentially from the citizens point of view nothing will really change legally/morally. it will still be bank managed funds. as for the "open source" nature of hyperledger. thats just phase one.. get some free labour and recruit coders (like blockstream already got recruited) .. but the final "product" wont be open source, it will be closed source in shiny metal boxes sold as secure nodes to only the banking community who are authorised to purchase the closed end product system |
|
|
|
over time Banks have realized that this could be dangerous for them and have secretly started researching on Blockchain technology to implement their own Crypto currency for their already existing customers which could be delivered to the masses over night. This could be a threat to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin will always be decentralized no matter what happens and the banks know of this.
its no secret. hyperledger.they have been very public about it. oh and guess who is programming it.. blockstream, yep. gmaxwell and chums. |
|
|
|
Surely it isn't where the hashpower is located but who controls it.
there are many factors and many means of attack. but you are right. the main weakness is the pool server itself and the stratums servers and the admin, IT team hense why stratum servers are international and the administrators are too.. like i shown for f2pool.. thailand not china.. i guess the chinese government need to walk 1000 miles, and then walk 1000 miles more to slap the administrator with a wet sushi to get the administrator to do anything all these "china own bitcoin" stuff has been mitigated AGES ago, its old news and just used as a distraction. |
|
|
|
waffle
hashpower distributed world wide statum servers distributed world wide domain names not .cn, but .com meaning not chinese administrators distributed world wide. you do realise that your concern is out dated. the pools mitigated your concern about 2 years ago. chinese government cannot take down the domains because they are not .cn chinese goverments cannot slap the admin because the admin are dotted around the world chinese goverments cannot take down the statum servers because they are dotted around the world chinese goverments cannot shut off 51%-90% of hashpower because 51%-90% of hash power IS NOT IN CHINA!! you are about two years too late. the so called chinese pools have already adapted and mitigated the risks. your issues have already been addressed and the issues you raise are resolved. you would actually have a valid point if: domains ended .cn stratum servers only existed in china farms were not in mongolia, Tibet, Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia and the rest of the world administrators were all in one building in china. but for all 4 points. those have been addressed ages ago |
|
|
|
|
near on 100 international banks are already dveloping their crypto currency.
research hyperledger.
|
|
|
|
china has less hash power then you think BW.. are in mongolia aswell as other locations haobtc.. are in tibet aswell as other locations BTCC.. are around the world bitfury.. are in Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia. f2pool.. world wide miners put down your racist hats and put on some research glasses take f2pool. largest pool there is.. its hashpower is spread out across the world. its stratum servers are spread across the world. even the guy that runs the pool is not even in china he is in thailand Admin Name: Wang Chun Admin Organization: F2Pool Admin Street: Soi Naklua 16, Naklua Sub-District,, Admin City: Banglamung Admin State/Province: Chonburi Admin Postal Code: 020150 Admin Country: TH Admin Phone: +66.973040750 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax:+66.973040750 Admin Fax Ext: Admin Email: admin@f2pool.comeven their domain is not .cn so that the chinese cant even take the domain down. and dont bother replying with your 'evidence' of other racist opinions from other people that have not done any actual technical research again take off your racist hat and put on your research glasses and see the truth all your fearmongering has been mitigated ages ago. wake up and drop the racist card and start talking about the technical truth |
|
|
|
all i see is you repeating "chinese" in every post. the hash power is international. what hashpower is in china is less then you think. instead of googling china google something for once. take f2pool.. hash power international. not in one single farm. again not a sing farm but an internation hub for 7500 active users. servers all over the planet. the guy that owns it.. guess what THAILAND!! Admin Name: Wang Chun Admin Organization: F2Pool Admin Street: Soi Naklua 16, Naklua Sub-District,, Admin City: Banglamung Admin State/Province: Chonburi Admin Postal Code: 020150 Admin Country: TH Admin Phone: +66.973040750 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax:+66.973040750 Admin Fax Ext: Admin Email: admin@f2pool.comdont throw the racist card unless you can back it up with fact.. not opinions of other racists who also didnt bother to research all i see is you throwing the race card, and backing it up with nothing more then "because that persons racist too so i believe him" |
|
|
|
|
china has less hash power then you think
haobtc.. are in tibet aswell as other locations
BW.. are in mongolia aswell as other locations
BTCC.. are around the world
bitfury.. are in Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia.
put down your racist hats and put on some research glasses
|
|
|
|
Centralized Currency controlled by China.
i know your trying real hard to distract people away from the real control by devs by meandering it into a racist rhetoric about mining pools. but i need to correct your racist rhetoric i mentioned it in another topic but here is a summary. haobtc.. although asian are in tibet aswell as other locations BW.. although asian are in mongolia aswell as other locations BTCC.. although asian have users around the world bitfury.. although asian are in Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia. you will surprise yourself if you done the actual research to see how much actual hashpower actually is in china and how much is not.. hint: far less hashpower is in china then you think |
|
|
|
If we had a closed-source project then this would be accurate, but we don't. It's an open system and any developer can add any "magic limits" they choose. However, developers can only provide the code. If users don't agree with those magic limits, they won't run that code. The evolution of the network is decided by the code people freely choose to run. Some people tend to compare competing codebases to a vote for governance, loosely akin to democracy (or dictatorship, depending on who you listen to  ). But I've never been fond of this comparison. It's far cleaner to see competing codebases as products fighting for market share. Developers design their product however they like, with whatever magic numbers they like, in an attempt to provide the superior product. The market then selects via consensus. If there's a resulting gap in the market, where users aren't happy with the code, or the magic limits contained therein, it's only natural that competition in the market will provide some alternative code for users to run. That means the thread title can't be correct. We're not trusting "someone", we're trusting the *market*. If SegWit doesn't deliver on its potential, the market could well react to that and select a change to the codebase. If there is ever an imbalance in the alignment of incentives, it certainly won't stay that way for long. Embrace the chaos, as it were. Development centralisation is concerning to many. Everyone seems to doubt the motives of everyone else. People fear "takeovers" on both sides. It's easy to get bogged down in all that negativity and it's easier still to start casting aspersions on those you see as a hazard to the well-being of the ecosystem. But the whole thing gets a lot less scary when you remember that the code can't lie. Neutral and transparent wins every time and that's what Bitcoin is. Whatever you think about the developers, their intent or their proposals, trust the market to choose the best code available at the time. what devs need to do is have all variables changeable within the compiled GUI/command prompt. EG not just the transaction fee defaults.. but other things too USERS should have the options. like the blocklimit should be an option a user can change within the compiled release of all different implementations. the problem is not that one dev team should be trusted more then another.. its that even if you only trust one dev team. the users should have some self control of what the rules should be. EG not rely on electing a team based on a fixed pledge that once elected you dont have any ability to hold them to their pledge for a few years.. instead. the user gets to dictate the rules whereby the team have provided them the open platform to vote on each rule. EG at the moment its more of a 'go for trump if you want separate minorities(witness)'. or go for Hillary if you dont want walls(no 1mb limit), where each side is a overall pledge of many laws. rather then an open system where each law is votable, where all you are electing a team for is to have the best team that will follow the independent consensus decision best. not electing which team who decides which consensus should be best or should be ignored. |
|
|
|
Anyway, I think that many of them can even become changeable freely from the user on his own client (even then 21M coins limit).
Some stupids will probably change it (and they will leave the main chain), mainly users that aren't really invested on bitcoin.
Why would anyone do this, it would just be stupid  anyone can change anything. the point is if the majority disagree, it gets ignored. there is a very strong reason not to do this. so dont expect the cap to change. the majority have reasons not to do it. its worse then shooting yourself in the foot and then your head if the majority were to do this. although any rule can be changed certain rules are deemed golden rules that should never be changed and permission is given to slap anyone with a wet fish that wants to change the golden rules |
|
|
|
Great news for bitcoin. How much larger can the network support now with the added scalability?
now.. no change.. before christmas.. no change. when finally active next year people need to download yet another version and if EVERYONE moved their funds off of legacy keypairs and into new segwit compatible HD seed keypairs. and everyone sent segwit transactions to each other 1.8x capacity at best. |
|
|
|
|
just to counter achow101
right now.
we could have 20 different implementations
a. baseblock 1mb max
b. baseblock 1mb weight 4mb max
c. baseblock 2mb max
d. baseblock 2mb weight 4mb max
e. baseblock 2.2mb max
f. baseblock 2.2mb weight 4mb max
g. baseblock 3mb max
h. baseblock 2.5mb weight 4mb max
i. baseblock 4mb max
j. baseblock 4mb weight 8mb max
k. baseblock 5mb max
l. baseblock 5mb weight 8mb max
m. baseblock 6mb max
n. baseblock 6mb weight 10mb max
o. baseblock 7mb max
p. baseblock 7mb weight 12mb max
q. baseblock 8mb max
r. baseblock 8mb weight 14mb max
s. baseblock 9mb max
t. baseblock 9mb weight 16mb max
and they can all run right now on bitcoin mainnet. fully accepting blocks because, guess what..
the rule is "anything below limit is acceptable"
the rule is not "block needs to be near limit to be acceptable"
that means a 250byte block is just as acceptable as a 990kb block to all them 20 implementations
miners will not risk making blocks at 2mb because there is a 10%(a)(b)(2 of 20 disagree) chance of getting orphaned so they will stay in the healthy area of under 1mb where the chances of orphaning wont happen. yet all 20 rules still allow those small blocks. and everyone is communicating to each other.
why avoid orphan risk you may ask.. well if it gets orphaned and the network settles for a competitors smaller block as the best new height to have.. the miner making the larger block loses the reward (no income essentially).
a flip side is that the 10% may not be objecting enough and the other 90% may stand their ground and keep the larger block meaning (a)(b) no longer sync to the latest block height. thus they either just become tx relay nodes or they change their setting to be able to sync blocks again
but as i said miners may not want to risk this even if it is just 10% of nodes getting affected
now if (a)(b) were to give in and move to 2mb.. this doesnt not mean the other 18 nodes have to change.
this is important.. so ill say it again
this doesnt not mean the other 18 nodes have to change.
it just means that now the threshold can move forward and miners see that 2mb is no longer going to get orphaned due to (a)(b) no longer protesting for small <1mb blocks.
so miners can now make any block between 250byte -1.99mb without orphan risk.
yes if miners tried to make blocks bigger than 2mb they would get some orphan risks from (a)(b)(c)(d) due to their opposition now set at 2mb.
with now a 20% risk... miners will stay below 2mb to avoid such orphan risks.
why avoid orphan risk you may ask.. well if it gets orphaned and the network settles for a competitors smaller block as the best new height to have.. the miner making the larger block loses the reward (no income essentially).
also its a 20% risk so they definitely wont be stupid. at a 20% risk
but like i said.. it wont require all implementations to routinely ask devs to spoon feed them updated implementations. instead its a user setting.
as for how and when a miner decides/knows the risks.. well thats easy the rules can be transmitted as part of the handshake or even the useragent or rpc as part of the lets say an updated 'getaddr'
all without needing every implementation needing consent from devs every couple years. all done independently by nodes
the only risk i can see is the opposition will sybil attack the network by having several nodes setting it to 0.1mb limit. in which case there is always the ban IP which surprisingly i have seen core fanboys use, to not communicate with non core nodes for no other reason than not being a core node.
summary
nodes can have any rules they like. but miners will only produce a block that fits the majority and wont risk their income.
miners have a moral and economic incentive to not push the boundary, because the boundary may push back and lose them their reward.
|
|
|
|
satoshi was planning on 2mb blocks in 2011. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366he would have been happy with diverse nodes. he would have also implemented 'patch' update mechanism so that it didnt require upgrading a whole implementation but just downloading an addon to expand functionality. and also users ability to change settings independently/manually. thus there would not be bickering. but simple use of the consensus mechanism. how has gavin and hearne tried to sabotage bitcoin.. all their implementations are actually running LIVE on the blockchain right now. their implementations were to use consensus. none of their efforts have been to intentionally split the network. however it has been core that has been telling other implementations to f**k off. and it is core devs that are funded by banks. yep gmaxwell pietre wuille are paid by R3 (the hypocrits that shamed hearne for working for R3). it is gmaxwell that has told other implementations to avoid consensus and split off(his bilateral fork buzzword) core have been the ones with the "competition" mindset rather than community mindset. take newyork as a concept of community.. instead of everyone seeing all newyorkers. core fanboys and devs have been screaming that minorities should F**k off out of town. and then hate the chinatown district. where as the minorities and china town actually have a place in the community. but hey no point trying you wake you up seems your too deep in the dictatorship camp of wanting one dev group to dictate bitcoin |
|
|
|
Guess it's good to hear that they're upgrading, but it kind of seems like the community is fairly divided on whether or not we're going to go with segwit. I don't know enough about it in order to have a decent and applicable opinion on whether or not we're going to benefit from changing the chain we're using. It seems like a god idea at a glance, but I'll be reading more about it.
until i see some diverse nodes by other dev groups that are also implementing the features but coded their own way (im excluding knots because thats just a core devs fake attempt at diversity), then i see risks. the funny thing is if core actually treated other devs as part of the community. rather then competition they could have helped each other out more and had lots of diverse nodes all with segwit features as a minimum. and all properly independently tested but core went the other route to push people out the way and made demands and told everyone else to f**k off.. we should have gone with the spring 2016 roundtable 2mb base 4mb weight. then everyone would have been happy |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
