chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase

[johnyj]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Now some chinese exchanges have rejected the 20mb approach, it is getting complicated. I think a important part of the consensus is that all the exchanges should reach agreement on which coin they are trading

And the problem is not only this, if you take democracy approach, it is similar to an election where no party can win the majority, eventually some small party that stay in the middle would become the weight to decide the result of the election

We definitely need a decision making mechanism in bitcoin, chain fork is not the way to go, democracy does not work either. It is easy to say "just fork your own chain and be satisfied", but in reality if you can not get the hash power to secure the network, and can not get exchange and merchant support, the new chain will almost be useless

Bitcoin protocol itself is very centralized, it is established on science and coding, the decision making mechanism should also be based on science and coding

[croTek4]

What do you mean, which coin they will trade? Bitcoin, They will trade Bitcoin.

[RaginglikeaBoss]

He's say

What do you mean, which coin they will trade? Bitcoin, They will trade Bitcoin.

He's referring to the fact that if there a fork and the Chinese exchanges refuse to use the new fork, then there will technically be two separate "Bitcoin" block chains.  I'm not stating my opinion either way, just informing.

[achow101]

The decision making is based entirely on how many people support the new protocol and how many blocks mined are of the new version. The fork only occurs when >90% (probably more like 98% though) of the full nodes and miners are a client which supports the new blocks. Only then does the fork occur. There would not be enough hash power remaining on the old chain to support and secure it.

[newIndia]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Now some chinese exchanges have rejected the 20mb approach, it is getting complicated. I think a important part of the consensus is that all the exchanges should reach agreement on which coin they are trading

And the problem is not only this, if you take democracy approach, it is similar to an election where no party can win the majority, eventually some small party that stay in the middle would become the weight to decide the result of the election

We definitely need a decision making mechanism in bitcoin, chain fork is not the way to go, democracy does not work either. It is easy to say "just fork your own chain and be satisfied", but in reality if you can not get the hash power to secure the network, and can not get exchange and merchant support, the new chain will almost be useless

Bitcoin protocol itself is very centralized, it is established on science and coding, the decision making mechanism should also be based on science and coding

You clearly did not understand how it is going to happen...

1. People will start running Bitcoin XT if they wish.

2. If more than 50% runs on XT, Gavin will approach the Devs again to change bitcoin core itself.

3. If that happens, it is just another routine ugrade and hard fork does not happen.

4. If that does not happen, Gavin will wait for 90% of the netowrk to be run on XT.

5. Then he'll do the hard fork.

In the whole process described above, Chinese exchange/American exchange has no extra wightage or contribution. It is all about the nodes that is running the network. Whoever does not comply with the majority will just be left behind and that happens almost everyday on bitcoin netowrk when a block gets orphaned.

[achow101]

3. If that happens, it is just another routine ugrade and hard fork does not happen.

4. If that does not happen, Gavin will wait for 90% of the netowrk to be run on XT.

5. Then he'll do the hard fork.

It is not just a routine upgrade. Increasing the block size itself is inherently a hard fork. There is no way to increase the size without forking, no matter what client is used.

[johnyj]

The decision making is based entirely on how many people support the new protocol and how many blocks mined are of the new version. The fork only occurs when >90% (probably more like 98% though) of the full nodes and miners are a client which supports the new blocks. Only then does the fork occur. There would not be enough hash power remaining on the old chain to support and secure it.

Of course 90% is a major consensus, but it could also be a 40/60 or 30/70 situation which we are stuck in right now

In fact you can fork the chain anytime, just run a different version of clients that is not compatible with the core (currently XT is still compatible, but it has the potential to be incompatible if the block size limit is raised). You can even support your version of bitcoin with your own hash power and your exchange, but that will most likely become some alt-coin

[lemipawa]

I think that we should have a way for Bitcoin node owners to vote. Maybe you should make a BIP for some kind of voting mechanism which can then be used in Bitcoin Core.

[QuestionAuthority]

[johnyj]

1. People will start running Bitcoin XT if they wish.

2. If more than 50% runs on XT, Gavin will approach the Devs again to change bitcoin core itself.

3. If that happens, it is just another routine ugrade and hard fork does not happen.

4. If that does not happen, Gavin will wait for 90% of the netowrk to be run on XT.

5. Then he'll do the hard fork.

In the whole process described above, Chinese exchange/American exchange has no extra wightage or contribution. It is all about the nodes that is running the network. Whoever does not comply with the majority will just be left behind and that happens almost everyday on bitcoin netowrk when a block gets orphaned.

No need for so many steps, now step 1 will not happen for those chinese exchanges, together with their corresponding mining hashing power and wallet services

Take an extreme example, if all Chinese miners connected towards several mining pools in Taiwan and HongKong, and those pools do not upgrade to XT, it means more than 50% of the hashing power will stay on the original chain. If Chinese exchanges won't change to XT, then it is very likely Chinese miners won't change too. They do hold lots of negotiation power in this case

[achow101]

The decision making is based entirely on how many people support the new protocol and how many blocks mined are of the new version. The fork only occurs when >90% (probably more like 98% though) of the full nodes and miners are a client which supports the new blocks. Only then does the fork occur. There would not be enough hash power remaining on the old chain to support and secure it.

Of course 90% is a major consensus, but it could also be a 40/60 or 30/70 situation which we are stuck in right now

In fact you can fork the chain anytime, just run a different version of clients that is not compatible with the core (currently XT is still compatible, but it has the potential to be incompatible if the block size limit is raised). You can even support your version of bitcoin with your own hash power and your exchange, but that will most likely become some alt-coin

If no one uses it, it is worthless. With the current situation, then nothing will happen at all.

1. People will start running Bitcoin XT if they wish.

2. If more than 50% runs on XT, Gavin will approach the Devs again to change bitcoin core itself.

3. If that happens, it is just another routine ugrade and hard fork does not happen.

4. If that does not happen, Gavin will wait for 90% of the netowrk to be run on XT.

5. Then he'll do the hard fork.

In the whole process described above, Chinese exchange/American exchange has no extra wightage or contribution. It is all about the nodes that is running the network. Whoever does not comply with the majority will just be left behind and that happens almost everyday on bitcoin netowrk when a block gets orphaned.

No need for so many steps, now step 1 will not happen for those chinese exchanges, together with their corresponding mining hashing power and wallet services

Take an extreme example, if all Chinese miners connected towards several mining pools in Taiwan and HongKong, and those pools do not upgrade to XT, it means more than 50% of the hashing power will stay on the original chain. If Chinese exchanges won't change to XT, then it is very likely Chinese miners won't change too. They do hold lots of negotiation power in this case

The miners hold the negotiation power, not the exchanges. It is the miners who decide whether to switch or not. They are an integral part of the current consensus voting system. If 50% of the miners don't agree, then they don't switch. If they do agree and the switch happens, then the exchanges must switch too because they would begin losing money from being on a stale and insecure chain. The miners can always find another place to exchange, or just keep the Bitcoin and use it.

[johnyj]

I say fuck them. Their volume is faked and we cant expect them NOT being rigged by Communist Party.

As soon as Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp support 20mb fork, we will have majority.

I don't think this kind of thoughts (politics) is good for bitcoin

If bitcoin's future can be decided by a group of powerful people of their own interest, who can guarantee that some day in the future, another group of more powerful people will make another majority vote and change other aspects of bitcoin? Then the different developers will focus on how to lobby the powerful actors to agree on their view of bitcoin's future

FED can vote to change the money supply, but no one in the world can vote to change the character of gold, that should be a guidence when we design the decision making mechanism of bitcoin

[johnyj]

The miners hold the negotiation power, not the exchanges. It is the miners who decide whether to switch or not. They are an integral part of the current consensus voting system. If 50% of the miners don't agree, then they don't switch. If they do agree and the switch happens, then the exchanges must switch too because they would begin losing money from being on a stale and insecure chain. The miners can always find another place to exchange, or just keep the Bitcoin and use it.

In China, exchanges typically also own mining farms and wallet services, or at least have very close relationship with miners

Voting is not a solution, bitcoin is invented just to avoid voting of monetary policy. To reach universal consensus is the only way, why could not Gavin take the 4MB approach and make the change gradually?  I think everyone could make some compromise and reach a universal consensus. This is more like diplomatic negotiations between countries, no vote is possible

[achow101]

In China, exchanges typically also own mining farms and wallet services, or at least have very close relationship with miners

True, so that means that both the mining and exchange operations will do the same thing.

Voting is not a solution, bitcoin is invented just to avoid voting of monetary policy. To reach universal consensus is the only way, why could not Gavin take the 4MB approach and make the change gradually?  I think everyone could make some compromise and reach a universal consensus. This is more like diplomatic negotiations between countries, no vote is possible

There actually is a vote, based on the number of a client run. If the super-majority (>90%) run a node that supports the new protocol, then that means a super-majority voted "yes" for increased block size. Those running older versions are voting "no" for the change.

Gavin suggested the 20 MB because he thought it was a safe enough size for a long time. However, he is willing to compromise. Looking at the emails in the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, it looks like Gavin is willing to have the block size increase to 4 MB or 8 MB. More people would like this smaller jump than the big one to 20 MB.

[johnyj]

I don't think this kind of thoughts (politics) is good for bitcoin

If bitcoin's future can be decided by a group of powerful people of their own interest, who can guarantee that some day in the future, another group of more powerful people will make another majority vote and change other aspects of bitcoin? Then the different developers will focus on how to lobby the powerful actors to agree on their view of bitcoin's future

FED can vote to change the money supply, but no one in the world can vote to change the character of gold, that should be a guidence when we design the decision making mechanism of bitcoin

You forget the key fundamental value of bitcoin: Utility.

If the Chinese decided to fork their own bitcoin they can do so with only thing left for them : speculative asset with no real value.

Lets see who would win.

Large part of today's bitcoin value is due to Chinese speculation and capital outflow through bitcoin at the end of 2013 (Thus their central bank banned financial institutions from doing bitcoin transactions, and bitcoin's value has been dropping since then)

First and second ASIC miner was invented and produced by Chinese, and now they are holding significant percent of hashing power. They are also important part of bitcoin ecosystem and contributed a lot for bitcoin's success

But again, this is become political, and politics is all that we want to avoid. Bitcoin is so attractive because it gives everyone the possibility to get away from central banks' monetary policy, they get the maximum freedom. If some day they have to give up that freedom because others decided to use a vote to deny their right, then bitcoin is no more different than the FED. In fact, a fork will double the amount of coins and cause 100% inflation, after a couple of forks, devs are doing as good as FED. Then people will just return home and pick up their USD notes

[Hazir]

I say fuck them. Their volume is faked and we cant expect them NOT being rigged by Communist Party.

As soon as Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp support 20mb fork, we will have majority.

I don't think this kind of thoughts (politics) is good for bitcoin

If bitcoin's future can be decided by a group of powerful people of their own interest, who can guarantee that some day in the future, another group of more powerful people will make another majority vote and change other aspects of bitcoin? Then the different developers will focus on how to lobby the powerful actors to agree on their view of bitcoin's future

FED can vote to change the money supply, but no one in the world can vote to change the character of gold, that should be a guidence when we design the decision making mechanism of bitcoin

You forget the key fundamental value of bitcoin: Utility.

If the Chinese decided to fork their own bitcoin they can do so with only thing left for them : speculative asset with no real value.

Lets see who would win.

If Chinese play it right there is not doubt that they are gonna win. It's easy to forget that bitcoin was thrust upon the masses because of the economic collapse in 2008.
Since that time Chinese has some serious monopoly on ASICs and mining field right now without their market bitcoin would collapse probably. If they try to ditch bitcoin and go for their own coin I wouldn't be surprised that bitcoin price would decrease to 1/3 of its current value.

[Quantus]

I say fuck them. Their volume is faked and we cant expect them NOT being rigged by Communist Party.

As soon as Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp support 20mb fork, we will have majority.

lol wtf are you smoking China is buying more bitcoins then the rest of the world combined. They are in control of the majority of mining and trading volume now.

[Brewins]

I say fuck them. Their volume is faked and we cant expect them NOT being rigged by Communist Party.

As soon as Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp support 20mb fork, we will have majority.

lol wtf are you smoking China is buying more bitcoins then the rest of the world combined. They are in control of the majority of mining and trading volume now.

The volume can very well be faked, as people already said.

And the topic is about chinese exchanges rejecting the new size. If miners accept it, then they will die from no trade volume, and new chinese exchange that accept the fork will emerge and replace them

[QuestionAuthority]

I say fuck them. Their volume is faked and we cant expect them NOT being rigged by Communist Party.

As soon as Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp support 20mb fork, we will have majority.

lol wtf are you smoking China is buying more bitcoins then the rest of the world combined. They are in control of the majority of mining and trading volume now.

Again you just opened your mouth and told the world you're a retard.

You say exactly the same thing in every thread and soon there won't be anyone that can see your posts at all.

[dserrano5]

2. If more than 50% runs on XT, Gavin will approach the Devs again to change bitcoin core itself.

Did he somewhere say so?

3. If that happens, it is just another routine ugrade and hard fork does not happen.

Of course a fork happens. Any change in the protocol is a fork (ok actually it isn't ). Same 90% rule, but in BCore instead of XT.

4. If that does not happen, Gavin will wait for 90% of the netowrk to be run on XT.

5. Then he'll do the hard fork.

He'll do nothing. The code will do it, just like it's being done at this very moment with the introduction of BIP66. We're almost there (70% upgraded and rising fast).