chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase

[LiteCoinGuy]

we already have consensus that we have to make some little steps first and an automatic increase over time:

example: 8MB, 10MB, 13MB and so on...



maybe the exchanges should buy one of these:

http://www.cnet.com/news/microdia-will-sell-a-1000-ish-512gb-microsd-come-july/

 

[CIYAM]

If you actually read the article (and I am guessing from what most people are posting that they simply haven't) then you'll see that an increase to say 4MB (and maybe even 8MB) is something that would likely get acceptance from BTCChina and Houbi (the two exchanges that are mentioned in the article).

The main reason for Chinese concern with a very large block size increase (at least at this point in time) is that internet between China and the outside world works very slowly (anyone who lives here knows that) and this could potentially disadvantage Chinese mining operations (due to a potential increase in orphan blocks due to slower propagation).

I am not sure how real this potential issue with orphan blocks is but I do know that it is virtually impossible to run Bitcoin Core on standard home internet in China now (and using a VPN or similar doesn't help as the bandwidth "throttling" prevents the peer from ever catching up no matter how you connect).

[Kprawn]

Ok, this might sound like a conspiracy theory... but I would like to put it out there. {Sorry if I sound like a idiot}

Let's say China wants a bigger percentage of the pie... with Bitcoin as it is now, everyone concentrate efforts on a single coin.

If a fork happens, the resources would have to be split, and this will give China a better chance to control it's own currency. {fork}

The part I am not clear on, is this .... Will Bitcoin mining still mine one coin or do they choose between Bitcoin Core or XT?

The exchanges might be gearing up for the fork they want to dominate? As I said, this is only a conspiracy theory based on flawed knowledge. { I am still researching this part }

Let's just play with the idea...

[Amph]

chinese should also understand that bitcoin isn't their baby only because they are running the biggest farm(i think they will end forking their own bitcoin in the future) and that something about this current limit must be done, no matter what they think

[QuestionAuthority]

chinese should also understand that bitcoin isn't their baby only because they are running the biggest farm(i think they will end forking their own bitcoin in the future) and that something about this current limit must be done, no matter what they think

But it's almost their baby to do with as they see fit. If the Chinese farms got together they would control an easy majority of the hashrate. Tycho wielded that kind of power over a change in the past when DeepBit had a lot of the hashrate. They wouldn't hurt Bitcoin because it's their gravy train but they will attempt to apply pressure to make sure their interests are met. You can't ignore them.

[Searing]

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.

er with the current herding of cats in this 20mb block direction (leaving out the view one way or another if it is correct or not)

NO WAY

will you 90% and a new fork to appear imho..... seems the argument is too evenly split..so what happens when you flat out have stalemate? you break the toy?

is there a plan B in all this or is it just they are gonna let go of the rudder on the bitcoin canoe and see which fork in the stream it takes?

(hmmm..that had me pucker up a bit at the thought.....and the sense of 'bankers' giggling)

[anderson00673]

Ok, this might sound like a conspiracy theory... but I would like to put it out there. {Sorry if I sound like a idiot}

Let's say China wants a bigger percentage of the pie... with Bitcoin as it is now, everyone concentrate efforts on a single coin.

If a fork happens, the resources would have to be split, and this will give China a better chance to control it's own currency. {fork}

The part I am not clear on, is this .... Will Bitcoin mining still mine one coin or do they choose between Bitcoin Core or XT?

The exchanges might be gearing up for the fork they want to dominate? As I said, this is only a conspiracy theory based on flawed knowledge. { I am still researching this part }

Let's just play with the idea...

OK um I think some people are misunderstanding what will happen here.  If there is a 50/50 split, or a 20/80, or 30/70, or whatever, nothing happens.  The new version is not adopted.  There will not be multiple versions of bitcoin, coins will not be doubled, and everything will have rainbows.  If there is 90% or whatever then the fork will happen, and the other 10% will join or die.

[Lauda]

Have you read the link completely? Their understanding of the situation doesn't seem to be good enough.

BTCChina and Huobi shared concerns that a jump to 20 megabytes might be too big

They don't even state why. We've already concluded that the increase doesn't mean that the block size will be 20 MB tomorrow or if ever. We won't have increased costs of anything tomorrow, however this might change in the future.
Besides we should have stopped talking about 20 MB blocks long ago as it should be 8 MB. I've already pointed this out in several places, but people don't seem to like reading anything before posting (not to mention doing proper research).
As I've previously stated the best approach would be to increase the limit to 4 or 8 MB (depending on which is likely to get consensus) to give enough time for other solutions to be ready (e.g. side chains).

[Kprawn]

Ok, this might sound like a conspiracy theory... but I would like to put it out there. {Sorry if I sound like a idiot}

Let's say China wants a bigger percentage of the pie... with Bitcoin as it is now, everyone concentrate efforts on a single coin.

If a fork happens, the resources would have to be split, and this will give China a better chance to control it's own currency. {fork}

The part I am not clear on, is this .... Will Bitcoin mining still mine one coin or do they choose between Bitcoin Core or XT?

The exchanges might be gearing up for the fork they want to dominate? As I said, this is only a conspiracy theory based on flawed knowledge. { I am still researching this part }

Let's just play with the idea...

OK um I think some people are misunderstanding what will happen here.  If there is a 50/50 split, or a 20/80, or 30/70, or whatever, nothing happens.  The new version is not adopted.  There will not be multiple versions of bitcoin, coins will not be doubled, and everything will have rainbows.  If there is 90% or whatever then the fork will happen, and the other 10% will join or die.

I am not claiming to understand it 100% ... Hence my conspiracy theory type post.

What I can see, is a clear split... giving someone who might want to have a bigger share a opportunity to do just that.

If a exchange can force people to accept only a specific forked coin, it's adoption would grow as time goes on. China has a big enough market to ban the fork, they do not want to support and to force people to use the fork they want to dominate.

We can see a scenario in future where we can for example have a "Western" & "Eastern" version of the same coin.

As I said, I am just throwing ideas around and thinking out of the box... If this is a way for people or countries to dominate Bitcoin, they might just jump on the opportunity, while we are fighting amongst each other.

When the exchanges force this, the nodes will follow and then the miners... {That is, if my lack of information or understanding is not flawed}

As I post this, I am still asking questions and reading up on the matter...

[CIYAM]

Have you read the link completely? Their understanding of the situation doesn't seem to be good enough.

BTCChina and Huobi shared concerns that a jump to 20 megabytes might be too big

They don't even state why.

They do state that the reason they think it is too big is due to potential orphan block issues due to poor bandwidth between China and the rest of the world (as I previously mentioned).

They also stated that 4MB would be fine and 8MB might be okay also (so you didn't read it properly either).

Unfortunately this forum has no longer become a platform for any sort of meaningful communication - so even those actually trying to do so are just lost beneath all the FUD and ad sigs useless posts.

[Amph]

Have you read the link completely? Their understanding of the situation doesn't seem to be good enough.

BTCChina and Huobi shared concerns that a jump to 20 megabytes might be too big

They don't even state why. We've already concluded that the increase doesn't mean that the block size will be 20 MB tomorrow or if ever. We won't have increased costs of anything tomorrow, however this might change in the future.
Besides we should have stopped talking about 20 MB blocks long ago as it should be 8 MB. I've already pointed this out in several places, but people don't seem to like reading anything before posting (not to mention doing proper research).
As I've previously stated the best approach would be to increase the limit to 4 or 8 MB (depending on which is likely to get consensus) to give enough time for other solutions to be ready (e.g. side chains).

here their reason, has to do with the bandwidth

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

[RoadStress]

Besides we should have stopped talking about 20 MB blocks long ago as it should be 8 MB. I've already pointed this out in several places, but people don't seem to like reading anything before posting (not to mention doing proper research).
As I've previously stated the best approach would be to increase the limit to 4 or 8 MB (depending on which is likely to get consensus) to give enough time for other solutions to be ready (e.g. side chains).

This! Bolded and colored the relevant part just in case nobody is aware of the news!

Next time someone mentions 20MB they will get a retard star from me. It was stated so many time that the 20MB is off, but people are either stupid or ignorant.

[Lauda]

They do state that the reason they think it is too big is due to potential orphan block issues due to poor bandwidth between China and the rest of the world (as I previously mentioned).

They also stated that 4MB would be fine and 8MB might be okay also (so you didn't read it properly either).
Unfortunately this forum has no longer become a platform for any sort of meaningful communication - so even those actually trying to do so are just lost beneath all the FUD and ad sigs useless posts.

I was replying to the first part. I have read the article and I know that their director of engineering Mikael Wang explained it a bit. As I've previously stated, if we do not see an increase in the block size (at least not an exponential one) there won't be any problems with bandwidth. They are going with the assumption that blocks will get filled rapidly because of the increase.

I'm not seeing the bolded part. I know that they're fine with gradual growth, however I have not seen them mentioning 4 or 8 MB?

Have you read the link completely?
-snip-

here their reason, has to do with the bandwidth

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

This implies that I've read the whole article.

Besides we should have stopped talking about 20 MB blocks long ago as it should be 8 MB.

This! Bolded and colored the relevant part just in case nobody is aware of the news!

Next time someone mentions 20MB they will get a retard star from me. It was stated so many time that the 20MB is off, but people are either stupid or ignorant.

The majority here are both. I can't believe how they don't realize this. I mean it would have been okay I it was only mentioned once in some thread, however this mistake was mentioned multiple times.
Yet the majority can't stop talking about 20 MB blocks which were a calculation mistake.



Update: Yes, that is clear. However, they didn't exactly specify 4 or 8 MB.

[CIYAM]

“The proposed increase of the maximum block size cannot fundamentally solve the issue; 20 megabyte blocks can also become a bottleneck in the future. A neutral and balanced solution is needed, such as an increase of the maximum block size to an intermediate value that guarantees a fluent and smooth transaction over the next year. And it might also be needed to consider the issue from an economical perspective.”

Is that clear enough (okay - not an exact mention of a figure but clearly indicating that a lower figure would be acceptable IMO)?

Not sure now why I had thought I had read any exact figures now - probably confused by all the FUD being posted myself.

[johnyj]

Even a 90% consensus will still compromise 10% of the user, the best way is to reach a 100% consensus that left out no one. I think the conflict of interest are largely caused by differences in different actors' knowledge of bitcoin network. So lots of education and discussion is needed to reach consensus

Just like 1+1=2, there is only one truth in this world. If you fully understand how bitcoin network works, you will not get second conclusion when you face a problem. But besides a handful of core devs, most of the actors have very limited knowledge about how bitcoin works under the hood

I have seen some education material that is not very objective and gone political, e.g. boast their solution in the name of decentralization. And due to the complexity of their solution, most of the actors can not make further decision simply because they don't have time to dig into those solutions

So I think to reach 100% consensus, the most important thing is that the change should be simple enough for every people to understand. And the change should be as small as possible

Just remember gold, no political decision can affect the character of gold, that's the reason it is used for several thousand years in many different nations with different culture and political interest. And gold is simple enough for every people to understand

[dserrano5]

Even a 90% consensus will still compromise 10% of the user

You're assuming that everybody upgrades their nodes swiftly. I believe a substantial part of that 10% is people that don't care upgrading. If we go by 100%, then we'd never do the change. The line has to be drawn at some point but 100% isn't it. 90 or 95% seems like a perfect spot to me.

[CIYAM]

Unfortunately 100% consensus is probably never going to happen.

There might be people still running the earliest version of Bitcoin and apart from them finding out that their software is no longer usable there is not much you can do if they stubbornly decide they are "never going to upgrade".

I think that 90% is actually a quite reasonable figure to hard-fork and as long as there is plenty of notification about the change then I don't see it as being such a big deal.

Also note that there is no rush to upgrade as the 90-95% figure is in regards to the last 1,000 blocks (giving people a fair bit of time to upgrade).

[favdesu]

It doesn't matter if the china exchanges are against it or some other entitiy. it's all about nodes. if the people follow the fork, chinese exchanges have to follow.

[CIYAM]

It doesn't matter if the china exchanges are against it or some other entitiy. it's all about nodes. if the people follow the fork, chinese exchanges have to follow.

What you don't get is that the major Chinese exchanges are very tightly tied to major Chinese mining operations and those nodes *matter* (as the majority or at least close to it of all Bitcoin hashpower is in China).

[hobbymd]

It doesn't matter if the china exchanges are against it or some other entitiy. it's all about nodes. if the people follow the fork, chinese exchanges have to follow.

What you don't get is that the major Chinese exchanges are very tightly tied to major Chinese mining operations and those nodes *matter* (as the majority or at least close to it of all Bitcoin hashpower is in China).

but but but majority of Chinese exchanges have fake volume, with organized pump and dump     . It's beyond me to understand how people can trust any of these " major"    Chinese exchanges .  All it takes for them to crumble/disappear overnight with your bitcoin  is a little bit of government crack down........  aaaaannnnnnnd its gone     then you would see people start crying and complaining about their stolen coins    
 
IMO all these " major" Chinese exchanges are operating in grey area of law in China hence very susceptible to shutdown at any moment law changes or a ban comes to effect

As for Chinese mega-farms miner, they're simply greedy and are init to purely profit from it by dumping their mined coins every day. All they're are after is fiat money, they don't really give a fuck about bitcoin since it has ZERO utility in China.  

Plus majority of mega-farm are located in very remote locations so obviously getting a proper internet connection would really hurt their profit margin hence if they could have their way, they would never want to upgrade at all. It's like asking a kid to give up it's candy voluntarily