chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase

[Muhammed Zakir]

Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.

As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).

Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship?

You must have not liked freedoom.

LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS

Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first 

We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it.

You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea.

adapt or die =/= accept or die.

Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all.

Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point.

Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD.

The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend.

The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

[1715256221]

1715256221

[1715256221]

1715256221

[1715256221]

1715256221

[1715256221]

1715256221

[CIYAM]

I don't really care what rubbish you want to post about me but it is rather obvious that most of the people that are posting here don't actually care about Bitcoin at all but instead just want to either post for the sake of their ad-sig or big-note themselves and "breast beat" how everyone needs to do things the way that *they say* it should be done (who are the same kind of people who were attacking Gavin last week about the 20MB limit funnily enough).

Well good luck with that attitude and am sure you'll win friends and influence people all over the world.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.

As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).

Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship?

You must have not liked freedoom.

LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS

Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first 

We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it.

You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea.

adapt or die =/= accept or die.

Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all.

Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point.

Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD.

The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend.

The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

You pay too much attention to "Satoshi" I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design. And the 10MB or 20MB is just a magic number because the issue is politics not technology. We dont know if in few yrs the speed through the Great Firewall will be up .... or..... down (heck the RPC even consider to fork the internet for better censorship). But we do know one thing for sure: technology will always move forward and thus bitcoin must carry on.

Sorry for your loss, China.

"I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design." - This is exactly the reason I posted it. We didn't "compromise" the design. Bitcoin's design is decentralization, ".... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Bitcoin must carry on but 20MB is not needed now. Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. IMHO we should first observer what are the problems when blocks reaches 1MB and then we should consider increasing maximum block size but not to 20MB *yet*.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.

As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).

Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship?

You must have not liked freedoom.

LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS

Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first 

We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it.

You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea.

adapt or die =/= accept or die.

Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all.

Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point.

Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD.

The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend.

The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

You pay too much attention to "Satoshi" I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design. And the 10MB or 20MB is just a magic number because the issue is politics not technology. We dont know if in few yrs the speed through the Great Firewall will be up .... or..... down (heck the RPC even consider to fork the internet for better censorship). But we do know one thing for sure: technology will always move forward and thus bitcoin must carry on.

Sorry for your loss, China.

"I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design." - This is exactly the reason I posted it. We didn't "compromise" the design. Bitcoin's design is decentralization, ".... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Bitcoin must carry on but 20MB is not needed now. Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. IMHO we should first observer what are the problems when blocks reaches 1MB and then we should consider increasing maximum block size but not to 20MB *yet*.

We wont have 20MB overnight. Its the limit not minimum.

I know. The size of the blocks earlier were not big like now and still a limit was put to prevent spam and DOS attacks. In fact, number of transactions were much lesser than it is today. You think this has changed now? NO! We should not only consider about scaling but stability and decentralization too.

The current way of proposing by Gavin actually says about him asking miners and companies to adopt new fork which is essentially hurting decentralization.

[CIYAM]

Extremely rude people with negative trust equals *who cares what the fuck they post as it is of no concern nor importance*.

As you can see no-one is really interested in your view at all - but don't let that stop you - please continue to make an ass of yourself with your ridiculous posts.

Every rubbish thing you say about me just makes me laugh more about just how ignorant you are - so let's see if you can make me LOL again (you've managed to do that at least 3 times already today).

[CIYAM]

oooh. The trust rating here is so....... right

Fits one's mentality of feeling VIP in a jungle of monkeys

That's the best you can do?

I am disappointed - at least previously you got some things right (such as the fact that I live in China and am married to a Chinese woman) but now you are rather lacking in anything coherent at all. Are you too drunk to actually keep trolling?

Maybe you'd better have a sleep and get back to trolling me tomorrow.

(btw - if you'd bothered to even look at my profile you'd know that I am *not* a VIP)

[Muhammed Zakir]

You keep bringing up "decentralization" while arguing about spam txs.... lol

To make it to two, I splitted those into two paras. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Do you know off-chain tx will bring centralized models?

Off-chain transactions are low.

Do you want Coinbase to purely facilitate off-chain txs?

I have no problem but most users have problem because they ban users who receive Bitcoins from sites they blacklisted.

Now what decentralization issue do we have with 20MB blocksize limit?

Please dont tell me the great firewall BS, as i already said its politics.

If Gavin & Mike settle their control over the project in this way firmly, they will be able to do whatever they want. Storage is not a big issue but if storage, internet etc... are considered, I think many nodes will have to drop and hence, less nodes which will lead to more crntralization.

I actually see the opposite if mining can be anywhere with low electrical cost. Bitcoin mining cost should have more variables. Didnt i already bring this up?

[hobbymd]

I know. The size of the blocks earlier were not big like now and still a limit was put to prevent spam and DOS attacks. In fact, number of transactions were much lesser than it is today. You think this has changed now? NO! We should not only consider about scaling[ but stability and decentralization too.

The current way of proposing by Gavin actually says about him asking miners and companies to adopt new fork which is essentially hurting decentralization.

You're contradicting yourself    , bitcoin mining as is right now is CENTRALIZED in China that is a fact that you can't ignore. Again raising block size limit won't make bitcoin inaccessible in China or Africa , it would make only MINING harder due to connection restriction, which is nobody's fault. The network has grown over past several years, you can't keep using the same old tricks and praying that everything would be fine.

Also you can't just keep setting up shacks in remote locations with cheap power and poor internet connection just because you want to mine bitcoin and dump it to profit from it. As a matter of fact those mega-farms couldn't careless about mining being centralized in a single location . All they care is ROI and profit.

It amazes me people keep defending these mega-farms and at the same time they bring up decentralization , it's oxymoron . There's saying that goes as " you can't patch stupid " it fits perfectly here.

If Bitcoin does't scale up  it would just collapse, then who cares about stability and decentralization when it's already collapsed because of not being able to scale up. Get your priority  straight .

 

[CIYAM]

Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard and anyone who thinks so is really "kidding themselves".

In the world of "remittance" Bitcoin can be king but in the world of general transactions it is never going to get there.

When will you guys realise that "normal people" actually *want* reversible transactions and the safety of their banks. They are *never* going to want to lose their money to scammers who want to take advantage of irreversible payments.

It is so funny that Bitcoin fanatics just seem to forget all about "customers" (probably because most of them are scammers trying to steal their customers money).

[hobbymd]

Simply they either need to relocated to somewhere else or slowly die while dragging the rest of community with them.

When they have indicated that a more modest increase in max. block size (such as the 8MB that Gavin has stated he would accept) would be acceptable then why do you keep trying to turn this "storm in a teacup" into some sort of  Others vs. China battle?

If China ends up abandoning Bitcoin then I really don't see how that would be any sort of victory for Bitcoin at all.

China is not the only country in the world with bandwidth issues so I guess next you want to get rid of any developing countries as well and after a while pretty much Bitcoin will just be USA coin. To that I say - no thanks.

No but it's one of the few countries in the world with restricted internet access (GFW) . Now name me how many other countries are in that category? 

No it won't be a USA coin, as a matter of fact everybody can access the Blockchain and send/received transactions even in China or Africa or even moon but mining of it becomes more difficult because it's not like before anymore where all you needed was cheap hardware along with cheap power equals to profit.

Lets get this straight,  being able to accessing the network is not the same as being able to mine on it. You keep bundling these two together to benefit your flawed argument.

[hobbymd]

Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard and anyone who thinks so is really "kidding themselves".

In the world of "remittance" Bitcoin can be king but in the world of general transactions it is never going to get there.

When will you guys realise that "normal people" actually *want* reversible transactions and the safety of their banks. They are *never* going to want to lose their money to scammers who want to take advantage of irreversible payments.

It is so funny that Bitcoin fanatics just seem to forget all about "customers" (probably because most of them are scammers trying to steal their customers money).

I see you're coming from the camp of " it can't never scale up " but I want the Bitcoin somehow magically becomes main stream so I can keep profit from mining on it    good luck with that    

well if you're not bitcoin enthusiastic then why the heck you spending your time here in BCT ??!!!   what are your motives for being here?

[CIYAM]

well if you're not bitcoin enthusiastic then why the heck you spending your time here in BCT ??!!!   what are your motives for being here?

Seriously - you don't know the first thing about me but presume to actually know all my motives?

So either you are some kind of "genius mind-reader" or just a "retarded bitcointalk.org poster".

Hmm.. my bet is on the latter.

[CIYAM]

@seriouscoin - you are a serious racist.

No-one in this forum actually care much for your rubbish.

But go ahead and post more rubbish - it only shows why you have negative trust and why no-one gives a fuck about your retarded views.

[QuestionAuthority]

Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard and anyone who thinks so is really "kidding themselves".

In the world of "remittance" Bitcoin can be king but in the world of general transactions it is never going to get there.

When will you guys realise that "normal people" actually *want* reversible transactions and the safety of their banks. They are *never* going to want to lose their money to scammers who want to take advantage of irreversible payments.

It is so funny that Bitcoin fanatics just seem to forget all about "customers" (probably because most of them are scammers trying to steal their customers money).

You're the first person that I respect on this forum that has actually told the truth instead of just spouting the party line. Bravo!

Edit: You should just put seriouscoin on ignore because he is a serious idiot that thrives on confrontation. He doesn't really care what the issue is he just wants to argue. He starts off every conversation by name calling to start the argument then keeps it up until you give up. It's not worth the effort.

[hobbymd]

well if you're not bitcoin enthusiastic then why the heck you spending your time here in BCT ??!!!   what are your motives for being here?

Seriously - you don't know the first thing about me but presume to actually know all my motives?

So either you are some kind of "genius mind-reader" or just a "retarded bitcointalk.org poster".

Hmm.. my bet is on the latter.

   you want to get to see who has a higher education here...  I have no problem with that I show my MD degree and you show me yours?  ok?  let's see who is more educated?  

It's not my usual standard to get low to your level or try to show off but at this instance I feel like teach you a lesson so you don't randomly challenge people's education  

[CIYAM]

So go ahead and demonstrate what you have done that actually *matters* in the last ten years.

(yes - I have a post to show what I have done but I am going to wait for you to show me first as I somehow doubt you have done anything of any significance at all apart from trolling on forums)

[Muhammed Zakir]

I know. The size of the blocks earlier were not big like now and still a limit was put to prevent spam and DOS attacks. In fact, number of transactions were much lesser than it is today. You think this has changed now? NO! We should not only consider about scaling[ but stability and decentralization too.

The current way of proposing by Gavin actually says about him asking miners and companies to adopt new fork which is essentially hurting decentralization.

You're contradicting yourself    ,

Show me my contradiction. If you are telling the bolder lines are contradicting, yes, they are but the lines means two different things. You should read carefully before jumping. No offence.

bitcoin mining as is right now is CENTRALIZED in China that is a fact that you can't ignore. Again raising block size limit won't make bitcoin inaccessible in China or Africa , it would make only MINING harder due to connection restriction, which is nobody's fault. The network has grown over past several years, you can't keep using the same old tricks and praying that everything would be fine.

Also you can't just keep setting up shacks in remote locations with cheap power and poor internet connection just because you want to mine bitcoin and dump it to profit from it. As a matter of fact those mega-farms couldn't careless about mining being centralized in a single location . All they care is ROI and profit.

It's not just about miners but full nodes too.

It amazes me people keep defending these mega-farms and at the same time they bring up decentralization , it's oxymoron . There's saying that goes as " you can't patch stupid " it fits perfectly here.

People *outside* China are also pointing their miners to Chinese pools. Also Chinese pools aren't huge to call mining is away from decentralization.

If Bitcoin does't scale up  it would just collapse, then who cares about stability and decentralization when it's already collapsed because of not being able to scale up. Get your priority  straight .

I didn't say Bitcoin shouldn't scale up, instead, I said we should observer the problems and/or to increase it limit to a reasonable size like 8MB but not by 2000% and not in the current way of Gavin's proposal, i.e. asking miners, companies and such if consensus is not reached.

Simply they either need to relocated to somewhere else or slowly die while dragging the rest of community with them.

When they have indicated that a more modest increase in max. block size (such as the 8MB that Gavin has stated he would accept) would be acceptable then why do you keep trying to turn this "storm in a teacup" into some sort of  Others vs. China battle?

If China ends up abandoning Bitcoin then I really don't see how that would be any sort of victory for Bitcoin at all.

China is not the only country in the world with bandwidth issues so I guess next you want to get rid of any developing countries as well and after a while pretty much Bitcoin will just be USA coin. To that I say - no thanks.

No but it's one of the few countries in the world with restricted internet access (GFW) . Now name me how many other countries are in that category? 

No it won't be a USA coin, as a matter of fact everybody can access the Blockchain and send/received transactions even in China or Africa or even moon but mining of it becomes more difficult because it's not like before anymore where all you needed was cheap hardware along with cheap power equals to profit.

Lets get this straight,  being able to accessing the network is not the same as being able to mine on it. You keep bundling these two together to benefit your flawed argument.

Like I said, it's not only about mining but full nodes too.

Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard and anyone who thinks so is really "kidding themselves".

In the world of "remittance" Bitcoin can be king but in the world of general transactions it is never going to get there.

When will you guys realise that "normal people" actually *want* reversible transactions and the safety of their banks. They are *never* going to want to lose their money to scammers who want to take advantage of irreversible payments.

It is so funny that Bitcoin fanatics just seem to forget all about "customers" (probably because most of them are scammers trying to steal their customers money).

I see you're coming from the camp of " it can't never scale up " but I want the Bitcoin somehow magically becomes main stream so I can keep profit from mining on it    good luck with that   

well if you're not bitcoin enthusiastic then why the heck you spending your time here in BCT ??!!!   what are your motives for being here?

No offence but do you have any problem in reading? CIYAM said "Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard" and not "it can't never scale up".

[CIYAM]

You cannot scale up any "decentralised" system to work as efficiently as any "centralised" system.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is "deluded" (as even Gavin has stated the same).

That doesn't mean that Bitcoin can't "scale up" but it means that VISA/Mastercard could always scale up bigger.

[hobbymd]

So go ahead and demonstrate what you have done that actually *matters* in the last ten years.

(yes - I have a post to show what I have done but I am going to wait for you to show me first as I somehow doubt you have done anything of any significance at all apart from trolling on forums)

   you see unlike some people I don't have time to keep posting to raise my status to legendary because in real life I actually don't have much free time to keep arguing about nonsense plus I've got much better stuff to do with my free time than trolling . Go thru my post history and please show me  one instance that I was trolling a thread?!?    

It seems you've come short and are relying on " I'm a troll argument" well good for you hopes that makes you happy.

[Muhammed Zakir]

So go ahead and demonstrate what you have done that actually *matters* in the last ten years.

(yes - I have a post to show what I have done but I am going to wait for you to show me first as I somehow doubt you have done anything of any significance at all apart from trolling on forums)

   you see unlike some people I don't have time to keep posting to raise my status to legendary because in real life I actually don't have much free time to keep arguing about nonsense plus I've got much better stuff to do with my free time than trolling . Go thru my post history and please show me  one instance that I was trolling a thread?!?   

It seems you've come short and are relying on " I'm a troll argument" well good for you hopes that makes you happy.

I am lazy to look through your post history atm but by looking posts in *this* thread, it seems like you have some problem in reading or interpreting posts and thus it *looks like* you are trolling.