the great firewall of china is not a problem for block size

[qrius1111]

i just read an article by mike hearn (https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.vdzy3oei0) where he says that miners in china don't want the block size to grow because they cannot get the transactions into china fast enough to build blocks to mine:

And the final reason is that the Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide. Imagine an entire country connected to the rest of the world by cheap hotel wifi, and you’ve got the picture. Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet and claim the 25 BTC reward ($11,000) that each block they create gives them. But if the Bitcoin network got more popular, they fear taking part would get too difficult and they’d lose their income stream. This gives them a perverse financial incentive to actually try and stop Bitcoin becoming popular.

and then later

...the problem of mining power being concentrated behind the Great Firewall would remain.

this "problem" seems to have a very simple solution to me, and i haven't seen anybody else talk about it, so i thought i'd share it here. basically the transactions should be assembled outsize of the great firewall of china - somewhere with fast internet - then only the block header need be transmitted into china for mining. infact the block header need only be transmitted once per mined block, and the 32 byte merkle root can be updated and transmitted more frequently to the miners in china as new transactions are added to the block (prior to the mining operation being completed of course).

then, once the miner discovers the nonce that mines the block they can transmit this back out and broadcast the block to the network. transmitting 32 bytes past the great firewall has to be easy. and of course it never changes regardless of block size.

has anybody else considered this already? is there any reason this is not already happening?

[1714687574]

1714687574

[1714687574]

1714687574

[1714687574]

1714687574

[skang]

Possible solutions : http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/42384/25114

[LFC_Bitcoin]

i just read an article by mike hearn (https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.vdzy3oei0) where he says that miners in china don't want the block size to grow because they cannot get the transactions into china fast enough to build blocks to mine:

And the final reason is that the Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide. Imagine an entire country connected to the rest of the world by cheap hotel wifi, and you’ve got the picture. Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet and claim the 25 BTC reward ($11,000) that each block they create gives them. But if the Bitcoin network got more popular, they fear taking part would get too difficult and they’d lose their income stream. This gives them a perverse financial incentive to actually try and stop Bitcoin becoming popular.

and then later

...the problem of mining power being concentrated behind the Great Firewall would remain.

this "problem" seems to have a very simple solution to me, and i haven't seen anybody else talk about it, so i thought i'd share it here. basically the transactions should be assembled outsize of the great firewall of china - somewhere with fast internet - then only the block header need be transmitted into china for mining. infact the block header need only be transmitted once per mined block, and the 32 byte merkle root can be updated and transmitted more frequently to the miners in china as new transactions are added to the block (prior to the mining operation being completed of course).

then, once the miner discovers the nonce that mines the block they can transmit this back out and broadcast the block to the network. transmitting 32 bytes past the great firewall has to be easy. and of course it never changes regardless of block size.

has anybody else considered this already? is there any reason this is not already happening?

I suggest you stop taking anything Mike Hearn says seriously. He's got his own agendas & will say anything to try & manipulate people right now.