A Chinese miner's response to "Bitcoin is Dead"

[Eric Mu]

HaoBTC will continue to increase hashrate, support Bitcoin and support block size increase.
By Wu Gang

The Bticoin blockchain is a proof-of-work blockchain. In the past, it has been one chain and in the future, will continue to stay one. However, the consensus mechanism means that those who own 51% of the hash rate of the entire network will determine the future of the chain.
Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin supporters outside China are also free to increase as much hash rate they like. We are pleased to see them owning more. The proof-of-work mechanism has been proven to be the fairest among all alternatives, thus the current situation should be seen as a manifestation of faith.
The Chinese mining pools accounts for over half of the entire network’s total hash rate, but the hash rate is not controlled by one entity, but many ones and in a distributed fashion. Every party has its own interest and agenda; most of them are well aware of the fact that the long-term prosperity of Bitcoin represents the greater interest.
We support block size increase. The most ideal would be that the increase will be realised via the Bitcoin-core. We will also support Bitcoin-classic, if it proves to be the most agreed-upon. As long as a proposal is reasonable and reliable, we will give it our support.

Source: https://www.bikeji.com/t/3114#reply10

[Amph]

are those farms that own 60% combined, ever work together, i'm seeing a good competition, there, the same you can see between a USA farm and one chinese farm

so i don't think they can be considered 1 entity, thereby they are not centralized in my view, and none of them will ever harm the network since they have big profit, it would be utterly stupid

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Hilary Clinton proposed a manhattan style project to break encryption. Obviously a stupid thing for her to say.

However that is why I as an american am glad there is a lot of mining going on in China.

I trust the current mining pools there far more than I trust what Hilary (likely our next president) would do if she decided the US government should do a manhattan style mining project in an attempt to control bitcoin.

In an ideal world to me, no single nation would have more than 30% of the mining capacity, but given the resources the US government has, I am glad China is already putting considerable resources into mining so that it is more difficult for our government to try and take over the blockchain.

[robelneo]

They are indeed  a super power even in controlling the bitcoin mining network I don't know if I am going to be sad or happy about this they have controlled on almost anything even claiming the whole of the china sea but having them in the development and running the bitcoin network is a healthy competition

[mayax]

They are indeed  a super power even in controlling the bitcoin mining network I don't know if I am going to be sad or happy about this they have controlled on almost anything even claiming the whole of the china sea but having them in the development and running the bitcoin network is a healthy competition

what competition, with who?

[Lauda]

We support block capacity increase. The most ideal would be that the increase will be realised via the Bitcoin-core. We will also support Bitcoin-classic, if it proves to be the most agreed-upon. As long as a proposal is reasonable and reliable, we will give it our support.

This is a very (rare in today's time) and healthy stance on the matter. While for them the ideal realization of scaling would be via Bitcoin Core (which everyone is used to; team which has been properly working for years), on the other hand they would support another reasonable and reliable implementation (XT & BU is a no at these points) if it had the most support. If only more people would think like this instead of fighting for power we might have concluded the debate months ago.

[thejaytiesto]

Bitcoin blockchain size will remain at a reasonable level, in other words 1, no matter how much these guys cry about it, just let them cry and they will slowly go away. We have enough time to wait for Lightning Network now that segregated witness is coming as well. I can't believe people is still mentally masturbating about bigger blocks almost a month in 2016.

[miguelmorales85]

...just let them cry and they will slowly go away..

THIS

[maokoto]

I agree with the reasoning of OP. It is unlikely that someone chooses to have such high hashrate power just to dominate, it would be too much costly and there is no guarantee that someone would not buy a similar amount. It is also good to see that Bitcoin has strong supporters too.

[Erkallys]

Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.

No, how much you have depends mainly on the money you have and your electricity rate. In China, your electricity rate is dirt cheap and thus you can have a lot of miners and make a big profit from it. If such condition happened in other countries, your percentage of the total hashrate wouldn't be 50%.

[Kprawn]

China is very clever, they bought into major and strategic businesses in other countries and they sourcing raw material from developing countries at a very high rate. It is just

natural for them to buy into the strongest decentralized network in the world. The Blockchain is possibly the BIGGEST financial innovation we would see in our lifetime and what

we are doing here, will be the legacy we will be leaving behind for the generations to come. Reckless statements like "Bitcoin is Dead" are harming the progress we have made

since 2009 and hurting it's reputation. We should work together, but WE fighting each other. What's up with that?   

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.

No, how much you have depends mainly on the money you have and your electricity rate. In China, your electricity rate is dirt cheap and thus you can have a lot of miners and make a big profit from it. If such condition happened in other countries, your percentage of the total hashrate wouldn't be 50%.

I was thinking about that.

Here in the United States, energy isn't as cheap but I would support government incentives to PRIVATE mining companies just in the interest of helping keep some (say 15% to 20%) of the bitcoin hash power in the US.

Maybe for example in addition to normal business incentives, additional tax breaks could be given if you are a private company in the US that is able to sustain 0.5% of the bitcoin hash rate. Many of our utility companies for example may jump on board, they already have access to power at cost of production so use some of it to mine and get additional tax breaks in addition to block rewards.

Probably never happen though. Too much red tape with too many greedy politicians wanting a slice of the pie.

[Alley]

What is cores current stance on blocksize limit?  Keep it at 1mb for now?

[ebliever]

Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.

No, how much you have depends mainly on the money you have and your electricity rate. In China, your electricity rate is dirt cheap and thus you can have a lot of miners and make a big profit from it. If such condition happened in other countries, your percentage of the total hashrate wouldn't be 50%.

I was thinking about that.

Here in the United States, energy isn't as cheap but I would support government incentives to PRIVATE mining companies just in the interest of helping keep some (say 15% to 20%) of the bitcoin hash power in the US.

Maybe for example in addition to normal business incentives, additional tax breaks could be given if you are a private company in the US that is able to sustain 0.5% of the bitcoin hash rate. Many of our utility companies for example may jump on board, they already have access to power at cost of production so use some of it to mine and get additional tax breaks in addition to block rewards.

Probably never happen though. Too much red tape with too many greedy politicians wanting a slice of the pie.

Please, no. 90-95% of federal spending is already such unconstitutional stuff as this. If you think it's so important, do it with your own money. It's this sort of mentality that has set up fiat currencies for a financial apocalypse in the first place, as governments spend on every "good idea" someone floats like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

[Biomech]

Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.

No, how much you have depends mainly on the money you have and your electricity rate. In China, your electricity rate is dirt cheap and thus you can have a lot of miners and make a big profit from it. If such condition happened in other countries, your percentage of the total hashrate wouldn't be 50%.

I was thinking about that.

Here in the United States, energy isn't as cheap but I would support government incentives to PRIVATE mining companies just in the interest of helping keep some (say 15% to 20%) of the bitcoin hash power in the US.

Maybe for example in addition to normal business incentives, additional tax breaks could be given if you are a private company in the US that is able to sustain 0.5% of the bitcoin hash rate. Many of our utility companies for example may jump on board, they already have access to power at cost of production so use some of it to mine and get additional tax breaks in addition to block rewards.

Probably never happen though. Too much red tape with too many greedy politicians wanting a slice of the pie.

Please, no. 90-95% of federal spending is already such unconstitutional stuff as this. If you think it's so important, do it with your own money. It's this sort of mentality that has set up fiat currencies for a financial apocalypse in the first place, as governments spend on every "good idea" someone floats like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

I actually see this as a good thing, as it will become unsustainable that much faster. The more the governments spend on boondoggles, the more they have to inflate the currency, the better Bitcoin and alts begin to look to the common man, and the faster the Imperial paradigm goes the way of the passenger pigeon. Central governments are probably the worst idea in human history. I'd say nuclear bombs, but without central governments, they wouldn't have come to be.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.

No, how much you have depends mainly on the money you have and your electricity rate. In China, your electricity rate is dirt cheap and thus you can have a lot of miners and make a big profit from it. If such condition happened in other countries, your percentage of the total hashrate wouldn't be 50%.

I was thinking about that.

Here in the United States, energy isn't as cheap but I would support government incentives to PRIVATE mining companies just in the interest of helping keep some (say 15% to 20%) of the bitcoin hash power in the US.

Maybe for example in addition to normal business incentives, additional tax breaks could be given if you are a private company in the US that is able to sustain 0.5% of the bitcoin hash rate. Many of our utility companies for example may jump on board, they already have access to power at cost of production so use some of it to mine and get additional tax breaks in addition to block rewards.

Probably never happen though. Too much red tape with too many greedy politicians wanting a slice of the pie.

Please, no. 90-95% of federal spending is already such unconstitutional stuff as this. If you think it's so important, do it with your own money. It's this sort of mentality that has set up fiat currencies for a financial apocalypse in the first place, as governments spend on every "good idea" someone floats like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

Whether or not you agree with it, the courts have found it to be constitutional so it is incorrect to call it unconstitutional.

[SamusNi]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329377.0

[jonald_fyookball]

Mike Hearn made some really good points.
Lets hope he was being overly pessimistic
when he said Chinese miners don't want
growth.  This post would confirm that.

[Biomech]

Everyone is free to decide how much hash power they want to hold. Those who have greater faith in the technology express such faith by holding more. Thus it is a matter of faith how much hash rate one choose to own.
The reason that China “own” over 50% of the total hash rate is because that we have great faith in the prospects of the Bitcoin. This has motivated us to devote great amount of labor, money and other resources. The fact that we own over 50% hash rate is a natural consequence of the faith rather than seeking to dominate Bitcoin.

No, how much you have depends mainly on the money you have and your electricity rate. In China, your electricity rate is dirt cheap and thus you can have a lot of miners and make a big profit from it. If such condition happened in other countries, your percentage of the total hashrate wouldn't be 50%.

I was thinking about that.

Here in the United States, energy isn't as cheap but I would support government incentives to PRIVATE mining companies just in the interest of helping keep some (say 15% to 20%) of the bitcoin hash power in the US.

Maybe for example in addition to normal business incentives, additional tax breaks could be given if you are a private company in the US that is able to sustain 0.5% of the bitcoin hash rate. Many of our utility companies for example may jump on board, they already have access to power at cost of production so use some of it to mine and get additional tax breaks in addition to block rewards.

Probably never happen though. Too much red tape with too many greedy politicians wanting a slice of the pie.

Please, no. 90-95% of federal spending is already such unconstitutional stuff as this. If you think it's so important, do it with your own money. It's this sort of mentality that has set up fiat currencies for a financial apocalypse in the first place, as governments spend on every "good idea" someone floats like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

Whether or not you agree with it, the courts have found it to be constitutional so it is incorrect to call it unconstitutional.

Mostly the courts have refused to hear it, and have variously found many things to be "constitutional" that anybody with a moron's understanding of English could tell were not. An unaccountable court does not make a solid constitution.

But that is an argument for another time. Bitcoin works quite well. I agree that the transaction speed and block size are an issue, but forking as quickly and with as little testing as Hearn wanted was stupid. And now, he whines in public like some little drama mama, causing chaos to a project he ceased to believe in (if he ever did) years ago. I smell fresh dollars.

[justspare]

Of course Chinese miners would be sad that Bitcoin is dead. They would be in denial because they make soo much money for mining Bitcoin.