Chinese miners rejecting transactions from the US?

[HaXX0R1337]

I've been telling people around the forum for many months already that the Chinese miners have over 90% of hashing power under their control, but most people were refusing to accept this truth. Given the nature of the political regime in Beijing, it is the Chinese authorities who are essentially controlling Bitcoin mining through the miners, not the miners themselves. Now that Donald Trump, the president-elect of the US, is going to impose hefty tariffs on the Chinese exports, could the Chinese government retaliate with, for example, through exerting their control over Chinese miners? What immediately comes to mind is the rejection of all or most Bitcoin transactions that stem from the US...

So how likely is this, and what are the remedies, if any?

it is kinda obvious that mostly chinese people have control over the most hashing power, nothing new i guess and people who dont believe it are just probably stupid.
However i doubt they would be rejectict transactions from the US, remember that every transaction brings money, and we have less and less btc to mine. So i think they dont, cause they still want to have big profits, and only accepting those transactions would allow it to happen.

[deisik]

Having given it some consideration, I think the more likely scenario is that *if* China opt to place tariffs on the US in the fiat world, Bitcoin, as usual, will be a safe haven from that.  Most people are involved with Bitcoin precisely because they don't trust their governments or traditional financial institutions with that crumbling, debt-based, IOU lunacy.  We're all here to bypass that.  Goal achieved.  This thing works.  So regardless of their locale, miners aren't going to lower themselves or this wonderful new economy with demands from on high, because it goes against everything that's been built here

We don't know that for sure yet, since we have never been in such circumstances before. As I said earlier, we don't know how many and in what way Chinese miners might react to their country being attacked not verbally only (as what Trump has been doing so far) but economically as well. Why should they care for the rest of the world if their own country is under attack? In any case, I don't think that they will be particularly interested in your propaganda about distrusting governments and traditional financial institutions...

Since the total majority of people involved with Bitcoin are involved exclusively for profits

Incentives are aligned and no law, government or regulatory pressure is going to change that.  If anything, Chinese companies would be smart enough to see it as an opportunity to do increased business with the US, potentially driving further Bitcoin adoption and gaining an edge over their fiat-based competitors.  "No tariffs here, trade with us".  Let the money flow.  It's the path of least resistance and it doesn't involve any highly improbable fantasy whitelists that would only serve to harm miner profits.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they engaged in such political manoeuvrings.  Far better to go against the wishes of the fiat dinosaurs, give them the finger and keep raking in the dough

Further, I have repeated it a few times already that they don't need to totally reject transactions. Raising the fees would suffice as a retaliation of sorts. Also, you say that the miners would be shooting themselves in the foot, but why don't you say that Trump would be shooting himself in the foot too?

Maybe, because he wouldn't be really?

[rapazev]

trump said a lot of things but, like any politician, he wont do it... president cant do sh*t alone and he isnt stupid to start an economic war against china.
the mexican wall, taxes, etc, etc, chill... all BS.  wait and see.

[deisik]

Well, this thread got lost somehow, but now it seems about time to resuscitate it

What I warned about in the opening post might have finally come true. Could I hypothesize that Chinese miners have been heavily colluding all that time which has passed since after Trump was elected as the new President of the US, and now they have all started a transaction war on the US by massively rejecting transactions, even without particularly distinguishing between them? Or are they nevertheless discriminating them in some intricate way, after all?

[freshman777]

Well, this thread got lost somehow, but now it seems about time to resuscitate it

What I warned about in the opening post might have finally come true. Could I hypothesize that Chinese miners have been colluding all that time which has passed since after Trump was elected as the new President of the US, and now they have all started a transaction war on the US by massively rejecting transactions, even without particularly distinguishing between them? Or are they nevertheless discriminating them in some intricate way, after all?

They are not rejecting transactions, blocks are full.

Except empty or tiny blocks of those miners who are not confident their block will not be orphaned if they spend time on validating and including transactions up to the block limit. These are the blocks that should be discounted from calculating median block size. There is no politics here... yet, these miners don't want to take a risk in mining transactions and having their block orphaned. The reason for a huge pool of pending transactions is a simple traffic jam in a rush hour, not sufficient transaction space and too many people who want to transact at the same time. A situation Bitcoin Unlimited could have prevented. But we have what we have.

[deisik]

Well, this thread got lost somehow, but now it seems about time to resuscitate it

What I warned about in the opening post might have finally come true. Could I hypothesize that Chinese miners have been colluding all that time which has passed since after Trump was elected as the new President of the US, and now they have all started a transaction war on the US by massively rejecting transactions, even without particularly distinguishing between them? Or are they nevertheless discriminating them in some intricate way, after all?

They are not rejecting transactions, blocks are full.

Except empty or tiny blocks of those miners who are not confident their block will not be orphaned if they spend time on validating and including transactions up to the block limit. These are the blocks that should be discounted from calculating median block size. There is no politics here... yet, these miners don't want to take a risk in mining transactions and having their block orphaned. The reason for a huge pool of pending transactions is a simple traffic jam in a rush hour, not sufficient transaction space and too many people who want to transact at the same time. A situation Bitcoin Unlimited could have prevented. But we have what we have.

I have already addressed the point of "blocks being full" in another thread

You may want to read it here and here. In short, the blocks are not full, they are not even as full as they were about a month ago. Have you heard anyone complaining about their transactions rejected or massively postponed back then? I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything similar to what we see today. And just in case, a month ago had been before Trump got elected

[freshman777]

I have already addressed the point of "blocks being full" in another thread

You may want to read it here and here. In short, the blocks are not full, they are not even as full as they were about a month ago. Have you heard anyone complaining about their transactions rejected or massively postponed back then? I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything similar what we see today. And just in case, a month ago had been before Trump got elected

You are free to believe anything you want. A simple check-up of blockchain.info shows blocks are full with the exceptions I've explained above.

I read complaints of transactions confirmation delays every time there is a network congestion like the current one. This happened several times over the course of 2016, the current one is building up to be the largest of them all. When you add a good fee, you can send your tx and have it confirmed fast from US or anywhere in the world. For now. Your miner censorship concerns may become relevant in the future, but this isn't the case now. Now is a simple traffic jam, but it keeps growing to a possibly not as simple as earlier ones.

[kiklo]

Before the US elections we also had a similar event with 60000+ unconfirmed transactions

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count?timespan=60days

At the time of this Post

66319 Unconfirmed Transactions


 

[olushakes]

Thats how its going to be because no country exist as an island and you dont expect a reaction without an action as every country will want to protect its citizen and its economy but I dont see China coming from the angle of Bitcoin because in my opinion, it will be too small to make a difference since Bitcoin transaction will be coming from the whole world couple with the fact that proxies can be used abundantly.

[macedoniantable]

Before the US elections we also had a similar event with 60000+ unconfirmed transactions

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count?timespan=60days

At the time of this Post

66319 Unconfirmed Transactions


 

I have 3 of those transactions but they confirmed on the blockchain but still not sending to my wallet.
I sent one this morning and same thing. Confirmed on the blockchain but have not been received by my wallet.
What is going on?

[QuestionAuthority]

This is so funny.  When I first came to this forum everyone was bragging how bitcoin transactions only took a couple of minutes and how slow Western Union and other like services were.  Now is a complete role reversal, everyone else is faster than Bitcoin.

I just sent my son money from California to North Carolina for an emergency. I went to a Walmart and he was standing in a Walmart when I sent the money. It took 20 seconds for him to be holding my cash.

[Yutikas_11920]

This is so funny.  When I first came to this forward everyone was bragging how bitcoin transactions only took a couple of minutes and how slow Western Union another like services were.  Now is a complete role reversal, everyone else is faster the Bitcoin.

I just sent my son money from California to North Carolina for an emergency. I went to a Walmart and he was standing in a Walmart when I sent the money. It took 20 seconds for him to be holding my cash.

Hmm, now there is a little problem against confirmation in the bitcoin. However I think it is not a problem, because we could do a transaction using some websites that do not require confirmation in advance if we want to use it is walmart is indeed nice., but that's all it is not effective for those who transfer between countries that are very far away. So it all depends on the condition

[jbreher]

I am aware that there is a sort of mining cartel going on in Bitcoin, but I was not aware that the Chinese authorities are directly controlling the Bitcoin miners. It would be nice if you explain a bit more why you think this and if this is really a fact or just your theory

I guess you should read the thread first

Why? Wouldn't do him/her any good. I've read the entire thread, and you have provided exactly zero evidence to support an assertion that the Chinese government is controlling the Bitcoin miners.

[deisik]

I have already addressed the point of "blocks being full" in another thread

You may want to read it here and here. In short, the blocks are not full, they are not even as full as they were about a month ago. Have you heard anyone complaining about their transactions rejected or massively postponed back then? I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything similar what we see today. And just in case, a month ago had been before Trump got elected

You are free to believe anything you want

I see where you are getting at. And no, this is not a matter of belief. Since it is actually a matter of disbelief. Hope this helps better understand my point

A simple check-up of blockchain.info shows blocks are full with the exceptions I've explained above

I have already posted the chart which basically shows that the blocks are not full. And if you somehow missed my post (or just chose to ignore it), I also showed what the fill-up ratio would be if we discarded the empty blocks altogether. The real value is still a far cry from what I got. In any case, there are only around 144 new blocks mined daily, so it shouldn't be a big deal to post exact data with actual block sizes that have been mined since this congestion has started...

These stats would answer the matter in question in a most definite manner, wouldn't they?

[coin-investor]

How would they determine where the transaction originates?

That's true,bitcoin is decentralized is there a way for us to know where transactions is originating?if they are going to increase the fees,it should be on all transactions.

[freshman777]

I have already addressed the point of "blocks being full" in another thread

You may want to read it here and here. In short, the blocks are not full, they are not even as full as they were about a month ago. Have you heard anyone complaining about their transactions rejected or massively postponed back then? I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything similar what we see today. And just in case, a month ago had been before Trump got elected

You are free to believe anything you want

I see where you are getting at. And no, this is not a matter of belief. Since it is actually a matter of disbelief. Hope this helps better understand my point

A simple check-up of blockchain.info shows blocks are full with the exceptions I've explained above

I have already posted the chart which basically shows that the blocks are not full. And if you somehow missed my post (or just chose to ignore it), I also showed what the fill-up ratio would be if we discarded the empty blocks altogether. The real value is still a far cry from what I got. In any case, there are only around 144 new blocks mined daily, so it shouldn't be a big deal to post exact data with actual block sizes that have been mined since this congestion has started...

These stats would answer the matter in question in a most definite manner, wouldn't they?

https://blockchain.info/blocks
Exact data with actual block sizes with convenient pagination links all the way to how long ago you need.

[housebtc]

How would they determine where the transaction originates?

That's true,bitcoin is decentralized is there a way for us to know where transactions is originating?if they are going to increase the fees,it should be on all transactions.

I know there are some exchanges that have struck deals with some of these miners to move their transactions but to know the source of the transactions if not an exchange will be difficult if possible

[deisik]

A simple check-up of blockchain.info shows blocks are full with the exceptions I've explained above

I have already posted the chart which basically shows that the blocks are not full. And if you somehow missed my post (or just chose to ignore it), I also showed what the fill-up ratio would be if we discarded the empty blocks altogether. The real value is still a far cry from what I got. In any case, there are only around 144 new blocks mined daily, so it shouldn't be a big deal to post exact data with actual block sizes that have been mined since this congestion has started...

These stats would answer the matter in question in a most definite manner, wouldn't they?

https://blockchain.info/blocks
Exact data with actual block sizes with convenient pagination links all the way to how long ago you need.

Okay, that's what we need, and what do we see there?

Today there are only a few blocks which are not filled to the full, but yesterday their number was much bigger. I found a few blocks which are half empty at ~300Kb, and a dozen at around 750k. One block has only 82 transactions in it. The day before yesterday, there were only 5 such blocks at ~750k, and no blocks below that (just in case, I completely excluded empty blocks from consideration). The inference is that yesterday we had a significantly lower fill-up ratio than today and the day before yesterday (you guess what it means), and that seems to be the straw that is breaking the camel's back

[freshman777]

A simple check-up of blockchain.info shows blocks are full with the exceptions I've explained above

I have already posted the chart which basically shows that the blocks are not full. And if you somehow missed my post (or just chose to ignore it), I also showed what the fill-up ratio would be if we discarded the empty blocks altogether. The real value is still a far cry from what I got. In any case, there are only around 144 new blocks mined daily, so it shouldn't be a big deal to post exact data with actual block sizes that have been mined since this congestion has started...

These stats would answer the matter in question in a most definite manner, wouldn't they?

https://blockchain.info/blocks
Exact data with actual block sizes with convenient pagination links all the way to how long ago you need.

Okay, that's what we need, and what do we see there?

Today there are only a few blocks which are not filled to the full, but yesterday their number was much bigger. I found a few blocks which are half empty at ~300Kb, and a dozen at around 750k. One block has only 82 transactions in it. The day before yesterday, there were only 5 such blocks at ~750k, and no blocks below that (just in case, I completely excluded empty blocks from consideration). The inference is that yesterday we had a significantly lower fill-up ratio than today and the day before yesterday (you guess what it means), and that seems to be the straw that is breaking the camel's back

750 kb blocks are an old configuration setting in the mining pool software, some pools keep using it because incompetence, laziness or both.

I've explained the reason for blocks that hardly have transactions in them here, very often such a barely filled block comes shortly after a previous block, indicating the miner is in a hurry to release it to acquire the coin base block reward. It's pure profit motive to release early including few or no transactions, not a conspiracy. Some day censoring transactions could be a thing, this isn't the case yet.

[deisik]

Okay, that's what we need, and what do we see there?

Today there are only a few blocks which are not filled to the full, but yesterday their number was much bigger. I found a few blocks which are half empty at ~300Kb, and a dozen at around 750k. One block has only 82 transactions in it. The day before yesterday, there were only 5 such blocks at ~750k, and no blocks below that (just in case, I completely excluded empty blocks from consideration). The inference is that yesterday we had a significantly lower fill-up ratio than today and the day before yesterday (you guess what it means), and that seems to be the straw that is breaking the camel's back

750 kb blocks are an old configuration setting in the mining pool software, some pools keep using it because incompetence, laziness or both.

I've explained the reason for blocks that hardly have transactions in them here, very often such a barely filled block comes shortly after a previous block, indicating the miner is in a hurry to release it to acquire the coin base block reward. It's pure profit motive to release early including few or no transactions, not a conspiracy. Some day censoring transactions could be a thing, this isn't the case yet.

As I noted, I excluded empty transactions from consideration altogether

Other than that, I can't rationally explain why the miner would include only 82 transactions. Has he picked them up manually? I guess no. I also strongly suspect that it doesn't make much difference if you include 82 transactions or 820, or the max number, provided the mempool is not empty (which is obviously not the case). I can only explain such behavior by deliberate choice not to include other transactions into the block. If someone was in a hurry, as you suggest, he would most certainly choose to keep the block completely empty, right?