ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[canth]

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?

I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

[1714775164]

1714775164

[binaryFate]

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?

I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

Given the ratio of the network hashrate of AM, that seems a crucial point to me, not as an AM shareholder but for the overall bitcoin network health.
Additionally, as an AM shareholders, does not look very good for AM reputation.
Hope things will get better soon.

[Jimmy2011]

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?

I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

1) Not 22 provinces, but 34.
2) optical fiber connection is necessary for the miner farm
3) it depends
4) GFW is indeed a burden for the usual users, but it has limited effect on bitcoin, and actually no obvious block of bitcoin by the government

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

The sooner the better. With better connectivity we not only get more fees, we should get more blocks for the same hashing power. Right now, if another pool is much better connected to the network, an AM found block could be orphaned even if it found first.

[runeks]

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?

I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

1) Not 22 provinces, but 34.
2) optical fiber connection is necessary for the miner farm
3) it depends
4) GFW is indeed a burden for the usual users, but it has limited effect on bitcoin, and actually no obvious block of bitcoin by the government

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Yeah, that average traffic rate of 3 KB/s really needs a dedicated fiber line.

[tinus42]

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Shenzen (where they are located) is only 10 miles away from Hong Kong, so that would make sense.

[canth]

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Shenzen (where they are located) is only 10 miles away from Hong Kong, so that would make sense.

Quality of network latency and reliability between China and outside of China is not necessarily related to geographic distance. HK uses different ISPs and is outside the great firewall. Moving to HK for example, would be much better in terms of networking speed but I'm not sure that the regulatory concerns would be completely solved by that.

[tinus42]

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Shenzen (where they are located) is only 10 miles away from Hong Kong, so that would make sense.

Quality of network latency and reliability between China and outside of China is not necessarily related to geographic distance. HK uses different ISPs and is outside the great firewall. Moving to HK for example, would be much better in terms of networking speed but I'm not sure that the regulatory concerns would be completely solved by that.

Wasn't thinking about network latency. Just simple logistics, build blades in Shenzen and have them up and running a few hours later in Hong Kong without much delay. Don't know anything about the internet in China and Hong Kong nor about the regulatory environments there.

[binaryFate]

It's true that latency can have a small effect on block mining rewards (higher probability of orphaned), but should not impact the number of transactions that are known to the mining node (except for those that arrive in the last moment before a block is found), so it cannot explain these low numbers.

[runeks]

It's true that latency can have a small effect on block mining rewards (higher probability of orphaned), but should not impact the number of transactions that are known to the mining node (except for those that arrive in the last moment before a block is found), so it cannot explain these low numbers.

I agree. We're seeing a 40% difference in the number of transactions included per block. Unless the Great Firewall is picking out transactions, I don't see how this is possible. One explanation is that ASICMiner has a custom filter to decide which transactions to include.

[binaryFate]

It's true that latency can have a small effect on block mining rewards (higher probability of orphaned), but should not impact the number of transactions that are known to the mining node (except for those that arrive in the last moment before a block is found), so it cannot explain these low numbers.

I agree. We're seeing a 40% difference in the number of transactions included per block. Unless the Great Firewall is picking out transactions, I don't see how this is possible. One explanation is that ASICMiner has a custom filter to decide which transactions to include.

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...
Anybody has feelings, or even better, statistics on the type of transactions included in their blocks, in particular on their category (free or not), and the fee per KB (for the non-free), and their priority?
I think I saw something along that lines recently, don't remember if it was here or the speculation thread, or about AM at all.

EDIT: That would make a good official question for friedcat! I'm really curious about these filter policies and their motivations, if they do exist.

[chkgk]

EDIT: That would make a good official question for friedcat! I'm really curious about these filter policies and their motivations, if they do exist.

+1

I would very much like to see that question included!

[canth]

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

I hope this is not the case.  Filtering transactions is not good for bitcoin.  It is also not good for ASICminer shareholders.

I personally have had several transactions that were not initially confirmed when ASICminer found a block.  I had to wait for the next block to be found by someone other than ASICminer to get an initial confirmation.  I included a .0005 fee on each of those transactions, which I thought was enough to get my transaction included.

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

[binaryFate]

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

I hope this is not the case.  Filtering transactions is not good for bitcoin.  It is also not good for ASICminer shareholders.

I personally have had several transactions that were not initially confirmed when ASICminer found a block.  I had to wait for the next block to be found by someone other than ASICminer to get an initial confirmation.  I included a .0005 fee on each of those transactions, which I thought was enough to get my transaction included.

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

[canth]

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

OK. There's no logical reason to intentionally filter transactions, except those that don't include fees, right?

[AMuppInTime]

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

OK. There's no logical reason to intentionally filter transactions, except those that don't include fees, right?

Might it be they are trying to limit incoming traffic to not attract attention?

[binaryFate]

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

In that case, then the mining operations of ASICminer need to be moved outside China.  Long term, transaction fees are going to be a susbtanial portion of ASICminer's mining income.  In order to ensure a steady stream of mining income, they need to make sure that they are getting all of the transactions fees that are available.

As it is now, if you look at blocks found immediately after ASICminer finds a block, you will see a larger number of transactions and thus a larger amount of transaction fees in that block.  ASICminer is giving away those transaction fees to the next miner to find a block.  It may not seem like ASICminer is giving up much now, but if the value of bitcoin increases substantially, then these missed transaction fees are going to add up.

That's also bad for the AM reputation. Us, we mostly care about missing fees for shareholders, but I can imagine many of the unrational anti-AM people out there would be happy to point this out as a subsequent problem of AM hashrate. Usually I don't care about their screaming, but on this I'd feel uncomfortable.

[twmz]

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

Friedcat already said that they don't do anything special filtering of transactions...

We are using the same transaction policy of the official Bitcoin client's default behavior.

[binaryFate]

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

Friedcat already said that they don't do anything special filtering transactions...

We are using the same transaction policy of the official Bitcoin client's default behavior.

Friedcat would agree that 40% of difference on average cannot be considered just statistical noise. There must be a technical explanation, either explicit policies or implicitly as consequences of some technical facts.

[canth]

If I understand correctly,

Can I buy (let's say) 20 shares of AM-PT on BTCT, and then transfer all of them immediately to be direct shares by asking burnside? (And then again once per month?)

Yes, but give it 3-4 days for the transfer to take place. Friedcat only does transfers 2x a week, so have a bit of patience.