Yes I've had a couple other people point that out to me as well and the
logic is sound. Unfortunately that doesn't help solve the actual issue that
mining is currently consolidated within the jurisdiction of a single
political body that is not exactly Bitcoin friendly. I don't know how to
solve tha
If block-sizes are increased in a way detrimental to the Chinese miners, it
is not the Chinese miners that lose, it is all of the non-Chinese miners -
this is because the Chinese miners have the slight majority of the
hashrate. The relatively low external bandwidth connecting China to the
net is a
I realize that my argument may have come across as anti-Chinese, but I can
assure you that my concerns are not nationalist or racist in nature, so I
apologize if they came across as such. I was raised under another
oppressive regime, the US government, so I am sympathetic to the problems
of the Chi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim, some good points... People are rightly concerned about any given
regional or nation-state's dominance in mining, but China has
certainly become more of a subject of concern as of late, and not
simply because it is a communist country and because i
Dear Jim,
Thank you for sharing your view w.r.t. the so called 'Chinese Miners'.
Diversity of opinion, and mining, are IMHO both good and it's indeed a
free world so others who wish to mine bitcoin should be encouraged to
make the capital and technical investments to do so.
May I ask what i
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:20:30PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
> > Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead
> > of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop
> > checking after
It will help to assume that there is at least one group of evil people who
are investing in Bitcon's demise. Not because there are, but because there
might be. So let's assume they are making a set of a billion transactions,
or a trillion, and maintaining currently-being-legitimately-used hashing
China is a communist country. It is no secret that all "capitalist"
enterprises are essentially State controlled, or at the very least are
subject to nationalization should the State deem it necessary. Most ASIC
chips are manufactured in China, so they are cheap and accessible to
Chinese miners. El
I think your "hardfork bit" proposal is clever.
It addresses the particular valid concern of re-org facing users of a
fork that a small/near/fluctuating majority, or less, of mining power
supported.
While the "economic majority" argument may be enough on its own in
that case, it still has some aspe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 on every point, sipa
On 08/02/2015 05:32 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not
before 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC
Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure
>>>
>>> 2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before
>>> 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC
>>>
>>> Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure everyone has
>>> enough time to follow. This is a compromise between 14 day in BIP101
>>> and 1 year in BIP103. I tend to agree with BIP101.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am in favor of a more gradual (longer) period and a softforking
solution... that is, more than 30 days of grace period (some period
between 60 days and a year), ...
... and given the number of valid softforking proposals out there it
seems to me tha
Pieter Wuille 於 2015-08-01 16:45 寫到:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before
2016-01-12 00:00 UTC
Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure everyone has
enough time to follow. This is a com
13 matches
Mail list logo
