Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > 2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong : > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe < > ricardojdfil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it > >> should. There is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong : > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe > wrote: >> >> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it >> should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same >> between the miners. > > > Hi, > > Is that an assum

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it > should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same > between the miners. Hi, Is that an assumption? If there is a difference in network speed, the > min

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same between the miners. If there is a difference in network speed, the miner is incentivized to invest in their network infrastructure. 2015-05-31 23:55 GMT+01:00 Alex

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> > Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage. > So? > Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.) You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a disa

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [Bulk] Re: Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM, gb wrote: > Aren't you calculating bandwidth for a singly-connected node? A "highly > connected" miner could have 30-100 node connections so you probably need > to increase your traffic estimates by that factor. > > I.e. For 100MB blocks, 30-100 Mbps and $60-$100

[Bitcoin-development] Max Block Size: Simple Voting Procedure

This is likely very similar to other proposals, but I want to bring voting procedures back into the discussion. The goal here is to create a voting procedure that is as simple as possible to increase the block size limit. Votes are aggregated over each 2016 block period. Each coinbase transaction

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On May 31, 2015 5:08 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. >> Miner B would still go out of business,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, > it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. > Miner B would still go out of business, bigger blocks still mean more > mining and validation c

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. Miner B would still go out of business, bigger blocks still mean more mining and validation centralization. The question is how far I we willing to go with

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > >> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB >> blocks, NOT you. >> > > This depends on how miners are connected. > > E.g. suppose there are three miners, A and B have fast connectivity > between then, and C has a s

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > Here's a thought experiment: > > Subsidy is gone, all the block reward comes from fees. > I wrote about long-term hypotheticals and why I think it is a big mistake to waste time worrying about them here: http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On May 30, 2015 10:38 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > Mining is a competitive business, the marginal miner will ALWAYS be going out of business. > > That is completely independent of the block size, block subsidy, or transaction fees. No, the later determines who can be profitable. Here's a thoug

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Yifu Guo wrote: > comments, question and grievances welcome. > Thanks for chiming in with facts, Yifu! Do you have any real-world data on latency/bandwidth/cost through the gfw ? Chung Wang's post was very helpful to get away from hypotheticals to "what would i

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I will abstain on this wrangle of "when", Instead I'd like to address some of the network topology health issues that's been brought up in this debate. Due to how blocks are being broadcast by miners at the moment, it is not difficult to find the origin node of these blocks. These more influentia

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> On 31 May 2015, at 13:52, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com > > wrote: > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks, > NOT you. > This depends on how miners are connected. E.g. suppose there are three miners, A and B have fast connectivity between then, and C has a slow network. Suppose that A miners a block and B receives it in 1 seco

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [Bulk] Re: Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Aren't you calculating bandwidth for a singly-connected node? A "highly connected" miner could have 30-100 node connections so you probably need to increase your traffic estimates by that factor. I.e. For 100MB blocks, 30-100 Mbps and $60-$100 per day data costs. > You should be able to handle 2

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one > percent orphan rate increase. That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is prod

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the > compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution > What compromise? I haven't seen a specific proposal that could be turned into a pull request. > Some

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one > percent orphan rate increase. That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is prod

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: A measured response to save Bitcoin Core

Drak, I mostly agree with your assessment...except for your last claim. Not that I wouldn't like to find a way to avoid politics, but like I've argued before, it is inevitable that sooner or later any consensus protocol that seeks dynamism will encounter politics. The block size discussion, whil

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: A measured response to save Bitcoin Core

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > 3. What *is* clear at this point is that Gavin will move ahead with his > proposal, regardless of whether the remainder of the Bitcoin Core > committers agree with him. If he has to commit his changes to Bitcoin XT > and then rally the miner

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: A measured response to save Bitcoin Core

Hi, For the less crypto engineering experts but highly interested in Bitcoin and working with Bitcoin on daily basis reading the list, what would be an easy to understand explanation about how does this solution represent a good fix? So, we have a hard cap of 1 MB block currently. This is not eno

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 07:42:16AM +0800, Chun Wang wrote: > Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on > the network. So far top 100 biggest bitcoin blocks are all from us. We > do support bigger blocks and sooner rather than later. But we cannot > handle 20 MB blocks r