1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E21F68
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:53:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA14FFD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com ([209.85.192.53]) by mrelay.perfora.net
(mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MgdbV-1ZXUSA2Ovv-00NvOH for
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:53:41 +0200
Received: by qgeh16 with SMTP id h16so82974725qge.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.141.23.199 with SMTP id z190mr23808074qhd.34.1438588420101;
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAO2FKEBBS5wxefGCPcurcRGg76sORrBMHvd2SSNiW1q_zWBWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANe1mWxsAPzWut_gDqe4R-SkDPBYM392NzeVqbUzjwh+pydsWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTEMajz6oHnGvocxy=xDFMBc1LaX1iWYM=w1PF0rH3syFg@mail.gmail.com>
<55BF153B.9030001@bitcartel.com>
<CAAO2FKEBBS5wxefGCPcurcRGg76sORrBMHvd2SSNiW1q_zWBWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:53:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTE69h5OcnDSqSMeK+BbzFaScEqouQG=pVuyWrqG17BeXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4CejQsGh4xJ8qkKjtx+EDS5a3bJEE2Rui2TM5Ahdrh6laYFuZ/P
vYyH9h4gsjmJXUT4lruP/f3uxlDfaFjFgm5SiLzyB8MSrCFL9nkyF9OODI/bnVAfDFAhtAS
O/S8xX3rdzG2jk0k43IzSMw5LjjxcSOMs46xUcov4nCCGltGaTE0hoGEP2LDEYMgVXsgCYJ
iC7t3X9ctjWg0ngagwcJQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:RctHmcxygi8=:QA4OC15QZBucDUDdbgs7oq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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block
size
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 07:53:43 -0000
Again this should not be a political or business compromise model - we
must focus on scientific evaluation, technical requirements and
security.
But specifically as you asked a group of Chinese miners said they
would not run it:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114657/chinese-mining-pools-call-for-consensus-refuse-switch-to-bitcoin-xt
Imagine if we had a nuclear reactor design criteria - we would not be
asking around with companies what parameter would they compromise on.
We'd be looking to scientific analysis of what is safe, based on
empirical and theoretical work on safety. If we're risking $4b of
other peoples money (and a little bit of mine) I would strongly want a
scientific approach.
A closer analogy would be the NIST SHA3 design process. With crypto
building blocks it is a security / speed tradeoff, a little analogous
to the security / throughput trade off in Bitcoin.
They do not ask companies or governments which algorithm they like or
what parameter they'd compromise on. They have a design competition
and analyse the algorithms and parameters for security margin and
speed optimisation in hardware and software. Much effort is put in
and it is very rigorous because a lot is at stake if they get it
wrong.
Adam
On 3 August 2015 at 09:34, Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 August 2015 at 08:16, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Increasing the block size shouldn't be a problem for Chinese miners.
>> Five of the largest - F2Pool, Antpool, BW, BTCChina, Huobi - have
>> already signed a draft agreement indicating they are fine with an
>> increase to 8 MB: http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2
>
>
> What's the current stance of the Chinese pools on Bitcoin XT, should Bitcoin
> Core refuse to increase the block size to 8 MB in a timely fashion? Would
> they run it if the economic majority (e.g. Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.) publicly
> stated their support for big blocks?
|
