From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>
To: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block size
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:53:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALqxMTE69h5OcnDSqSMeK+BbzFaScEqouQG=pVuyWrqG17BeXQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAO2FKEBBS5wxefGCPcurcRGg76sORrBMHvd2SSNiW1q_zWBWQ@mail.gmail.com>
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-03 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-02 21:02 Jim Phillips
2015-08-03 1:21 ` Pindar Wong
2015-08-03 4:33 ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-03 3:13 ` odinn
2015-08-03 6:34 ` Adam Back
2015-08-03 6:53 ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-04 10:53 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-03 7:16 ` Simon Liu
2015-08-03 7:34 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 7:53 ` Adam Back [this message]
2015-08-03 8:06 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 8:20 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-03 8:31 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 8:38 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-03 8:52 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 9:01 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-03 9:22 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-03 7:46 ` Adam Back
2015-08-03 13:57 ` Michael Ruddy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CALqxMTE69h5OcnDSqSMeK+BbzFaScEqouQG=pVuyWrqG17BeXQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=adam@cypherspace$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hectorchu@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox