Published on: 2015-06-01T22:13:58+00:00
In this email thread, the discussion revolves around the potential consequences of increasing the block size in Bitcoin, particularly for miners in China. One member suggests that Chinese miners could collaborate and build a longer chain for themselves by firing out small coinbase only blocks, while another member sarcastically responds to a previous statement about excluding certain participants from mining. The conversation also delves into the idea that miners do not have an inherent right to mine if they cannot handle the job, specifically in regards to Chinese miners and their internet situation.Another email thread focuses on the block size limit of Bitcoin. One member suggests doing something relatively uncontroversial by increasing the block size limit to something in the 4-8GB range without further increases without a hard fork. They argue that hard forks need to become less scary and that a sequence of uncontroversial hard forks over time is more likely to gain consensus. The author believes that it is unnecessary to commit to future block size increases years into the future and that it is important to react appropriately to changing conditions.In a separate exchange, one member argues that miners are businesses selling a service to Bitcoin users and if they cannot provide the necessary service, then they should not mine. They believe that advancements in technology have caused many miners to come and go since the beginning of Bitcoin. The author agrees with this perspective and suggests that if miners outside of China cannot get the required bandwidth through their firewall, then they will have to carry on without them.The email thread also discusses the business aspect of Bitcoin mining. It is emphasized that miners are not charities but rather businesses that sell a service to Bitcoin users. Therefore, if some miners are unable to provide this service anymore, they should not/cannot mine. The author believes that it is just part of the business.Furthermore, the conversation highlights the importance of global connectivity for miners, as good connectivity is essential for receiving blocks at higher latency and reducing the risk of orphans. The cost of good connectivity is borne by people outside of well-connected miner groups, incentivizing miners to prioritize their connection quality. This perspective argues that if miners cannot handle the necessary global connectivity, they should not mine.Another email exchange focuses on the topic of miners in China and their ability to mine. One member suggests that if Chinese miners cannot get the necessary bandwidth through their firewall, they should be outcompeted and forced to stop mining. Another member responds with what they believe is obvious sarcasm to highlight the insensitivity of the previous statement. However, some people misunderstand the sarcasm and the original poster clarifies their intention. A third party expresses agreement with the sentiment but criticizes the idea of dis-incentivizing mining and suggests finding a way to decentralize mining without hurting miners.The discussion also touches upon Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth, which predicts that bandwidth available to high-end users grows by 50% per year. It is stated that this law is not relevant for modeling the connectivity of a peer-to-peer network like Bitcoin. The context highlights the scarcity and cost of uplink bandwidth in China and suggests using Multipath TCP (MPTCP) as a solution to improve bandwidth and connection stability. MPTCP allows multiple interfaces/networks for a single TCP connection, combining different connections to optimize upload and download paths.In the email thread, there is a conversation about determining the maximum block size for Bitcoin. One member suggests starting at a max of 8 or 4GB to ensure predictability and scalability over time. Another member agrees with keeping the block sizes as powers of two to make it easier to count support levels for each level. The final consensus on the maximum block size remains unclear.Another email exchange discusses the proposal for a 20MB block size increase in Bitcoin. One member expresses opposition to this proposal, arguing that such an increase could lead to an unacceptable orphan rate. They suggest a lower limit of 5MB, 8MB, or 10MB instead. The member who proposed the 20MB increase defends their suggestion, stating that their testing showed it to be safe and reasonable. They also express uncertainty about the progress of BIP66.The conversation also includes a discussion on finding common ground regarding the block size limit. One member suggests compromising on a maximum size increase of 8 or 4MB to ensure the safety and stability of the system. They emphasize the importance of reaching a consensus rather than engaging in a head-on confrontation between incompatible software.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T12:56:58.388674+00:00