Quote from: seriouscoin on June 07, 2015, 11:16:21 AM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 07, 2015, 11:12:44 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on June 07, 2015, 06:07:22 AM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 07, 2015, 05:47:58 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on June 07, 2015, 05:35:43 AM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 07, 2015, 05:28:15 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on June 07, 2015, 05:05:47 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on June 07, 2015, 03:44:13 AM

Quote from: hobbymd on June 07, 2015, 03:34:49 AM

Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.

As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).

Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship?

You must have not liked freedoom.

LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS

Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first Roll Eyes

We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it.

You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea.

adapt or die =/= accept or die.

Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all.

Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point.

Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD.

The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend.

The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

You pay too much attention to "Satoshi" I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design. And the 10MB or 20MB is just a magic number because the issue is politics not technology. We dont know if in few yrs the speed through the Great Firewall will be up .... or..... down (heck the RPC even consider to fork the internet for better censorship). But we do know one thing for sure: technology will always move forward and thus bitcoin must carry on.

Sorry for your loss, China.

"I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design." - This is exactly the reason I posted it. We didn't "compromise" the design. Bitcoin's design is decentralization, ".... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Bitcoin must carry on but 20MB is not needed now. Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. IMHO we should first observer what are the problems when blocks reaches 1MB and then we should consider increasing maximum block size but not to 20MB *yet*.

We wont have 20MB overnight. Its the limit not minimum.

I know. The size of the blocks earlier were not big like now and still a limit was put to prevent spam and DOS attacks. In fact, number of transactions were much lesser than it is today. You think this has changed now? NO! We should not only consider about scaling but stability and decentralization too.

The current way of proposing by Gavin actually says about him asking miners and companies to adopt new fork which is essentially hurting decentralization.