Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 07:52:34 PM

Quote from: awemany on August 17, 2015, 07:38:48 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 07:28:18 PM

[...]

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin. Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon. From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain. If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block. If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.

[...]

Fully agreed. To add to this: This situation exists even today with 1MB blocks. A node might only support 900kB blocks on average bandwidth- or cpu-wise (e.g. some old ARM board) and will drop off when the network actually moves to Mike's cliff hy saturating at 1MB.

and this is precisely why big money outside of China interested in mining will support this proposal b/c it allows decentralization away from China as a result of the GFC. specifically, the USA should want to see this. the feedback effects to China will only further this dynamic as their gvt will relax GFC rules if they want to stay in the game. all good for Bitcoin in general.

Oh my god

To paraphrase:

Fuck China, let them choke on blocks they can't handle. Meanwhile let's centralize mining infrastructure in high bandwidth location until the communist party realize their mistake and give everyone more freedom or until our own government fuck us over and decide to control bandwidth themselves.