Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 22, 2016, 12:00:06 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on April 21, 2016, 11:25:49 PM

I actually for the most part agree with it. I have been a Bitcoin bear for a while simply because I do not like the long term fundamentals. The biggest issue is the 1 MB blocksize issue and the proposals being thrown around are simply too little too late. There is a reason new venture capital is not moving into Bitcoin and that is simply that venture capital demands the possibility of very high growth because of the risk involved. The 1 MB blocksize limit is simply making stagnation part of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus model. I can think of no more effective way to drive venture capital away than to make stagnation an integral part of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus model.

While ASIC centralization is part of he problem, I would argue that were it not for the blocksize limit this alone is not to blame. The issue is that while China is by far the most cost effective place to manufacture ASICs and it also scores well in the electricity and climate are (parts of Northern China do get very cold in the winter) it has a very high latency Internet connectivity to the rest of the world due to the Great Firewall of China. A mid range residential Internet connection in many parts of the world will run circles over the best data centre grade Internet connection behind the Great Fire Wall of China in the mining critical area of latency. What has allowed the centralization in Bitcoin mining to occur is not just ASICs but the combination of a 10 min blocktime with a 1 MB blocksize limit together with ASICs. If Bitcoin had allowed the blocksize to grow back in 2012 - 2013, the Chinese ASIC manufacturer's would have been forced to sell their ASICs for export rather than operate them themselves locally and this would have prevented the concentration of Bitcoin mining in China. We must keep in mind the the Chinese miners are against any significant blocksize increase in Bitcoin for this very reason.

Even if someone developed an ASIC for CryptoNite that was truly competitive, I doubt the kind of mining concentration that has occurred in Bitcoin could happen In Monero simply because China would still be by far the most competitive place to manufacture the ASICs, but the combination of 2 min blocks and an adaptive blocksize limit would make China a very un-competitive place to operate the ASICs.

Thanks for the support, but the GFW is a great lie. The ASICS only need a hash of the transactions, not all the transactions. The mining pool server can be located outside of China.

That will show you that the ASIC miners in China are ~~great~~lousy liars.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 22, 2016, 12:14:33 AM

Quote from: dEBRUYNE on April 22, 2016, 12:13:23 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on April 22, 2016, 12:08:23 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 22, 2016, 12:00:06 AM

...

Thanks for the support, but the GFW is a great lie. The ASICS only need a hash of the transactions, not all the transactions. The mining pool server can be located outside of China.

That will show you that the ASIC miners in China are ~~great~~lousy liars.

I am not so sure. They still have to get the hash of the transactions across the GFWC and the results then back to the server. The issue here is latency not bandwidth.

If mining is centralized in China doesn't that actually transfer the latency issue to non-Chinese miners? Resulting in possible more centralization. I recall reading such a thing.

Right. It is the minority that suffers from delayed block announcements, i.e. this is selfish mining.

Unless Chinese miners have a high latency between themselves within China?

Also I read the GFW was bandwidth limited. It is also latency limited and by how much? The Bitcoin block period is quite large so 100ms increase is probably fairly insignificant in the Poisson distribution.