So let's say somebody is getting 20% more hashing done than somebody else. Can't the other guy just use ASICBoost as well? It's not like anybody gives 2 f*cks in China about a USA patent... Or, if they want to "play by the book", they just buy 20% more miners. It's just not anything to get all worried about. And who is doing the hashing is not that big of a deal unless it's all one person. Jihan Wu runs a mining pool and doesn't own all of that hashpower anymore so than any other pool operator. And again, it would be completely against his self-interest to "rock the boat" and do a 51% attack on BTC or whatever. He just wants bigger blocks so miners can mine more transactions and make more money. Kore wants small blocks 4ever to force Lightning and their patented tech down everyones' throats. I don't want that crap and most people I respect agree with that viewpoint.
Currently, the mystery miners are mining well over 90% of the blocks for Bitcoin Cash. That's not a "big deal?"
I still don't see what there is to control, the blocksize? What would it mean if Jihan Wu completely controlled a coin (likely it would be a worthless coin)? Again, Kore is sabotaging the original plan to scale Bitcoin so they can run their lame scheme on top of Bitcoin (THAT would qualify as controlling Bitcoin to me...). This has been agonizing to watch, and it won't work. A potential $500 billion market cap is being hamstrung by just $75 million which was invested in Blockstream by Silbert and DCG. There is so much pressure building for greater capacity and speed, and Kore just sits there with their thumbs up their asses saying "no" to everyone, like big babies!
Large blocks are not a problem like Kore screamed relentlessly they would be, and fees are 4000x lower on BCH. High fees and a bloated mempool ARE problems on BTC that have real and grave consequences for BTC, that have drastically reduced BTC's crypto market share AND the BTC adoption rate. These are just facts, yet the Kore fanbois (not saying you are one) just keep burying their heads under some more sand every time they are asked to address it.
Thanks for not running a RasPi. Sure, there are circumstances when you might need to rent a $10/mo VPS to get good performance syncing several 8-32MB blockchains. Big deal. And all of the hand-wringing about "ehrmagerd, blockchain will be 5000 Terabytes in 10 years" - get over it. Prune your blockchain, buy a bigger hard drive, or use an SPV wallet. Yes, it's annoying to have a huge blockchain but the problem can easily be solved in the next 10 years before anyone is adversely impacted.
Tek, good to see you back. You came in right on time to scream about the big blocks.
First of all, your puny 8-32MB blocks don't even come close to scaling to PayPal or Visa. (An off chain solution like lightning network probably would, however.) You need close to 1 GB blocks to even start to compare. Let's say you want to start up a block explorer or other information service. I doubt a $10/mo VPS is going to be enough to run a decent block explorer. Pruning the blockchain or running an SPV is fine, for personal use. However, if I want to contribute more by providing some kind of service, the start up cost is going to be huge. How are we supposed to have a decentralized economy when entry to even provide a block explorer will be prohibitive? Only mega whale oligarchs will have the means to provide us with the information services. What could go wrong?
Also, this argument that we will have technology necessary in 10 or 20 years really doesn't fly. Do we want Bitcoin to scale on the level of Visa and Paypal in a couple of years or do we want to wait a decade or more? Since technology is advancing, the systems Visa and Paypal will use will probably make them be able to scale even better. Your on-chain solution will be forever playing catch up and will never compete.
