Has there been any word from forrestv as to weather this new "XT" client is actually compatible with p2pool with it's different block size params?
I'm using XT. Working good here. Still looking into what it actually patches and how it effects mining. Any info would be appreciated.
I wonder how this will change mining? Would it give Big pools a bigger advantage?
I know KNC are supporting it and that's one of there biggest sponsors.
Of course Bitmain is for this too.
Coming to a hard-fork means I'm supporting it at the moment.
"ChinaPool" is definitely going to kick it's weight around if this flies or not.
How do you feel about this please share.
XT is compatible now. It will not be compatibile after the arranged fork date (January 11th 2016)
The main change is it implements BIP 101, Gavin Andresen's proposal to increase the blocksize limit to 8MB, followed by a doubling of that limit every two years until a final target limit of 8 gigabytes is reached in the year 2033.
Other significant changes are:
- Longest chain no longer wins, chain validity is determined using checkpoints periodically added by the XT devs to the code
- Tor nodes are deprioritised from connection as an anti-DOS measure
- Permitted Tor exit nodes are, at present, hard coded into the XT client
As p2pool miners, I would investigate the implications of the blocksize changes, and also of the changes to the chain consensus rules.
Also be aware: this model of absolute blocksize limits isn't a very good one (it worked well up to now, but it is true that we are beginning to "run out of road" using this paradigm). A dynamic limit of some type is perhaps a better option, but I am also interested to hear any other concepts that haven't yet been given an airing. There is a productive discussion (no, really!) going on in the Development and Technical sub (
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-106-dynamically-controlled-bitcoin-block-size-max-cap-1154536). Here's what I had to say about this in another thread:
"Is it really such a great plan to make predictions about what technology we'll be running the bitcoin network on, decades into the future? I would argue that as we approach the steeper part of the curve of technological progress, making accurate predictions will become increasingly more difficult. Perhaps it is worth taking an optimistic view of progress when conducting some aspects of long term planning. But when you're designing something vital, prudence and conservatism is a much more appropriate strategy. Only the absolute basics in life are more vital than monetary systems."
