Topic: An open letter to the miners (Read 6233 times)

I once read about ethereum planning to deploy offline transactions in order to speed up transactions, was thinking if bitcoin did something similar to that, it will be able to accommodate the rest of the world.

This is a complicated problem, is unlikely to reach a consensus, like the ETH

2mb will solve absolutely nothing long term (not that i am principally opposed to it).
antpool often mines EMPTY blocks.
average blocksize right now is about 700-750kb
they need to deploy Segwit, which should roughly double the size of a block, then Lightning.
Why do you care so much about the block size, anyway?
the other day i paid 12 sat/byte and tx went through just fine.

Adam... keep pumping that FUD in the masses! You are doing Guud stuff! God's work! 

Going to try it

please leave these forums, delete your account and go back to reddit where you belong.
people like you are literally killing bitcoin.

https://blockchain.info/blocks reveals 409638-409750 with many blocks not even half filled.


erm, the devs can do whatever they feel like; as it is collectively their/community code.

FOAD.

I'm glad this post was a flop. And I'm glad it demonstrates that your account no longer understands what decentralization means. Anyone that thinks bitcoin is magically decentralized just by virtue of it's code is either lying, deluded, or doesn't understand bitcoin OR decentralization. Decentralization requires PEOPLE to stay vigilant, because a currency (and the power it represents) will naturally tend toward centralization. One person or another will always want more control over bitcoin, or any other currency of any bearing. Not that hard to see, really.

Please explain this statement. Why is it that you think raising the block limit is less secure than segwit? How is it that a controversial HARD fork, is more secure than a SOFT fork which allows backward compatability, so that all currently contributing nodes will still be able to contribute to the network and support their views? A soft fork is by definition safer.




I agree with Ciyam here on every point. I've seen quality posts from ADAMSTGBIT in the past, and thought maybe this was the same. Now adamstgbit looks like a lot of other sock puppets on this forum. I'm just confused why someone so seemingly smart would sell their account to people who are clearly up to no good.



Mining 0 MB blocks is NOT the way to convince people that blocks are full. That's asenine and it only works on the people who aren't paying attention. YES we will NEED a capacity increase in the future. YES we should plan for it and prepare the network for it. And YES I think discussion is healthy. But when I see people who depend on the ignorance of the people around them, that's a predatory situation and I don't trust predators. ADAMSTGBIT is now on my list of predators who like to take advantage of people who aren't paying attention.

did this do anything for you miners?

did you at least get a good lol 

not THATS what I am wanting to hear ! Have bitcoin pool owners got some kind of scam going thats threatened by change ?

I dont claim to understand all of this but I would like to...and no one seems willing to share the knowledge .Does someone have to poke the hornets nest with a stick to get things in the open ? I mean ,Max Keiser  is GIVING AWAY full nodes to people in Botswana and some are saying that end users shouldnt run full nodes -it would be just jim dandy if only the core owners ran nodes then they could be like NBOS and all the other secret handshake clubs and make out make out like bandits .

And whats the anti chinese undercurrent I keep coming across hereabouts ? Is this flat-out racism or petty jealousy ? Cos if its a political thing about china being "oppressive" then folks want to read up more on the privatised encarceration industries in say ,oh....UK ,USA,Australia....for starters .Then the laws about unlawful assembly of three or more people with "similar identifying factors" being logged onto gang member databases ,in the same countries .Or the guilt by association laws that have put CHILDREN in jail for life because they KNEW  someone who killed or attempted to kill another and didnt report to "the authorities" that they knew them...in advance .
  Somewhat like this forum ,there are rules in china that you just dont break or you get edited .So whats the beef with china ?

Oh ,and by the way ,spoke to Greenuser earlier today and she has taken the plunge for Classic...whatever the hell that means .

Call me an idiot by all means but have the decency to try and enlighten me if you do.

is that true?so it happen just on people who mine bitcoins?or it also will happen to us who buy coins directly form miners?is this called "bitcoins classic" is still dont understand about that.

Has there been much discussion on the disparity of power between Bitcoin owners/users, miners, and developers? Any thread with this topic?

To put it quite simply, you're wrong. Seems like you didn't do your homework and research of the issue. It screams that raising of blocksize is a must or Bitcoin is dead. Mark my words, if it doesn't happen in 6 months, Ethereum's gonna have bigger marketcap than Bitcoin, I'm long enough in crypto be very confident in what I said. Bitcoin going down 2x and Ethereum going up 3x, it can start tomorrow and be done in a week.

Is that supposed to be funny?

Who is that idiot in your Avatar?

The other Chinese pools are quite happy with Bitcoin Core - so no - I am not shitting you.

You have been duped by a pool claiming we need 2MB blocks yet mining empty blocks every day.

(that actually makes you look rather foolish to say the least)

Honestly I am pretty much certain your account was sold as you never used to post such crap years ago.

you've got to be shitting me...

all this talk about the need for a capacity increase is a made up problem by AntPool

get real.

Then saying that we need bigger blocks is a "specious" argument when they are purposely mining empty blocks.

It is clear that the reason they are doing this is "purely political" (and do you really want to support some corrupt Chinese mining pool?).

(btw - this is the reason that the other Chinese mining pools *do not support them* as they have shown themselves to be dishonest)

I would have thought that you would not have been in support of corruption but perhaps you have been bought (along with the other bunch of shills supporting large blocks with no good reason to).

https://blockchain.info/

AntPool blocks are full, if they mine SOME that are empty because they want to add pressure to the situation all the power to them.

it is not your place to decide how miners should act, no amount of central planning from Core devs will change this.

Once again we have idiots calling upon other idiots to support larger blocks.

Your greatest fans are AntPool yet if you care to look at the 1 tx (i.e. empty) blocks over the last few days you'll see that they were all created by AntPool.

So if you think you are actually going to get *more txs* by supporting 2MB blocks then you are actually *very wrong* as the major pool supporting it creates "empty blocks" every day.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14127188

It is a pity that all intelligence has been thrown out of this debate a long time ago (maybe you should try and convince AntPool to stop mining empty blocks before demanding that everyone else should support 2MB blocks).

i'm not sure i understand everything you're saying here.

but raising blocklimit to 2MB will not have much impact if any on bitcoin's decentralization

bitcoin is a decentralization system, there is no gray area, it might become slightly more expensive to run a node or mine bitcoin in the future as blocklimit is raised again and again but that doesn't make it "more centralized", this BS about bitcoin becoming more centralized is a farce, the fact is mining pools ensure even tiny miner with 52K modem can participate in the network. SPV clients does somthing similar for poeple who want to be there own bank and run a bitcoin wallet on a PC, there is no need to run a full node if you are a simple end user.

furthermore, it's INSANE to ask end users to run a full node, and at the same time ask them to not use the bitcoin network but us Lighting Network, because  " theoretically more elegant scaling solution "....

this is BS, once again I BEG miners to TAKE CONTROL!

I am afraid that I dont understand ,fully,the options that slush are offering...and yes ,I have done research  .A  thread such as this :

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-slushs-pool-block-sizes-1389933

now sadly locked ,would have allowed some focus on the issue .I am not a coder but I am an active BTC user so it could be said it does not concern me .However ,I am concerned by the working of the currency I use .I want to support a DE CENTRALISED system of exchange and all the evidence is that the BTC is becoming more centralised .Why am I being told that this doesnt concern me ?

B-User

PS....yes,CK ,I know I have the same or similar  IP address to Greenuser .I live in the same same building and she is a friend of mine .This DOES NOT make us the same person nor mean we have the same views or goals .I do ,however ,wish to give her some moral support as this is a male dominated environment and I am tired of hearing her complain that she is being belittled by bullies who have the information that she so badly needs to continue in this monetary venture that we call BTC.

it has not been resolved at the last round table it come out that only a handful out of 50-70 poeple actually support  the compromise reached at the other roundtable in HK.


thats just plain false.

segwit is infinitely more complex/dangerous than simply raising blocklimit.

You have the option of rushing a decision and implementing something because you want to fix one thing and then you break something else. We all know bigger blocks = higher security risk. The other option, like the Core people are doing it now, is to concentrate on a manageable increase in the block size and to test the water, before you just dive in. The Classic approach is, reckless in my opinion and only a desperate attempt at a power grab.

They know the Core team have the best solution, but the Classic people focused only on the Block size to gain more favor with the crowd. Why the sudden stress tests from a unknown entity?    

well but the other edge of the sword, is that also us will not be able to do anything since the transaction will not be confirmed anymore and the network will be 100% insecure

The subjet has bee locked by -ck

Maybe there is a way to indicate the miner's wills? Yes/No/Anything. Then the "majority" can be determined by using the number of "Yes" and the number of "No".

At the moment, those who voted for "Anything" are actually stopping us from a clear decision.

How can i get this thread unlocked? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-slushs-pool-block-sizes-1389933

There are 79.56% miners who have not decided which to go for and stick to the default bitcoin core. Is there any way to allow them to mine 50% core and 50% classic?

This will change to % of classic to 79.56%/2 + 16.76% = over 56%!

No miner representation.    I tried to get people interested in a International Bitcoin Miners Union so we could get some conscientious on such issues but it got jumped on. Plus, no one seems interested. See the link in my signature.

(quick joke: Q) What's the difference between a Doctor and God,  A) God doesn't think he's a Doctor )

edit:

Looks like someone already tried.  Shame, the thread was locked in no time.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-slushs-pool-block-sizes-1389933
A descution and a vote would have helped me understand. I thaught that was what forums were about
Is this forum is a dictatorship?  And closed to a select few?
Looks like we have to do as we are told or fuck off

I thought this issue s been resolved. The only question s when will it get implemented. Why do you raise it again here?

yes

you must become politically active or you will get schlonged!

I have 700Gh/s pointed at Slushpool.   They gave me a vote.  I have posted on the mining pool threads as i do not know which way to vote.  Don't understand the risk, don't trust people to give a straight answer.  Will prob go with the flow; and it looks classic at the mo.

I don't think miners share information freely, it is dominated by a few pool owners that (intentionally or not) control debate.  Slush has a thread on this forum but it is moderated by one of his competitors so he don't post.  Don't seem fair to me.  But it is a bit klicky.

What should I vote? I was thinking of starting a voting thread

AFAIK there's an agreement on place for the 2MB upgrade but just without the exact date at the moment. These changes shouldn't be right away as there will be some sort of collateral damage as result so instead it should go through a transitional phase in which will give enough time to everyone to switch. Taking control of 51% of hashing power is not as easy as it looks (easier said than done), and by saying taking control, you mean making in centralized (somehow) on that matter which is the opposite of what BTCitcoin supposed to be.

None of this is necessarily true. Part of what gives Bitcoin it's value is it's security, and if a large amount of the hashpower were to suddenly stop securing the Bitcoin network, then some people may wish to join a network that has a higher amount of security (e.g. the network that has 2MB blocks).

Furthermore, the economic majority is in favor of raising the maximum block size, so it would be likely that most Bitcoin related companies would use the 2MB branch of the fork

It is crucial that they don't do it. Because if they do, they won't be able to spend their coins anywhere, or sell them, since nobody else is running their code. Their coins will be worthless and they'll have wasted their money mining them. It makes no difference whether they have 51% or not. Fortunately, miners are smarter than OP and won't do this.

Is it crucial if they DONT do it? What would happen ?

https://slushpool.com/stats/

Slushpool's holding a vote. Most have abstained or not bothered so it's irrelevant but those who have voted are way in the majority for the Classic proposal.

I would say that doing this "today" would probably be a bit reckless, however provided there is sufficient support/consensus, they could decide today that the maximum block size is going to rise to 2MB in two weeks in order to give others sufficient time to upgrade their software to support the HF

Dear miners,

I am a bitcoin investor, speculator, end user. I am asking you, no i am begging you, JUST DO IT!

I know you do not want to offend anyone or step on some toes; you want to make sure that when you put the 2MB limit in place it is because we have reached "consensus" on the issue. I BEG YOU, do not delay any longer, assert your power! do not wait for somthing that may never happen, do not let a dev believe they know better than you, or have more power than you, they don't, show them! let them feel the wrath of your hashes, Command their respect!

Put in place the 2MB limit TODAY, without their "approval". Put out some code of your own, gather >51% hashing power, and FORK us to the next level! if this offends the some poeple / core devs and they rage quit, GOOD! we dont want them trying to control bitcoin, it is not for them to control, bitcoin is OURS not theirs! amass 51% and take control!

As an investor / speculator, I promise you, if you can demonstrate that bitcoin's destiny isn't in the hands of any one group, but requires vast amounts of power to sway one way or the other,and that no amount of FUD can stop you/us; I will value bitcoin much more.

Time is now, do not delay, own the day!