Topic: Apparently Chinese Mining Pools are sticking with Core! :) - page 2. (Read 3725 times)

Maybe they just enjoy using core more than anything else. I really don't see why they would still use core though.

And from that:


So perhaps rather than 1980 I should have written 1976 - are we quibbling over 4 years now or are you just wanting to argue about terminology rather than actual practice?

(you seem to me to be the type who "just wants to win an argument" so I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time responding)

Unfortunately, you are the one who is "seriously confused".  Please, go enlighten yourself.  There is no difference between State Socialism and State Capitalism.


Carl Marx...  seriously.... is this a joke?

Fifty is the new forty, and Gavin is the new Hearn. Mark my words, "they" got to him. He's their puppet now.

It's HaoBTC's COO but yeah he only claimed to speak for himself and not in the name of the company. He claims that he wants to stick with core and offers solutions to the problems we're facing now: (1) let small transactions happen offchain and only big transactions happen onchain, and (2) increase fees.
Globally this article doesn't offer much new stuff. All this was already known. It's just that of course people don't want to see any increase in fees  

Also, he's not "the Chinese miners" but just one Chinese mining company's COO expressing a personal opinion. I hope Aaron van Wirdum didn't use at as a source when claiming that "Chinese miners" were sticking with Core, because in this case it means shit.

Well it was more likely that he was getting paid to criticize other miners in an attempt to get them to either quit or switch their blockchain, but it is fairly obvious that the method used by Hearn didn't work and now we have the scenario that we have before us right now.

Its more entertaining to see that he's had his project fail, and now its not even gaining support from the people he needs the most.

Yes, you definitely can get paid for this. Many people do.

You need a link to understand that maybe there are some people/organizations that don't like/trust bitcoin's disruptive nature and would prefer to have it co-opted or destroyed? That's funny and sad!

Look into it, then buy your boat.

this was and one of the reasons that Hearn attack chinese miners. The other reason is that he is a racist.

Can I get paid for this?

Link please.

I wanna buy a boat!

For the noobs asking if this is a bad or good thing; this is the short of it.

Blockchain technology will not and can not work without something like Bitcoin at its core to insure its security; the big legacy banks were told this but they refused to admit it (at lest not publicly).

so...

The Banks were like "we don't need you, will build our own network" and went and highered armies of tech savvy engineers to build the impossible.  They failed...

and now after many months of secret back door meetings they are back poking around our community and spreading wads of money to anyone willing to turn to the dark side.

Bitcoin developers, luminaries and figure heads are being lobbied by people with very deep pockets; this is the 3rd and 4th failed attempt to hardfork the Bitcoin network into something they see as more accommodating to their needs. This lobbying will not stop, I have a feeling more Bitcoin icons will in the coming months and years turn like so many others have and begin praising the attributes, the benefits of larger blocks.  

Bitcoin was never meant to be free, Freedom is not free and nether is Bitcoin. No decentralized ledger can be secured for free. The Bitcoin network subsidies (block rewards) are running out and we need to begin the hard process of paying for our network. If Bitcoin can not survive on a fee based system then it will fail.

Looks like Mr.Weirdum got his act together:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/f-pool-chinese-pools-will-stick-with-bitcoin-core-1453395328

The article has been updated.

Hmm. Maybe that does make me a big old sexist then. Either way at this early stage of the game it would be nice to see a more unified interest in making progress from all sides rather than sitting back and milking. That's fine when things are rather more ossified but it's still in the fragile stages.

I think they already have chosen to take action. It's not a "real" block size fix but it sort of has the same outcome. It doesn't need a hard fork. It doesn't break any current consensus rules because it manipulates the coinbase transaction's input. They are going to split off witness data to a separate tree instead of mining it in the block. This should allow them to have another couple of years to fuck around and not develop a permanent solution. lol

Clearly then they cannot contribute anything (as you are uninterested in their opinions) - that is basically the same kind of mantra that used to me said of women (by men) in the western world many years ago.

Why is it so goddamned hard to get straightforward facts out of China?  It's not another planet.

I'm profoundly uninterested in Chinese opinions on this subject. I think it's very unfortunate that potential innovation is stymied by a bunch of folks who effectively contribute nothing.

They already realized that we can solve the blocksize issue without having to increase the size of the Blocks.
The Emercoin project introduced a new tecnique that reducxes the size of the transaction, reducing the need of bigger blocks.

Indeed - as far as the coding goes there is very little input from Chinese developers (that is a whole other story which is the lack of creativity in China).

What the XT/UB/Classic takeover attempts by the American backers have failed to understand is the Chinese culture - so their efforts to convince groups to co-operate with them will all fail (as they are now finding out).

Core wins not because it is actually preferred but simply because it is what was there first and the Chinese cannot agree amongst themselves to anything else (nor to create any alternative).

Unconsciously, China has become an important bitcoin
But it is not so important, after all, China's contribution to the core is not much

Seriously you are confused.

Until Deng (who had been imprisoned by Mao because of his capitalist ideals) China was not pursuing capitalism at all - so are you saying that the objectives of a communist state only started in 1980?
(and what exactly what do you label that which preceded Deng - "pretend communism"?)

Other well known communist states are still *not capitalist* (compared to China which is perhaps the only really capitalist "supposedly communist" country in the world) so again - what you are saying just is silly.

I can only guess that you don't know much at all about Carl Marx and his theories and what they led to politically.

The development of public infrastructure is centrally planned in all countries because it is deemed a necessity for the common good.  I am referring to state intervention in regular businesses with the intent to monopolize opportunities for a select few at the expense of the many.  This is perpetrated under the ruse of it being done for the national interest.  The PRC speaks out of both sides of its mouth.  It advocates a policy of international cooperation, but pursues a policy of international monopolization.  Anyone who truly understands the objectives of a communism state realizes that state capitalism is the end goal.