Topic: Are Chinese miners fucking stupid? (Read 1947 times)
Not all but those who doesn't support SegWit
I'm not a Chinese people, but for me not all Chinese are fucking stupid. Lets us look the other good sides of their deeds here in bitcoin industry. They're maybe owned the biggest percentage of bitcoin earnings in this industry. but in some other ways they give opportunity to any one in the bitcoin community to earn some bitcoins. Therefore, that is good anyway to some of us here. Especially for the ordinary people like me.
Its not the Chinese miners that has to be blamed but the owners of Chinese exchangers. They have manipulated the market that caused sudden volatility to the bitcoin price. Aside from that they also made hoax volumes, they are showing pictures of high volumes where in fact they dont have that kind of volume. After the PBOC inpection their records have greatly reduced.
Do you really think the Chinese Exchanges could manipulate the markets , if the Miners were actually selling the majority of their coins.
Odds are high, there is some collusion going on behind the scenes
And most likely the government is involved in that too
In reality, China is very corrupted country. In fact, all Asian countries are heavily corrupted. I can't even imagine that Chinese mining farms as well as exchanges hadn't some patronage from government officials (non-official of course). And the visit of the PBOC to Chinese exchanges might have been quite different as to how it was portrayed in Western mass media. I wouldn't be quite surprised to learn that it was actually meant to instigate panic sell-offs and bring down the price as the logical conclusion of the previous massive pump
How can they continue to allow Core to build a system that will shift fees away from miners and into the pockets of private companies like Blockstream? Talk about voting for your own death.
Hey miners, switch to BU now!
Just because nullc has a big fluffy beard which you all admire, do you have to follow him to the edge of the Earth?
I think they are all is not stupid. If they are stupid, half of bitcoin amount that spread today will not be theirs.Hey miners, switch to BU now!
Just because nullc has a big fluffy beard which you all admire, do you have to follow him to the edge of the Earth?
They know what they do and they have tons of strategy to grow their money even not switching system. Miners always have their ways.
I'm not a Chinese people, but for me not all Chinese are fucking stupid. Lets us look the other good sides of their deeds here in bitcoin industry. They're maybe owned the biggest percentage of bitcoin earnings in this industry. but in some other ways they give opportunity to any one in the bitcoin community to earn some bitcoins. Therefore, that is good anyway to some of us here. Especially for the ordinary people like me.
Its not the Chinese miners that has to be blamed but the owners of Chinese exchangers. They have manipulated the market that caused sudden volatility to the bitcoin price. Aside from that they also made hoax volumes, they are showing pictures of high volumes where in fact they dont have that kind of volume. After the PBOC inpection their records have greatly reduced.
Do you really think the Chinese Exchanges could manipulate the markets , if the Miners were actually selling the majority of their coins.
Odds are high, there is some collusion going on behind the scenes.
Those luddites yielding handheld tools to disrupt a more advanced tool, just crazyness. Bitcoin initially existed for miner's sake who have been ... you and us, well just everybody who wanted to mine. This concept got lost, marginalized by industrial mining operations.
Neither BU nor Core will bring back mining into everybody's household. Now watch this mess of centralisation.
Neither BU nor Core will bring back mining into everybody's household. Now watch this mess of centralisation.
This is why every user should be interested to change the mining algorithm with the next hard-fork. IMO changing the mining algorithm (include the UTXO set and the block entries in every round of the algorithm) as the most important feature of the next hard-fork.
I'm not a Chinese people, but for me not all Chinese are fucking stupid. Lets us look the other good sides of their deeds here in bitcoin industry. They're maybe owned the biggest percentage of bitcoin earnings in this industry. but in some other ways they give opportunity to any one in the bitcoin community to earn some bitcoins. Therefore, that is good anyway to some of us here. Especially for the ordinary people like me.
Its not the Chinese miners that has to be blamed but the owners of Chinese exchangers. They have manipulated the market that caused sudden volatility to the bitcoin price. Aside from that they also made hoax volumes, they are showing pictures of high volumes where in fact they dont have that kind of volume. After the PBOC inpection their records have greatly reduced.
I'm not a Chinese people, but for me not all Chinese are fucking stupid. Lets us look the other good sides of their deeds here in bitcoin industry. They're maybe owned the biggest percentage of bitcoin earnings in this industry. but in some other ways they give opportunity to any one in the bitcoin community to earn some bitcoins. Therefore, that is good anyway to some of us here. Especially for the ordinary people like me.
We should not think negatively and assess all the fuck china. I am sure there are many good people in china, probably caused by a few people so that all affected.
The node distribution is also key here. Miners will look if their blocks are accepted & verified.
Does Bitcoin exist for miners' sake?
And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies
And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin
And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies
And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin
Those luddites yielding handheld tools to disrupt a more advanced tool, just crazyness. Bitcoin initially existed for miner's sake who have been ... you and us, well just everybody who wanted to mine. This concept got lost, marginalized by industrial mining operations.
Neither BU nor Core will bring back mining into everybody's household. Now watch this mess of centralisation.
We need just that signal, any signal at all, of Bitcoin still beeing able to change. Adapt, improve. There is the reason why I support Segwit. Not for Segwit's sake, just for the signaling that progress is still imaginable
Ultimately, it doesn't matter
Just as Luddites didn't change anything in the long run (only terribly hurt themselves and their families instead of adapting), the progress in the development and improvement of cryptocurrencies ain't stoppable either. After all, Bitcoin is not the only pebble on the beach. If miners (or whoever else, for that matter) decline to adopt the updates, they will be without doubt adopted by someone else. In fact, this is another opportunity for us all to jump off the Bitcoin bandwagon if it's going to derail and jump on the next one. Let Bitcoin miners shoot themselves in the head if they choose so
I agree to this, It does matter much how Chinese react to bitcoin mining.
What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
barry silbert of DCG (ownership stake of blockstream, BTCC, coinbase, bitpay, etc) is looking forward to his investment returns from LN hubs.
oops did i just reveal why BTCC is the main/first pool supporting segwit(the phase 1 stage in LN requirements), and why blockstream are pushing hard to get segwit active to enable LN.. oops sorry for the spoilers
Does Bitcoin exist for miners' sake?
And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies
And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin
And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies
And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin
Those luddites yielding handheld tools to disrupt a more advanced tool, just crazyness. Bitcoin initially existed for miner's sake who have been ... you and us, well just everybody who wanted to mine. This concept got lost, marginalized by industrial mining operations.
Neither BU nor Core will bring back mining into everybody's household. Now watch this mess of centralisation.
We need just that signal, any signal at all, of Bitcoin still beeing able to change. Adapt, improve. There is the reason why I support Segwit. Not for Segwit's sake, just for the signaling that progress is still imaginable
Ultimately, it doesn't matter
Just as Luddites didn't change anything in the long run (only terribly hurt themselves and their families instead of adapting), the progress in the development and improvement of cryptocurrencies ain't stoppable either. After all, Bitcoin is not the only pebble on the beach. If miners (or whoever else, for that matter) decline to adopt the updates, they will be without doubt adopted by someone else. In fact, this is another opportunity for us all to jump off the Bitcoin bandwagon if it's going to derail and jump on the next one. Let Bitcoin miners shoot themselves in the head if they choose so
Does Bitcoin exist for miners' sake?
And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies
And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin
Those luddites yielding handheld tools to disrupt a more advanced tool, just crazyness. Bitcoin initially existed for miner's sake who have been ... you and us, well just everybody who wanted to mine. This concept got lost, marginalized by industrial mining operations.
Neither BU nor Core will bring back mining into everybody's household. Now watch this mess of centralisation.
We need just that signal, any signal at all, of Bitcoin still beeing able to change. Adapt, improve. There is the reason why I support Segwit. Not for Segwit's sake, just for the signaling that progress is still imaginable.
What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.
What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.
I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.
Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^
Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.
A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing.
I have a pretty good understanding of what is being attempted with the LN, but I think the miners are just as uncertain about the outcome of this, as many of us. Has anyone projected the possible impact of this based on tx growth that would be made possible and what income will be generated from hosting a hub?
Xapo is also making use of the same principle, the only difference being that their off-chain tx's are not part of the Bitcoin protocol.
A block size increase has it's own risks, but I guess that is what Satoshi anticipated. < small natural increases >
LOL, the miners that are refusing to allow segwit seem certain to me, they are blocking it because they are not stupid and know it will cost them transactions fees, if those transaction fees go offline into LN, the miners won't receive the fees from the Trillions of transfers that can take place offchain. Sorry, you are confused by it , but seriously dude, it is a no brainer.
Satoshi did not anticipate shit, he thought PCs would be doing the PoW work not ASICS.
What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.
What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.
I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.
Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^
Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.
A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing.
I have a pretty good understanding of what is being attempted with the LN, but I think the miners are just as uncertain about the outcome of this, as many of us. Has anyone projected the possible impact of this based on tx growth that would be made possible and what income will be generated from hosting a hub?
Xapo is also making use of the same principle, the only difference being that their off-chain tx's are not part of the Bitcoin protocol.
A block size increase has it's own risks, but I guess that is what Satoshi anticipated. < small natural increases >
Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.
A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.
A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing
Does Bitcoin exist for miners' sake?
And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies
And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin
What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.
What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.
I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.
Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^
Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.
A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing.
I don't think they are stupid, they will reach a good deal for themselves and get the SeqWit pass but if no suitable deal is reached, SegWit won't not be passed. Miners are very powerful in the space and nobody can take their interest for granted.
What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.
What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.
I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.
Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^
What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?
Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >
Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.
Jump to: