Topic: Are Chinese miners fucking stupid? - page 2. (Read 1948 times)

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 >

Shows BTC Core is failing at improving Design, and the Chinese Miners are failing at keeping an semi-average block time.

Many Alts switched to a Difficulty readjustment after every Block to Prevent this kind of irregularity in BlockSpeed Timing.

BTC leaves theirs at 2 weeks and it causes these gaping holes in transactions times,
they need to fix this , if they ever want to be taken seriously.


 

FYI:
BTC better learn from what happened to ixcoin, when their large PoW miners dropped off it was only finding a block every few days.

the rule is not 10 minutes!!!

its a hopeful 2016 blocks in 2 weeks

which could be a few blocks as quick as 2 minutes and a few blocks as slow as over an hour.. its just luck..
as long as it all adds up to an average of 2016 blocks a fortnight.

which then for those who hate maths.. means AVERAGE of MAYBE 10 minutes a block
not hard rule of 10 minutes a block

the hard rule is the 2016 block a fortnight target. the 10 minute thing is just layman unofficial conversation piece

Chinese Miners can't even meet the 10 minute Blockspeed.  

Observe the blockchain  https://blockchain.info/
1 hour 18 minutes since the last block meaning no transactions received even 1 confirmation let along the 3 needed to complete a transfer of BTC.
450661    1 hour 18 minutes    1708    19,052.31 BTC    ViaBTC    742.18


 

1. this proves that consensus and orphans work
2. this proves that altcoins are not created
3. this proves that all the doomsdays are wrong.

people need to realise that within 3 seconds the block got rejected. orphaned off.. thrown away, put in the trash, not used,  gone

Typically miners could have been paid good, so to make the fee as required for the companies put forth by the Op. This might also be the cause based upon the past inspection made by People's bank of China to have control on the transaction.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/

yep. bu is sure looking like the future according to this.

or something.

put it this way..

if fee's were $1 a tx..
bitcoin users will hate using bitcoin, but it would only earn bitcoin pools ~$2k-$2.5k

pools still do not see that tx fee's are an income. they just see it as a bonus... in short, they dont care much
their income is still the blockreward which gets them $10k+

those blindly adoring the idea of sidechains(altcoins) and offchain(corporate permissioned services) dont care about
bitcoin fee's
they only care about making money offering these side services by charging less than a bitcoin tx fee (under $1). in fact the higher the onchain fee, the more income these future hub managers can get by offering a slight discount.

those blindly adoring the idea of sidechains(altcoins) and offchain(corporate permissioned services) dont care about
onchain capacity
they only care about making money offering these side services by offering more 'payments' to get repeat income. infact the lower the onchain capacity. the more income these future hub managers can get by locking people in for longer.

core are drumming up the false proposition that LN node users can make money acting as LN hop managers. but the reality is users will
avoid the hop concept to avoid paying for each hop. and instead go for the HUB concept to save on fee's. and guess who gets to be the HUB..


if you ever see someone talk about "conservative" (the new 2016-2017 core promotional buzzword) )they are not talking about protecting or strengthening bitcoin. they are talking about
conning to serve private representatives...
anyone living in england knows how "conservatives" run things. selling out our countries assets to the highest bidder to let it be run by private companies

as for anyone that wants independent control but fears using BU. then change the settings of your favourite brand and release it as another diverse release that can in the future allow you to change the blocksize buffer without needing devs to spoon feed you settings they desire

Are they not building the system for themselves to profit from?

How does having miners switch to BU change the impact of Core?

BTCC is funded by Barry silbert of DCG
Blockstream is funded by Barry silbert of DCG

DGC and blockstream are involved in the bankers hyper ledger

they get enough FIAT, they dont care much for bitcoin.

why do you think  BTCC is offering free fee's for services (until regulators got involved) bcause bitcoin fee's are meaningless to them

Could be an inside deal with a larger cut coming to miners via blockstream or whatever they're trying to push now versus the competition that they experience right now, to a certain extent.

If they never switch to larger block sizes then fees will go up more and more, and that can translate to more ""sustained"" income for miners through various deals.

I'm not them though, and I think it's pretty f-cking bad.

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?