BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status - page 4.

PolarPoint

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on August 28, 2015, 07:33:31 AM

Only the majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.
BIP 100 should be modify of reject.

I see BIP100 as Core removing a hardcoded limit of 1M replacing with a variable limit of 1M. Basically no change of the blocksize limit. But it has a significance. I think this makes the limit easier to change in the future, and easier to get consensus.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 28, 2015, 07:50:54 AM

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on August 28, 2015, 07:33:31 AM

Only the majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.

But in this particular case, the miners' votes are the ones that count
I think most in the community just want to see a consensus being reached
and that consensus will not result in the adoption of XT

The community still needs to be behind it. You can not have a cryptocurrency with only miners after all.

TibanneCat

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

BTC > etc

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on August 28, 2015, 07:33:31 AM

Only the majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.

But in this particular case, the miners' votes are the ones that count
I think most in the community just want to see a consensus being reached
and that consensus will not result in the adoption of XT

Ingatqhvq

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 28, 2015, 07:30:34 AM

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

We are heading toward consensus which is good news
Support for BIP100 has been steadily growing and currently stands at 58.87%
BIP101? 0.71% Roll Eyes

Only the majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.
BIP 100 should be modify of reject.

TibanneCat

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

BTC > etc

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

We are heading toward consensus which is good news
Support for BIP100 has been steadily growing and currently stands at 58.87%
BIP101? 0.71% Roll Eyes

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

I'm really not sold on BIP100 (but I can see why the miners obviously approve). Why would we trust an entity to choose a variable when we can define it algorithmically like we do with everything else? I'm still adamant the as-yet-un-BIP'd "Proposal 1" is better than BIP100 in every conceivable way. If BIP101 gets torpedoed, that proposal should be plan B, not BIP100. What are we going to allow miners to choose next? The number of leading zeroes to solve the next block?

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 05:49:26 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 27, 2015, 03:40:21 PM

There is no mechanisim in place for forking to BIP100. There is also no fuctioning client that has implemented BIP100. So it is not a viable choice at this time. I hope that changes in the future, even though I prefer BIP101.

Hey now! Settle down there! They are gonna roll out that fork mechanism, just as soon as it's tested. And they're gonna test it just as soon as it's coded. And they're gonna code it just as soon as the pseudocode is released. And they'll release the pseudocode just as soon as the design is finalized. And they'll finalize the design just as soon as they....

Well played, nicely done. Grin

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 27, 2015, 03:40:21 PM

There is no mechanisim in place for forking to BIP100. There is also no fuctioning client that has implemented BIP100. So it is not a viable choice at this time. I hope that changes in the future, even though I prefer BIP101.

Hey now! Settle down there! They are gonna roll out that fork mechanism, just as soon as it's tested. And they're gonna test it just as soon as it's coded. And they're gonna code it just as soon as the pseudocode is released. And they'll release the pseudocode just as soon as the design is finalized. And they'll finalize the design just as soon as they....

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 27, 2015, 03:07:00 PM

Quote from: PolarPoint on August 27, 2015, 02:50:37 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 02:53:43 AM

Here, you can see the last 24 hours -- default vs. BIP 100 vs. 8MB. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

The latest results has BIP100 leading with 39.31%.
Isn't BIP100 the variable blocksize proposal? Where is the formula for calculating blocksize?
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

So I see that BIP100 and old core are neck to neck here. BIP101 is getting killed which is good. Which is the percentage that one of these options needs to get in order to win?

There is no mechanisim in place for forking to BIP100. There is also no fuctioning client that has implemented BIP100. So it is not a viable choice at this time. I hope that changes in the future, even though I prefer BIP101.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12267335

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Once again, stratum is EXTREMELY low bandwidth - even dial-up can handle it easily. The block size doesn't matter.

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 03:18:27 PM

Even so, Chinese miners have their full nodes inside China. While you say that "they can just move their full nodes outside of China" that is easier said than done.

What are you basing that on? Chinese companies rent server space all over the world.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:35:17 PM

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:31:03 PM

We're talking about Chinese mining pools right? Not all Chinese miners are solo mining. Most of them are in mining pools, which use Stratum and GBT

Do you have something that shows that the pools they're using use Stratum/GBT?

F2pool uses stratum. They have their miners connect to stratum+tcp://stratum.f2pool.com:3333
BTC China uses stratum. They have their miners connect to stratum+tcp://stratum.btcchina.com:3333
AntPool uses stratum. They have their miners connect to stratum.antpool.com:3333
So yes, Chinese miners are using stratum for their pools

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:35:17 PM

In either event, pool-based mining, which they clearly use, does not require the download of the transaction data. The block size does not matter. You can verify this yourself - connect to any of these pools and watch the data transfer - it is a teeny tiny fraction of the full transaction data volume.

Even a dial-up connection can handle that kind of bandwidth.

Red. Herring.

Even so, Chinese miners have their full nodes inside China. While you say that "they can just move their full nodes outside of China" that is easier said than done.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Quote from: PolarPoint on August 27, 2015, 02:50:37 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 02:53:43 AM

Here, you can see the last 24 hours -- default vs. BIP 100 vs. 8MB. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

The latest results has BIP100 leading with 39.31%.
Isn't BIP100 the variable blocksize proposal? Where is the formula for calculating blocksize?
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

So I see that BIP100 and old core are neck to neck here. BIP101 is getting killed which is good. Which is the percentage that one of these options needs to get in order to win?

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on August 27, 2015, 02:41:21 PM

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:01:57 PM

The entire discussion of China and its great firewall is a red herring. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
-snip-

I think that we are done here.

I'm afraid you'll have to actually read my entire post to understand why it doesn't matter in the slightest. Hint: Pooled miners don't download the full transaction data. It doesn't have to cross the great firewall of china, and in fact can be performed over dial-up.

PolarPoint

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 02:53:43 AM

Here, you can see the last 24 hours -- default vs. BIP 100 vs. 8MB. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

The latest results has BIP100 leading with 39.31%.
Isn't BIP100 the variable blocksize proposal? Where is the formula for calculating blocksize?
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:01:57 PM

The entire discussion of China and its great firewall is a red herring. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
-snip-

I think that we are done here.
Opinions differ to which proposal is best. However, the opinion of the average forum member(including me) obviously does not matter in the grand scheme of things. BIP100 is the most likely way that we will be going.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:31:03 PM

We're talking about Chinese mining pools right? Not all Chinese miners are solo mining. Most of them are in mining pools, which use Stratum and GBT

Do you have something that shows that the pools they're using use Stratum/GBT?

In either event, pool-based mining, which they clearly use, does not require the download of the transaction data. The block size does not matter. You can verify this yourself - connect to any of these pools and watch the data transfer - it is a teeny tiny fraction of the full transaction data volume.

Even a dial-up connection can handle that kind of bandwidth.

Red. Herring.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:24:45 PM

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:21:17 PM

Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send.

Stratum and GBT are designed with transparency in mind, so that the pool members can verify that the pool is above board. Within a mining operation, there is no reason for this double-check. So, no, there's no need for the data size to increase at all.

We're talking about Chinese mining pools right? Not all Chinese miners are solo mining. Most of them are in mining pools, which use Stratum and GBT

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:24:45 PM

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:21:17 PM

Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send.

Stratum and GBT are designed with transparency in mind, so that the pool members can verify that the pool is above board. Within a mining operation, there is no reason for this double-check. So, no, there's no need for the data size to increase at all.

there is a reason: if pools would submit transactions pool-miners would be able to decide which transactions to include in a block.

but they dont because its to slow....so only the pool can decide which transactions to put in a block.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:21:17 PM

Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send.

Stratum and GBT are designed with transparency in mind, so that the pool members can verify that the pool is above board. Within a mining operation, there is no reason for this double-check. So, no, there's no need for the data size to increase at all.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:21:17 PM

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:16:48 PM

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:11:57 PM

If they move the full node out of China, then how do they mine inside China? If they are concerned about latency, then there will also be latency from their miners inside China to the full node outside of China.

Look up pool mining protocols. The data transferred from the miner to the node is miniscule, and it doesn't get even a single byte bigger if the block size increases. The whole discussion of block size impact on China-based mining operations is a red herring.

I don't think it is a red herring. Just look at what the Chinese pools have to say about this.

Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send.

stratum is able to send transaction but i am not aware of any pool which uses this feature.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 02:16:48 PM

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 02:11:57 PM

If they move the full node out of China, then how do they mine inside China? If they are concerned about latency, then there will also be latency from their miners inside China to the full node outside of China.

Look up pool mining protocols. The data transferred from the miner to the node is miniscule, and it doesn't get even a single byte bigger if the block size increases. The whole discussion of block size impact on China-based mining operations is a red herring.

I don't think it is a red herring. Just look at what the Chinese pools have to say about this.

Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send.

Topic: BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status - page 4. (Read 6464 times)