Topic: Blocksize & Pools (Read 1099 times)
I think we should keep in mind that the fork will not be forced. If there is a 50/50 split, or a 30/70, or whatever, then nothing happens, the fork does not happen, there is not created an alt coin. Only when 90 or 95% (I forget the exact number sorry) consensus is reached, then there is the fork. Even if a full 10% use the old stuff, they will be left out in the cold. Problem solved.
I have seen that one of the biggest pools, f2pool in China, has responded to Gavin and actively participates in the discussion on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list. They said that they don't support the large increase to 20 MB because of bandwidth concerns in China, but they would not be opposed to having a 8 MB or 10 MB block size instead of the 20 MB proposed.
Thanks for the prompt reply 
I have an antminer S2 on a pool. Will it need new software to deal with bigger blocks? Sorry if its a dumb question but as they say the only dumb question is the one that isnt asked 
Ill ask anyhow.
No. The pool takes care of assembling the header, which is what your hardware tends to work on. While the exact content of the header changes, the characteristics stay the same. Your mining hardware will be fine Ill ask anyhow.
I have been watching the discussion on block size around the net with interest but not really had any opinions one way or the other, however, I have an antminer S2 on a pool. Will it need new software to deal with bigger blocks? Sorry if its a dumb question but as they say the only dumb question is the one that isnt asked Ill ask anyhow.
Cheers
Ill ask anyhow.Cheers
it is not guaranteed that miners will move to the larger size, for now is still all pretty unclear, in the end it will be all about general consensus
but bears in mind that we can't remain with core forever, so at some point, we must move ahead and choose the bigger limit
there isn't must to choose actually, the problem is only related to a possible better alternative, which are not present for now
but bears in mind that we can't remain with core forever, so at some point, we must move ahead and choose the bigger limit
there isn't must to choose actually, the problem is only related to a possible better alternative, which are not present for now
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your input. I've read your posts on the subject in other threads in bitcointalk.org
I thought this was the reason:
Isn't "The Fork" about block size as well? Increasing the block size at "The Fork" is a large part of the discussion with "The Fork."
And unfortunately most of the large pools just aren't very active here. Nor has BitcoinTalk really been the best place for discussion anyway (see Dev & Tech). A lot of the technical details and implications have been on the mailing list, and there's also been pretty good technical discussion over on reddit. Recently a small stress test was unofficially coordinated and they found that most pools don't even fill up to the current 1MB maximum, for example.
GHash is not large anymore. Slush and BTCGuild is larger than GHash. GHash is lucky to be 7 PH/s at the moment. They used to be between 60 and 70 PH/s at one time.
Yes, I believe exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc... should be the ones to decide as well.
But again, I feel Gavin is trying to kill two birds with one stone. He wants to solve the fork problem while increasing the block size at the same time. That's why I say they go hand in hand. At least Gavin wants to put them hand in hand. Since he is more or less the voice of bitcoin at the time, he wants to bring block size into the "Fork" discussion.
Thanks for your input. I've read your posts on the subject in other threads in bitcointalk.org
I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"
I thought this was the reason:
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
Isn't "The Fork" about block size as well? Increasing the block size at "The Fork" is a large part of the discussion with "The Fork."
And unfortunately most of the large pools just aren't very active here. Nor has BitcoinTalk really been the best place for discussion anyway (see Dev & Tech). A lot of the technical details and implications have been on the mailing list, and there's also been pretty good technical discussion over on reddit. Recently a small stress test was unofficially coordinated and they found that most pools don't even fill up to the current 1MB maximum, for example.
I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed.
Hashing power is useless if nobody wants to do business with your mined blocks, though. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between miners and services (exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc.), but the latter group should have the deciding power.GHash is not large anymore. Slush and BTCGuild is larger than GHash. GHash is lucky to be 7 PH/s at the moment. They used to be between 60 and 70 PH/s at one time.
Yes, I believe exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc... should be the ones to decide as well.
But again, I feel Gavin is trying to kill two birds with one stone. He wants to solve the fork problem while increasing the block size at the same time. That's why I say they go hand in hand. At least Gavin wants to put them hand in hand. Since he is more or less the voice of bitcoin at the time, he wants to bring block size into the "Fork" discussion.
Quote
Hashing power is useless if nobody wants to do business with your mined blocks, though. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between miners and services (exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc.), but the latter group should have the deciding power.
This makes sense thanks.
I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"
I thought this was the reason:
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
And unfortunately most of the large pools just aren't very active here. Nor has BitcoinTalk really been the best place for discussion anyway (see Dev & Tech). A lot of the technical details and implications have been on the mailing list, and there's also been pretty good technical discussion over on reddit. Recently a small stress test was unofficially coordinated and they found that most pools don't even fill up to the current 1MB maximum, for example.
I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed.
Hashing power is useless if nobody wants to do business with your mined blocks, though. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between miners and services (exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc.), but the latter group should have the deciding power. I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"
I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed. If they split Bitcoin and also create Bitcoin XT and 80% of the larger pools move to FORK XT then is it not the miners that have decided the outcome.
I am not an expert in any of this and am really trying to understand it myself that is why all the questions. It just seems that if Gavin wants 20MB and others do not one will ultimately win out based on hashing power.
Is my thinking off?
Your thinking is correct to a certain degree. The "pools" who host for the miners that will ultimately decide. Your thinking is right on for the most part.
Yes that is correct, thanks for the correction.
I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"
I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed. If they split Bitcoin and also create Bitcoin XT and 80% of the larger pools move to FORK XT then is it not the miners that have decided the outcome.
I am not an expert in any of this and am really trying to understand it myself that is why all the questions. It just seems that if Gavin wants 20MB and others do not one will ultimately win out based on hashing power.
Is my thinking off?
Your thinking is correct to a certain degree. The "pools" who host for the miners that will ultimately decide. Your thinking is right on for the most part.
I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"
I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed. If they split Bitcoin and also create Bitcoin XT and 80% of the larger pools move to FORK XT then is it not the miners that have decided the outcome.
I am not an expert in any of this and am really trying to understand it myself that is why all the questions. It just seems that if Gavin wants 20MB and others do not one will ultimately win out based on hashing power.
Is my thinking off?
I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
There's a recent thread with some links to discussion about the maximum block size, with some feedback from some (certainly not all) pool ops:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mike-hearn-well-have-to-carry-on-without-miners-in-china-1077486
[/quote]
Thanks Ill check it out.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.
Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
You might be thinking about the block reward.Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
There's a recent thread with some links to discussion about the maximum block size, with some feedback from some (certainly not all) pool ops:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mike-hearn-well-have-to-carry-on-without-miners-in-china-1077486
I don't really get your point.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.
Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.
Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
I guess my question is what chain are the pools going to go with. If AntPool 62PH goes with Bitcoin XT and Ghash the other it seems very fragmented.
Just wanting to understand it all.
I don't really get your point.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.
Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.
Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
Jump to: