Topic: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic - page 4. (Read 6911 times)

Any links?

I think it's confirmed the tweet was wishful thinking, more a nudge than a wink. Otherwise someone would be talking about the algo change from Hell again?

I'm sure people have contacted pool operators by now. Any replies?

Other than hodling impressive sums of BTC, what, precisely, could these people do?
I mean, they can tank the market price by dumping their coins (hurts them as much as it hurts anyone else), or order way too much pizza for the pool owners they don't like...
Anything else?

I cant see how you can move Bitcoin price to the ground by selling such amount of Bitcoins. It just shows Blockstream and hard core supporters are not big Bitcoin stakeholders at all. I find this tactic countra productive though, my thinking is "do the dip today please so we get rid of your Bitcoins and threats finally".

Of a single large holder of Bitcoin, who is claiming to be several large stakeholders

Thought you had me on ignore? (Despite the derpy action of directly addressing questions to me upthread - whatevs)

Comprehension fail. I am not dismissing that silly privacy-compromising poll because very few are participating. Nay, I ridicule it, as the entirety of all votes amounts to no more than a gnat's fart.

Another Classic move: dismiss the opinions of large stakeholders because they are few in number. After all, they're only a few people, and may just be a single really rich person, so what possible influence could they have? It's not like having an actual stake in the issue gives their opinions any extra merit.

Anyone posting a link to this website is automatically deducted 10 credibility points.

http://archive.is/tF2NJ

18mkjbVaHAcMauL6iiy7zm9VjMYCjy4UU1 and 1K5PrGXqH8iSpKX4YsPp5gStLLsYTmnVBh are two of the three largest voters in this "poll" containing 5000.00010000 and 4400.00123500BTC respectively.

18mkjbVaHAcMauL6iiy7zm9VjMYCjy4UU1 is part of wallet [2270e827e3] which sent 4,400BTC to wallet [f25f84f160], and the only address in this wallet is 1K5PrGXqH8iSpKX4YsPp5gStLLsYTmnVBh

Also, 1Mjye4SM5W4PX6tGD3div6PS48vKf1nVzS is the 5th largest address "voting" a certain way which is part of wallet [d0b06ef0f9], which received a single transaction of 1999.9995BTC from [2270e827e3] (above).

Moving down the list, 1MHHdX1KN32tC7KGqHQGn1XWjPmwjRc4Yu is part of wallet [ba63ab3713], which received a single transaction, being from [e1418c6ff3] in the amount of 540.8989BTC. This wallet received a transaction in the amount of 599.9995BTC from [2270e827e3] (above)

In other words, three of the top five (and 4 of the top 7) addresses "voting" a certain way can be easily linked together as being likely controlled by the same person. These 4 addresses make up ~52% of the bitcoin that a voting a certain way. If more then half of the bitcoin in that poll is voting a certain way, but attempting to make it appear that multiple people are voting in harmony, but in reality is really only one person voting, then there is nothing to say that other significantly large addresses in that poll are not also controlled by that same person. 

Less than the recent Australian auction. Color me shaking in my shoes boots.

It is only cuter that you think the language (presumably the runtime environment? let's explore what you mean here) is the only context in which garbage collection is relevant to the entire 'Bitcoin stack'.

This oughta be fun...

I assure you that that there are many not-idiots that are preferring to avoid to show them self in things like bitcoinocracy, that it's a good way to help other to track your finance.

Or a reminder of who's "all talk" as they say.

While you do say that, I don't think that the others feel the same way. I've been under the impression (by multiple members) that if one sides with Core that they're either a Blockstream employee or biased in some other way (i.e. there is no *normal reason* for them to have such a stance).

Well, there you are very much wrong. I've shifted my positions several times since the initial 20 MB proposal by Gavin. I've learned several things in the meantime, and do not see a decent reason for going toward the 2 MB block size limit. Until someone provides it (them), there's no reason to support that proposal (no, "segwit is complex" and similar nonsense are not reasons for 2 MB block size limit).

Sorry, it's not "immature" nor ad-hominem since it is true. Bogus escrow. Besides, I'm not the one who initiated person discussions (albeit they're off topic?).

There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion. There is also nothing wrong with not having an open mind, which I don't think you have. I don't think most people in the block size debate have an open mind, although few claim to have an open mind while they clearly do not.
Please refrain from the immature ad-hominem attacks (that are not even true). They only damage your credibility

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground

Bullshit. The miners are apparently as dumb as bricks. 2 MB is able to break Bitcoin, that's why Gavin added more artificial limitations to his BIP (which is != solution, it's a silly workaround).

Nope. You just don't know who I am.

That works too I guess.

I don't think it's reasonable at all. Having to constantly upgrade (every 2 year) in order to no fall behind makes no sense to me. Why would someone bother with this unless they explicitly have incentives to do it?

"Resolve"? Don't make me laugh. What Gavin did was the worst approach possible to the validation problem. No, he did not solve anything, he added a ridiculous workaround that prevents certain types of transactions (limited by size). Segwit:
I highly doubt that more than 1% of users know what we may be talking about (e.g. a language).

Yeah definitely biased because I don't have the same opinion than some of you. Give me a break and go scam someone else.

---

---

Update::
It was just an example ("a language" which uses garbage collection) and as thus "is the only context" is false. Discussing this would be off-topic to this thread, would it not?

Just because that person does not currently have any influence does not mean that his idea is not good. If the landlord (OP) of the 8btc thread (or someone else) can make strong enough points then others will support the bifurcation (Hard Fork). It seems that Jihan Wu (Bitmain) somewhat supports the proposal as does one of the admins of 8btc.

Unfortunately, it looks like that BTCC and HaoBTC might not support the bifurcation proposial, and either of these pools would be able to effectively veto the proposal. That is not to say however that they both will not jump onboard once, even one of the major chinese pools officially start mining classic blocks.


The demand for throughput necessary currently is not sufficient for more then 6 TPS today. In what I believe will be a very short amount of time, when the cost of transmitting 32MB worth of data in under a second (a 4MB block to each of 8 peers) and storing 4MB worth of additional data is sufficiently cheap then a bifurcation proposal to increase the max block size to 4MB can be implemented, and this process repeated over time.

Note that with google fiber, a residential customer can achieve up to 1,000 Mbps for only $70 per month, and can achieve up to 18 Mbps for $50 per month with AT&T uverse, as well as the fact that the US is considered behind the curve in terms of high speed internet throughout the world.

Node count is practically worthless, although some people do use their node to express their opinion on a particular proposal; however node counts can easily be faked. For most of the bifurcation proposals, it is the miners' hashrate/hashpower/blocks found that determine if a bifurcation will activate or not. It is ultimately the economy that decides if a Hard Fork is accepted or not and many large economic players in the bitcoin world support larger blocks.

Again, nodes do not matter. If I wanted to, then I could change the settings on my full node to reject blocks that do not send at least 1 BTC to my address via the coinbase transaction, however the fact that my node is rejecting every newly found block would not affect the rest of the network.

Again, see above. There are several major economic players who support larger blocks, it would probably be accurate to say that the economic majority supports larger blocks. It appears that there is less support for larger blocks then there really is (from those whose opinions matter) because those who control the moderation policy are strongly against larger blocks, and have set in place a moderation policy that makes it appear that more people (whose opinions matter) support smaller blocks.

The operating costs associated with producing up to 2MB block is realistically not going to be noticeably higher then the operating costs associated with producing what is essentially always .997MB blocks. The mining pools are hoping to receive increased transaction fee revenue from larger blocks.

The blockstream core devs did not sign the agreement as individuals, they signed the agreement as "Bitcoin Core Contributor". I think they were certainly implying that the bifurcation would be merged into core.

I think your bias is fairly clear by your below statement.

Yes, we can, as I’m sure Democritus could attest.  

An aside: I keep nervously hitting refresh on https://twitter.com/Excellion, it's showing nothing new... same for anyone else?

Better than the comical ... the conical ... that other one you were wearing for a half hour.

SegWit is necessary, but not sufficient, for the log scaling validation time sigops enabled by Schnorr.

May we agree I look really good in this pedant hat?