Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

Author

Topic: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic - page 6. (Read 6916 times)

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: mayax on June 30, 2016, 08:10:39 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 07:41:05 PM

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

you will where the sheep are going. to "coreshit" or to miners shit

there will be NO difference

The difference would be the contentious hard frok stuck in the middle.

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 07:51:01 PM

But yeah, as a hodler, you could... I don't know. You could run a full node... ...nah, that wouldn't make any difference. I know, you could probably fly to ~~Shanghai~~ Hong Kong and lie like a rug.

Does one full node amount to even a hill of beans in this crazy world?

mayax

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1004

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 07:41:05 PM

you will find where the sheep are going. to "coreshit" or to miners shit

there will be NO difference

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 07:41:05 PM

This is all just FUD unless and until we see numbers of Classic nodes increasing dramatically. If that happens and a fork really does occur, you swallow your pride and join the winning fork no need to dump. Trezor already discussed contingency plans for their customers.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 07:51:01 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 07:41:05 PM

jk. Why would you need to seek recourse? Got your heart set on ~~Sturm und Drang~~ Lightning network?

You once told me there's simply no elegant way to scale Bitcoin. You probably don't remember that, but it stuck.

PorkUsher

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 07:41:05 PM

https://67.media.tumblr.com/e3d1eb33aacf543e6fd0b7385a63be7e/tumblr_inline_o7grogYpRR1shfepe_540.jpg

jk. Why would you need to seek recourse? Got your heart set on ~~Sturm und Drang~~ Lightning network?
But yeah, as a hodler, you could... I don't know. You could run a full node... ...nah, that wouldn't make any difference. I know, you could probably fly to ~~Shanghai~~ Hong Kong and lie like a rug.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 06:52:29 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on June 30, 2016, 05:58:42 PM

If someone cannot afford 2 year old computer and normal 5Mbps connection, why should he have right to run Bitcoin full node - and why someone needs to run the full node on 10+ year old computer is out of my mind.

So you're telling me that if I don't upgrade my hardware every 2 years that I should have no right to run a full wallet? In other words you're telling me that I have to lose my 'sovereignty' as in be unable to validate the blocks and transactions? I think that anyone should be able to participate with decent hardware (not necessarily cheap, but not that expensive either).

2 years old hardware is very cheap one to my standard, thats why I put this example, but if your unable to upgrade once in a while then you should not expect your today computer is going to be able catch up with Bitcoin blockchain in the future, thats pretty reasonable - you should not expect to play future games on your today computer eighter. You will be able to inport private keys to any SVP client anyway if you cannot afford to upgrade your home computer anymore, and continue to play only older and older games as time goes if your gamer.

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 06:52:29 PM

Quote from: albert11 on June 30, 2016, 06:24:03 PM

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship? Roll Eyes

You know Gavin used limitations to resolve the O(n^2) validation time problem. Namely limiting maximum signature operations to 1.2 GB per block. As a benefit it would not be possible to O(n^2) attack even current 1 MB blocksize anymore with up to 10 minutes CPU validation in some cases - even segwit dont solve this possible O(n^2) attack on 1 MB blocksize. So the breaking of Bitcoin due to O(n^2) is not censorship, but FUD because your avare of this Gavin solution to my knowledge.

PorkUsher

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: mayax on June 30, 2016, 07:09:18 PM

some people cannot simply accept that the miners like other individuals or companies are after pure profit and they don't care if BTC burn or not. this is a business and nothing more.

Of course, the miners are investing because they earn tons of money DAILY. they invest in hardware because a better hardware = more money/cash(not shit on walls) DAILY.

Is BTC going down/no more profit? OK! They earned ALOT and they will find other businesses where to "invest"

That's what some people here seem to miss -- yeah, miners have invested oodles of money, but that investment is amortized in months, not even years!
It's not like the gear won't be worthless in a few months anyway, how can people miss this? Bah!

mayax

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1004

PorkUsher

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 06:52:29 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 06:29:53 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 05:28:09 PM

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.

So your own opinion and the opinion of your 'buddies' is also worthless. Good to know.

If I made a statement along the lines of

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 03:32:26 PM

~~Classic~~ Core developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on ~~Core~~ Classic.

...and I had exactly zero clout as a coder?
And then I refused to even tell you if I could even code?!

Yeah, my opinion wouldn't be worth dick. If I did that, anyone with a shred of sanity and/or common sense would be absolutely obligated to point fingers and laugh at me.

I would not be the first person to state this. You'd know this if you weren't spending time trying to disrupt the system.

In that case, your opinion is not really your opinion, you're just parroting shit that others said, without attributing or having the capacity to verify its veracity?
This just keeps getting better Cheesy

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 06:29:53 PM

Oh please. Tell me the miners believed they were signing an agreement with "individuals," tell me the press, this forum, r/bitcoin etc., celebrated the miners signing an agreement with "individuals." Show me how good you are at lying when it serves you.

Don't blame me if you're too dumb to comprehend something properly. Roll Eyes

Lauda, I was the first one to say that the agreement was nothing but feel-good fluff.
Was ridiculed for that.
What you said about being "too dumb to comprehend something properly" tho? Should probably redirect it at the whole fucking Bitcoin community.
Won't be wrong, either.

albert11

hero member

Activity: 679

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 06:52:29 PM

Quote from: albert11 on June 30, 2016, 06:24:03 PM

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship? Roll Eyes

If 2MB could break bitcoin, the biggest miners would have never supported it. Basic common sense. Don't lie when you run out of argument please

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Cuidler on June 30, 2016, 05:58:42 PM

I dont think life is fair anyway. What about Satoshi and his vision for Bitcoin to become world number one currency and continuously scaling up to a point only the dataceners could handle the load, not individual home PCs. Who stabbed in the back his vision, do we appreciate he started Bitcoin at all? Should not Bitcoin follow his vision, and some altcoin try a different, artifically limited bloksizes perfectly suitable for home PCs bought around year 2005, now and forever.

That's not really a fair comparison is it? Satoshi abandoned the project, the Core developers are here. He may not have been aware of the potential control within the current system in addition to the mass surveillance. I think that having a datacenter-only system would be very risky.

Quote from: Cuidler on June 30, 2016, 05:58:42 PM

Quote from: albert11 on June 30, 2016, 06:24:03 PM

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship? Roll Eyes

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 06:29:53 PM

Don't blame me if you're too dumb to comprehend something properly. Roll Eyes

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 06:29:53 PM

-snip-
Yeah, my opinion wouldn't be worth dick. If I did that, anyone with a shred of sanity and/or common sense would be absolutely obligated to point fingers and laugh at me.

I would not be the first person to state this. You'd know this if you weren't spending time trying to disrupt the system.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 06:34:29 PM

I may be naive, but isn't this sort of reckless all for an extra 1MB?

You're actually right.

PorkUsher

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 06:26:55 PM

[]

Ok, well we disagree.

If Miner's do not care about future use, but only the now, then they wouldn't investment more money into hashing.
That increase in hash is a vote of confidence of the future.

No, increase in hash rate is a vote in your future. Many miners will go belly-up. Which? Will it be the ones mining with obsolete junk on the brink of profitability, or the ones who have the latest-greats-most-efficient gear?
Who could mine at a loss longer? It makes sense if it will bankrupt your competition. Who can afford to dump coins on the market and drive down prices?
You don't allow for the mindnumbing complexity of how this thing works.

Quote

If Miner's only believe in the now, they better jump ship now before they default and go bankrupt.

Trust me, they're probably running fairly powerful market models, there are people who do this shit for a living. Not some bro doing back-of-the-Chinese-delivery-menu calculations. Whatever maximizes profit

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 30, 2016, 06:34:29 PM

I may be naive, but isn't this sort of reckless all for an extra 1MB?

you do know segwit is opting for 4mb bloat right..(1mb txdata 3mb witness area)
yet they claim 2mb is bad..

think about that.. its called hypocrisy, its just a shame the blockstream fanboys dont actually read code to know how much bloat segwit will be, and how little capacity increase it offers in return for that bloat
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/395521854efd5804433d57aaf69f46676e4b6efc

Code:

+/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (only for buffer size limits) */
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SERIALIZED_SIZE = 4000000;
+/** The maximum allowed cost for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_COST = 4000000;
+/** The maximum allowed size for a block excluding witness data, in bytes (network rule) */
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;

4000000bytes=4mb
serialised = total combined data
1000000byte base size = old blocksize limit now renamed and utilised for the non-witness data

so if you want a hard fork.. like many of us do to allow more Traditional transactions through, we need to convince core to increase their new buzzword
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE to 2000000

which classic, BU and other non core implementations who are sticking to the maxblocklimit word can increase their number to 2000000 aswell and everyone can play happily together with no contention

steeev

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 103

arf!

what a load of artificially argumentative chuff on this thread...

in the name of the deranged comedy of 'classic'

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

I may be naive, but isn't this sort of reckless all for an extra 1MB?

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 06:08:37 PM

People want it pushed into datacenters now, when Satoshi said hold out as long as possible.

No way. What blocksizes you need to move full nodes to datacenters, any study on this matter ?

Around 5 MB is safe for home PCs by 2 studies I read in the past, and found nothing wrong about the arguments (no links, toomin and cornwell univ study if I remember the names right).

What I hear is just politic about the matter from core supporters, zero data provided. We can hold out full node compatibility on decent home PCs and slightly increase blocksize today, no need to make full node compatible with 10+ year old computers and keep 1 MB blocksizes anymore. Thats my opinion and I hashing at slush pool with increasing blocksize option. I doing what I believe is safe and best for Bitcoin.

PorkUsher

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 05:44:21 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 05:28:09 PM

No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.

Yes there is an agreement. Those said individuals are to deliver a HF proposal as long as the other party doesn't violate their end. There was no talk about merging code.

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 05:28:09 PM

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.

So your own opinion and the opinion of your 'buddies' is also worthless. Good to know.

If I made a statement along the lines of

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 03:32:26 PM

~~Classic~~ Core developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on ~~Core~~ Classic.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 06:11:33 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 05:20:21 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 04:51:47 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 04:29:51 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 03:30:26 PM

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, te right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

It is a nice example, but there are too many issues from my view point.

First, there can not be multiple right ways. Only one way will lead to success and many will lead to extinction.
When railroads were created across the USA, they did not build multiple paths, there was one and it led to success.

Second, it is true that different towns will lie to me and want me to choose them, but then who do I choose?
I could choose the one that seems to favor my security and survive-ability.

I would have to choose the lesser of two potential evils. So which is less evil?
One side declares mass riders and carry shit tons of gold and the other says slow and steady and security.
I don't want to ride a train that will be blow off the rails by bandits and killed, I want security.
I do not believe you can have both within the same train or path.

Three, I understand that the Mayor bought all this land and wants the train to go through theirs,
but if the mayor is correct as to security and other important issues, compared to other Mayors who
don't worry about security and other issues, why is owning all that land a problem?

What land are you referring IRL? (since the only land that exists in Bitcoin is hodling bitcoins).

You are still missing the point. There is no one railroad that lead to "success." The towns that got passed by died, railroad towns bloomed.

Most miners are mercenary. They don't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin's "success" if, in the process of succeeding, it impoverishes them.
They want to make money, which is well and good. But miners making money is not synonymous with Bitcoin being successful. The would like Bitcoin to succeed only as long as it makes them money.

The rest of your arguments -- you not wanting to ride unsafe trains, etc., are neither here nor there. If the miners make more money when BTC crashes and burns (hypothetical, but I can offer actual scenarios), that's what they will choose. It may not be a good thing for you as a BTC hodler, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Again, miners are not in it to help us build a Bitcoin utopia -- they're businessmen, doing it to make money. They are free to (and will) do what they feel maximizes their profits. They might make mistakes, but they are a big, moneyed motherfucking thing. Huge money!
They got creditors watching over them and expensive advisors on their staff, so don't go Dunning-Krugering by thinking you know what's best for them.

Ok, well we disagree.

If Miner's do not care about future use, but only the now, then they wouldn't investment more money into hashing.
That increase in hash is a vote of confidence of the future.

If Miner's only believe in the now, they better jump ship now before they default and go bankrupt.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi, where it disappears overnight, but it seems the Miner's think so, in your opinion.

albert11

hero member

Activity: 679

Merit: 500

First proposal was 20MB, core didn't like it, then got down to 8MB, core still didn't like it, then went to 2MB and core still don't want it. People have been extremely patient but when things only go one side with censorship on top at some point people can't take it anymore.

So now what was inevitable happened, so we will see if core is ready to make the whole thing implode instead of making a compromise which is more than reasonable( not to mention that the block size will have to be increased at some point anyway when blocks are full of LN multi sig transac so this issue is not even a matter of if but when, so lets see if core will risk the whole thing collapse just because they their ego is too big to take rational economic decision.