Chinese Mining Pools Call for Consensus; Refuse Switch to Bitcoin XT

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: medUSA on June 26, 2015, 06:33:14 AM

Quote from: Huobi-USD on June 25, 2015, 05:27:21 AM

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

Basically, the Chinese miners supports Gavin's 8M limit (and the doubling afterwards) but wants Core to support this. This is fair. I believe most users want to remain with Core because it is opensource and the name is not patented (not the case with bitcoin-xt).

Quote from: SpanishSoldier on June 25, 2015, 06:00:04 AM

I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Most would like to see that that too. May be this is what Gavin had planned all along. Forcing Core devs to choose the better of the two evils Wink

yeah, just for the PR we should use core and just make the changes in that version.

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: medUSA on June 26, 2015, 06:33:14 AM

Quote from: Huobi-USD on June 25, 2015, 05:27:21 AM

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

Basically, the Chinese miners supports Gavin's 8M limit (and the doubling afterwards) but wants Core to support this. This is fair. I believe most users want to remain with Core because it is opensource and the name is not patented (not the case with bitcoin-xt).

Quote from: SpanishSoldier on June 25, 2015, 06:00:04 AM

I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Most would like to see that that too. May be this is what Gavin had planned all along. Forcing Core devs to choose the better of the two evils Wink

Yeah, ultimately I think the game played here was something used in court often... I forget the term for it, but basically if you plant an extreme idea "The defendant should be awarded 1 billion dollars", then the jury will think that a 20 million dollar figure is a good compromise, whereas if the 1 billion dollar figure had not been planted, they might have come up with another number. Similar here, the 20 mb size was planted as an extreme, wherein smaller sizes will seem more "palletable" and/or realistic.... due to the magic number status of these figures.

medUSA

legendary

Activity: 952

Merit: 1005

--Signature Designs-- http://bit.ly/1Pjbx77

Quote from: Huobi-USD on June 25, 2015, 05:27:21 AM

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

Basically, the Chinese miners supports Gavin's 8M limit (and the doubling afterwards) but wants Core to support this. This is fair. I believe most users want to remain with Core because it is opensource and the name is not patented (not the case with bitcoin-xt).

Quote from: SpanishSoldier on June 25, 2015, 06:00:04 AM

I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Most would like to see that that too. May be this is what Gavin had planned all along. Forcing Core devs to choose the better of the two evils Wink

Guy Corem

donator

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1051

Spondoolies, Beam & DAGlabs

Quote from: Amph on June 26, 2015, 01:04:21 AM

they are still talking about xt as altcoin when it is cleary a simply upgrade to the original client, i think they are just coming up with random excuse to not switch

Quote from: SpanishSoldier on June 25, 2015, 06:00:04 AM

Gavin said 8 MB will stay for 2 year only and it will keep doubling untill 2016 in every two year. That means, Chinese miners needed to accept 8GB max block size in 2036, if they went with XTcoin. I think, that is what is most disturbing. I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

it does not change much if you upgrade qt or you call it xt and do the same change, this is not the point...calling it xt is only for remember the shift more as an important thing in the history of bitcoin

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11689268

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

they are still talking about xt as altcoin when it is cleary a simply upgrade to the original client, i think they are just coming up with random excuse to not switch

Quote from: SpanishSoldier on June 25, 2015, 06:00:04 AM

Gavin said 8 MB will stay for 2 year only and it will keep doubling untill 2016 in every two year. That means, Chinese miners needed to accept 8GB max block size in 2036, if they went with XTcoin. I think, that is what is most disturbing. I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

it does not change much if you upgrade qt or you call it xt and do the same change, this is not the point...calling it xt is only for remember the shift more as an important thing in the history of bitcoin

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Actually I'm surprised to see those Chinese mining farms have commanded large political power almost forming an OPEC like organization in bitcoin ecosystem. At the same time, their western counterparts are too difficult to keep up with the hash market share competition because their profit oriented business model is hindered by the high manufacturing and running cost

A good example is Spondoolies tech, although they have similar or even better performance miners, but their R&D cost them a fortune, thus even with mass scale deployment they will not make the ends meet due to higher cost in labor/electricity etc...

I think they should change from the profit oriented model to auxiliary model, e.g. mining farms sponsored by most profitable bitcoin business, like exchanges and wallet providers. An exchange or wallet provider can prioritize its own transactions with 0 transaction cost if they own a mining farm

SpanishSoldier

sr. member

Activity: 728

Merit: 256

Gavin said 8 MB will stay for 2 year only and it will keep doubling untill 2016 in every two year. That means, Chinese miners needed to accept 8GB max block size in 2036, if they went with XTcoin. I think, that is what is most disturbing. I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Huobi-USD

full member

Activity: 133

Merit: 100

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114657/chinese-mining-pools-call-for-consensus-refuse-switch-to-bitcoin-xt?utm_source=CoinTelegraph&utm_campaign=ac1c8d5607-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e86993e3e8-ac1c8d5607-224771873

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

What do you think of Gavin Andresen's latest proposal?

Topic: Chinese Mining Pools Call for Consensus; Refuse Switch to Bitcoin XT (Read 1531 times)