Actually,segwit 2x earlier got the support of around 95% of hash power.So,it seemed to be powerful.But later,F2Pool withdraw its support for segwit 2x and its head wan chung said that they thought that bitcoin core developers would accept segwit 2x and now,when its clear that they don't support it,they have to take this decision of withdrawing support.F2Pool is the third largest mining pool and second in hashpower. Similar is the case with some other pools too.Now,losing the hash power of F2Pool,segwit 2x has only 85% hash power.
But,other large pools Bitfury and BTCC still support segwit 2x and hard fork.Slushpool's stand is still unknown.However,since it has not signed the NYA,probably it seems that it to would not support Segwit 2x.
Topic: do the miners actually support the btc1 team (Read 264 times)
Of course they want to make money. But, which team do they actually think will make them the most money?
if you believe the public statements like NYA, then the btc1!
i don't think the huge "unknown" BCH miners who are accounting for > 80% of the hash rate are dumping. do you have any evidence that they are? because if you follow the coinbase transactions, they are holding.
by dump i meant "gave up on mining it", poor choice of words i know.checking the coinbase transactions 100 block old seems Unknown ones are untouched but those belonging to others are spend.
AntPool: 10K received 8K spent
https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC/address/13usM2ns3f466LP65EY1h8hnTBLFiJV6rD
BTC.TOP: 12.7K received 12.7k sent
https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC/address/1FVKW4rp5rN23dqFVk2tYGY4niAXMB8eZC
Quote
i think jihan wu's plan is/was to invest in bitcoin cash for the long term. the hyperinflation was a feature, not a bug, for him. i'm wondering if he is setting segwit2x up for failure as a ploy to drive all big blocker support to bitcoin cash.
that is what i expect to happen. and he has already hinted that in case of SegWit2x failure he will switch to BCH.Quote
there's plenty of discussion on the mailing list if you care to look. there's many core developers who aren't adamantly opposed to a block size increase; it's just a matter of timelines and consensus to prevent a chain split. even luke dash jr. worked on coding a 2x hard fork...
yeah, i visited mailing list once or twice but every time i get confused and my eyes hurt! i find it a little hard to followis there any better interface that shows the emails with some formatting?
It seems to me that it was necessary to negotiate immediately. Now it makes no sense to talk about it. The idea of improving bitcoin looks attractive. Everyone knows that the speed and price of the transaction needs to be adjusted. I'm sorry that all of us became hostages of internal struggle for control over the income.
you would be naive to think miners support x or y team. the fact is miners care about one thing only: more money. that is why they have invested in mining equipment, .... in first place.
we clearly saw where their heart is back then you could mine 1000 blocks per day on bitcoin cash chain. they switched in a heartbeat to make more money before the EDA kicks in. and they dumped it as fast as they could when it did and mining BCH was no longer "more" profitable.
we clearly saw where their heart is back then you could mine 1000 blocks per day on bitcoin cash chain. they switched in a heartbeat to make more money before the EDA kicks in. and they dumped it as fast as they could when it did and mining BCH was no longer "more" profitable.
i don't think the huge "unknown" BCH miners who are accounting for > 80% of the hash rate are dumping. do you have any evidence that they are? because if you follow the coinbase transactions, they are holding.
i think jihan wu's plan is/was to invest in bitcoin cash for the long term. the hyperinflation was a feature, not a bug, for him. i'm wondering if he is setting segwit2x up for failure as a ploy to drive all big blocker support to bitcoin cash.
p.s. do you have any reference showing core devs are not against increasing block size? i always though they don't want to do it at any cost.
there's plenty of discussion on the mailing list if you care to look. there's many core developers who aren't adamantly opposed to a block size increase; it's just a matter of timelines and consensus to prevent a chain split. even luke dash jr. worked on coding a 2x hard fork...
Of course they want to make money. But, which team do they actually think will make them the most money?
As I see,I just need hold the bitoin and don't sell it before 25th ,
I would earn more money.
I don't care about if the miner would support the BTC1 team,but just hold the btc
I would earn more money.
I don't care about if the miner would support the BTC1 team,but just hold the btc
most miners support who'll make them the most money.
jihan wu and his cronies believe getting rid of core will make him more money in the long run. right now btc1 is the best chance of doing that, though it's gonna fail horribly once again, so that's who he's supporting.
jihan wu and his cronies believe getting rid of core will make him more money in the long run. right now btc1 is the best chance of doing that, though it's gonna fail horribly once again, so that's who he's supporting.
you would be naive to think miners support x or y team. the fact is miners care about one thing only: more money. that is why they have invested in mining equipment, .... in first place.
we clearly saw where their heart is back then you could mine 1000 blocks per day on bitcoin cash chain. they switched in a heartbeat to make more money before the EDA kicks in. and they dumped it as fast as they could when it did and mining BCH was no longer "more" profitable.
p.s. do you have any reference showing core devs are not against increasing block size? i always though they don't want to do it at any cost.
we clearly saw where their heart is back then you could mine 1000 blocks per day on bitcoin cash chain. they switched in a heartbeat to make more money before the EDA kicks in. and they dumped it as fast as they could when it did and mining BCH was no longer "more" profitable.
p.s. do you have any reference showing core devs are not against increasing block size? i always though they don't want to do it at any cost.
I'm probably just being naive/stupid with the following, but here goes anyway.
Segwitx2x is fast approaching and I've been hearing a lot of bullshit about it from both sides. One thing that sticks in my mind though is the apparent miner support of Segwit2x. To the uneducated observer this would look like exactly what it is, that this fork has a lot of miner support, but, does it?
One opinion being thrown around is that while a doubling of the block size does have a large majority support from the miners, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the miners support dumping the core developer team and siding with the btc1 team.
Think about it, this shit is being a bit rushed, and despite what you think of the core developers these are the guys who have got btc to where it is today. Honestly, if a survey of the miners was done that said "who do you trust more to develop bitcoin? Core team? Or btc1 team?" what would be the answer?
Another interesting fact is that the Core team is not necessarily opposed to an increase in the block size, they just don’t want to do it yet. Especially in the rushed manner that btc1 is trying to do it. With this in mind, how many miners are simply signally their desire for an increase in the block size, but, don’t actually want the btc1 team to handle this increase?
I think an answer to this last question would clear up a lot of speculation and if the answer were to come back that the miners want an increase in the block size, but, the majority don’t want this increase to be handled by the btc1 team, this would shut down the NYA very quickly.
I wonder is it possible to submit a BIP that will allow the miners to signal for 2x increase in block size, but, for this increase to be handled by Core at some point down the track. Regardless, of whether Core does actually increase the block size. If this could somehow be done I think it would tell us a lot more about the intentions of the miners, and whose side they are actually on.
Or am I just an idiot.
Segwitx2x is fast approaching and I've been hearing a lot of bullshit about it from both sides. One thing that sticks in my mind though is the apparent miner support of Segwit2x. To the uneducated observer this would look like exactly what it is, that this fork has a lot of miner support, but, does it?
One opinion being thrown around is that while a doubling of the block size does have a large majority support from the miners, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the miners support dumping the core developer team and siding with the btc1 team.
Think about it, this shit is being a bit rushed, and despite what you think of the core developers these are the guys who have got btc to where it is today. Honestly, if a survey of the miners was done that said "who do you trust more to develop bitcoin? Core team? Or btc1 team?" what would be the answer?
Another interesting fact is that the Core team is not necessarily opposed to an increase in the block size, they just don’t want to do it yet. Especially in the rushed manner that btc1 is trying to do it. With this in mind, how many miners are simply signally their desire for an increase in the block size, but, don’t actually want the btc1 team to handle this increase?
I think an answer to this last question would clear up a lot of speculation and if the answer were to come back that the miners want an increase in the block size, but, the majority don’t want this increase to be handled by the btc1 team, this would shut down the NYA very quickly.
I wonder is it possible to submit a BIP that will allow the miners to signal for 2x increase in block size, but, for this increase to be handled by Core at some point down the track. Regardless, of whether Core does actually increase the block size. If this could somehow be done I think it would tell us a lot more about the intentions of the miners, and whose side they are actually on.
Or am I just an idiot.
Jump to: