Topic: Epic, monstrous post of Jihan Wu (AntPool) - page 2. (Read 4816 times)

I think you never really gave it a thought what will happen when we would stay at having bitcoin reach a full block threshold and transaction amount still is rising. I guess you imagine something like slowly rising fees, right? In fact it will be exponentially rising fees because everyone has to compete against an always rising amount of transactions. Everyone does want to get his confirmation. You will have paypal fees in no time.

The attack vector against 2MB blocks, a transaction that possibly needs alot of time to get verified, has already been closed. There is a solution that only has to be included in core.

Considering these idiots are complaining that the sky is falling because they need to pay ~$.04 in fees per transaction, I'm guessing they aren't the ones using it. Further, I'd guess they don't hold very many bitcoins at all. But who's to say? Well, there's always Bitcoinocracy....

That BIP is horrible. Bitcoin can't support a doubling every two years.

There's that attack vector that a 2 MB block size limit opens up, but I guess that would be considered as "not evidence". Additionally, it gets worse the further up you go.

Not really, no.

Yes there is.

Even though I agree with forwarding with things like segwit, you saying that increasing the blocksize should never happen is a plain stupid statement. You clearly see the amount of transactions are rising all the time. Still you await somehow that scaling will happen. Well, you might think of not using bitcoin, and pushing bitcoin "papers" around like it's planned with Lightning network. Though that is not scaling the bitcoin network. It is outsourcing.

There is no evidence at all that increasing the blocksize is a bad idea. Everything stated against is "believe". Though that is true for both sides of course. Well, the increase side has the past on his side. It clearly was never a problem having blocks that could be potentially way bigger. Now that the blocks are full, and the lightning network wants to get his place in the game, it is suddenly a big problem.

I hear this "bitcoin is not a democracy" so often. Well, guys that claim that sound like some persons back from middle age. "The king will rule, long life the king." As if the king can never take foolish decisions. In any way... it is a very backward directed view in sight of development of mankind.

Or maybe those stating this feel like some form of anarchists? We do what we want. If you don't comply then live with it since we rule. Which turns it to not being anarchistic anymore of course.

Regarding fake nodes. If someone wants to call them this way... I have read that there is a not small amount of such fake nodes sat up with core nodes. Guess those are legit then because... this is no democracy. Screw those damn rebels who copy core and spread an unlicenced wallet copy.

 then we need a bladder piss test

It is not so bad, to the 4 pools are connected many individul miners who can change the pool if some pool misbehave. Im not fammiliar with the 4 pools, but Slush pool (about 3% of Bitcoin hashpower) have about 5000 active users (15000 mining worker units) working at any time...

BIP 101 would have increased the maximum block size "today" and then subsequently increased maximum block sizes in the future at a sustainable rate.

There is little reason why someone would want to use Bitcoin as a settlement layer, and for the most part, this is not how Bitcoin has ever been used.

There is not any evidence that suggests increasing the maximum block size today is a bad idea. Even if such an increase is "not needed" then there will be no harm in increasing the maximum block size because current modern computers and current modern broadband connections would be able to handle 2MB blocks. BTW, if you are against increasing the maximum block size today, then you should also be against SegWit because SegWit will increase the amount of data transmitted each time a block is found.

The idiots that you describe are the ones that give Bitcoin it's value because they are the ones who are using it. If you go against the wishes of these idiots for too long then there will be no reason why Bitcoin will have any value.

There is no such thing as a fake node, just because a node is run off of a VPS does not make it "fake", it means that the owner of such node is using the resources of a data center to run a node for one of potentially many reasons. It is probably a bad idea to run a classic node from your home because if you do, there is a decent chance that your ISP will get DDOS'ed and everyone in your area will potentially lose internet access (this actually happened to someone running an XT node).

The evidence and information says that increasing the blocksize now is a bad idea, and potentially ever. We can't live off constant hard forks to temporarily pay less fees for onchain transactions because that's as stupid as it gets, that's why we must focus on additional layers to scale a protocol just like it has always been done.

Bitcoin is not a democracy, thats why it has survived this long. Idiots that have no deep knowledge in how to scale a protocol have 0 say on this.
In any case, run nodes for whatever you want to support (as long as they aren't fake nodes like most of the Classic ones).

I would not go as far as to say it is a scammer trick, although it is a bit misleading considering slush's share of the total network hashrate. AFAIK most other pools do not allow for such voting, so it would not be accurate to say that the entire 97% of the miners that do not mine on slush are against classic, nor are they for core, it is that they do not have a mechanism to vote. Another pool that (somewhat) allows miners to vote is f2pool and roughly 4.5% of miners there are "voting" for classic, although miners there need to change the settings on their miners which is a more complex process then changing settings on an account, and voting for core is essentially the default setting for people who were mining prior to this option being enabled.

Wow, I didn't realise it was that concentrated. And most of that is in China too. What if the Chinese govt went full retard like the Venezuelan govt and arrested all the miners. Mining really needs to be spread out evenly across the globe so there is no single point of failure.

I've called them out on misleading charts before, but they always try using some straw-man arguments to get away with it. There is clearly a very low amount of supporters for Classic. Additionally, if you have read a recent article called "A date with Sybil" then you would know that the nodes are run by less than 300 people (according to the analysis).

Well it could work without a mechanism. Miners could easily show support (or "vote") by changing their pool.

Ant pool mentioned was implementing some kind of voting mechanism, any follow up on this?
I do think some voting mechanism is needed, anybody with Bitcoin can vote.

It's a scammer trick. That's the vote distribution on the tiny little baby pool that Slush still runs. That stupid graph only represents 3% of the hash rate. There is so much misinformation being thrown around here it's a wonder anyone can make a decision on whether their own bladder is full enough to take a piss.

Who cares what the miners think?  Miners can't change the consensus.  To change consensus, you must update every bitcoin node on the network.  Otherwise you get what is known as an altcoin.

A falsum.  If this pie was true, "Classic" would have forked their altcoin already.  And they may already have.  I don't think many people would notice, except for the handful of people who actually use "Classic".

wow

can you post the source of this graph please.

Democracy is not yet strong, I know. But still it has proven as a way better way for now. And the people don't agree to corruption so even lobbyist influence on politicians is a real point of critics nowadays. It goes in the right direction at least.


It's good to read that you say no one should follow blindly. Though what you should see is that many people that are screaming on one side or the other actually miss knowledge. I switched sides one time, well, maybe I switch more often on subtopics too. The point is that this happens when my knowledge is rising. So discussing the topics is very important.

But even when all facts are on the table, especially the topic at hand is a topic that leaves ALOT room for interpretation and guessing of the future. So what sounds logical on the one side sounds illogical on the other and vice versa. That surely does not mean that misinformations and FUD are spread out of bad habit but because it is the stand of knowledge or/and because you can ask both sides to the same points and both sides can show that they are right. So it's not really bringing anything forward claiming it is FUD.

False interpretation of my words. Look at how wonderful the democracies of today are. Seems to be a system that is working very well (a lot of countries being highly corrupted as a example). My wording may not be the best here as I'm not into politics.

So instead of reading, listening and learning the users should complain, spread misinformation and FUD since their technical expertise are severely lacking or non existent? Surely this will be beneficial to the system. I never said that Core should be blindly followed. Nobody should.

Lauda



I wonde actually in which type of country you live in. A democracy it surely isn't or you are the type that thinks "the guys at the top will do the right thing, they probably know better than me". Which lets me ask what kind of government you would chose.

Core fans always tell everyone that bitcoin is no democracy, well, it should. It has proven way too often that democracy is the best choice of governments. Even though our current democratic countries only have a homeopatic democracy. The democracy is so thin that it is practically not existing anymore. What is it worth when the citicens (demo-cracy = ruling of the citicens) has the right to make a single choice once every couple of years and the rest of the time they have to delegate their voice to others?

Anyway... you surely should have realized that most bitcoiners are not the kind of subservient and obedient citizens you might be.

---

arcticlava and sturle




These miners are pools too. So the question is what happens when the miners that mine on that pool direct their hashpower elsewhere, if they can? Would that have an effect?

I agree that the users have the power at the end. Though I fear most users are ignorant and would simply use whatever client they get handed out with an update.

Miners mining worthless blocks... well, that would only be true if the price of the bitcoins on that chain is falling down. That only happens by selling. Who will sell? Will the rich guys on one side sell their coins on the other side to bring the chain down? Or the other way? Worthless is only that is not wanted anymore.

---

Quantus



I think if the chinese government probably would simply take them out of the game. That would be not a big problem since the only harm that could do would be bigger timeframes between confirmations. It would be a hassle for up to two weeks minimum. The remaining miners would still earn the same that they earned before the pools were taken out. Though with the next diff update they would earn alot more than before. It would mean a new goldrush with miners prices rising very high.

It could not harm bitcoin at all. Only maybe some other forms of attack might be.

If they actually would force them to mine empty blocks then this reminds me of something. Wasn't there a rule of some kind that asic producers would implement a slightly different form of calculation into their miners? That was a precaution in case the algo had to be changed to keep some asics out of the game. I think at the asic goldrush times there was something like that. I'm not sure who dealt with that. The core devs probably.

So it might be possible to keep miners from these producers out.

thats because core started the delay and fud to avoid upgrading even from 2015. and wanted the increase to happen in 2017-18.(2-3 years)
if core implemented the change in summer 2015 with a 6 month grace there would be peace for a couple years.

core wants and loves the endless debate because it makes them feel powerful having people under their thumb pleading for them to do something.

they love and want contention, because it gives them power
they dont like it when we are not asking them to do anything as it makes them feel useless. so ofcourse they want the debate to continue endlessly

so is core running a sybil aswell, ill even spoon feed you examples and leave you to look at the rest

here is a majority of core using node hosting services
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=OVH%20SAS
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Hetzner%20Online%20GmbH
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Hetzner%20Online%20AG%20RZ
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=MCI%20Communications%20Services,%20Inc.%20d/b/a%20Verizon%20Business

and yes core shills also uses amazon.

enjoy counting how many nodes are core