F2Pool「魚池」🐟 - page 13. | Bitcointalksearch.org

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: brg444 on January 16, 2016, 11:17:03 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 10:13:26 AM

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 10:13:26 AM

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Again, thank you for making a choice to support larger blocks, don't be bullied and manipulated.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 1798

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 08:37:40 AM

Quote from: kano on January 16, 2016, 08:23:45 AM

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end.

You've still not answered the question.
Pretty simple question actually.

This easier to understand?
"Are you trying to control bitcoin and force your decisions on everyone else, or are you using the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules?"

--

Going to 2MB seems rather pointless with a hard fork since, if it is necessary, then we'll need another one again not far down the road.
I would have thought someone was gonna be smart, and pick a more useful number, or code a miner voting method to adjust it so as to avoid simply putting the issue off to the near future yet again ...

However, my pool will gain from this change.
My pool can process block changes faster than any non SPV pool.
My pool averages much larger block sizes than any other pools (other than CKPool solo)
This change will simply mean we'll make larger blocks and get more txn fees.
It will also mean you will get more orphans.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Classic is doing everything it can to please you and minimize your risk with it's hard fork to 2MB. and they have Gavin and Jeff onboard. SW & RBF will facilitate LN payment channels that compete with your tx fees that you will come to rely on as block reward diminishes. you will feel this pain come July with the halving. SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Thank you for taking action.

CodeShark

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 08:37:40 AM

Quote from: kano on January 16, 2016, 08:23:45 AM

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end.

In Hong Kong you were directly introduced to some of the world's foremost experts and most knowledgeable people in this technology - and these experts were asked to make a decision. The overwhelming majority of them did make a decision (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/). Then some other people who lack the knowledge, experience, and credentials decided to fork the github repo, do a rebrand, and try to sell it as a competitor.

Don't fall for this trap...the debate is over.

macbook-air

sr. member

Activity: 324

Merit: 260

Quote from: kano on January 16, 2016, 08:23:45 AM

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end.

p3yot33at3r

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: kano on January 16, 2016, 08:23:45 AM

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Ditto - the way it's worded makes it sound like some kind of aggressive Bitcoin takeover bid......or is it? Huh

kano

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 1798

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 07:42:49 AM

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

macbook-air

sr. member

Activity: 324

Merit: 260

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

d57heinz

legendary

Activity: 1453

Merit: 1011

Bitcoin Talks Bullshit Walks

Quote from: macbook-air on January 15, 2016, 10:19:28 AM

Quote from: d57heinz on January 15, 2016, 09:42:39 AM

Hmmmm

Wonder why it is that you all decided to turn down the hashes??? https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/coinbase/btcusd

Greed is a nasty force in btc Grin

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/15/mike-hearn-resigns-and-leaves-bitcoin-permanently/

Ill leave this for you to dwell on.

If this is a good enough reason to not mine china pools i dont know what is

Sorry we do not accept the criticize. We are not blocking anyone from any other countries from adding hashrate to the network. Since Mike Hearn has “sold all his bitcoins”, I welcome him to set up his own huge mining farms in his own country using the money from these sold coins.

You dont have to.. but when your the only ones holding btc what will they be worth to you??? And more important what will they be worth to the rest of the world???

Best Regards
d57heinz

Mike hearns official statement

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.cxygsg9eg

"Even if a new team was built to replace Bitcoin Core, the problem of mining power being concentrated behind the Great Firewall would remain. Bitcoin has no future whilst it’s controlled by fewer than 10 people. And there’s no solution in sight for this problem: nobody even has any suggestions. For a community that has always worried about the block chain being taken over by an oppressive government, it is a rich irony."

macbook-air

sr. member

Activity: 324

Merit: 260

Quote from: d57heinz on January 15, 2016, 09:42:39 AM

Hmmmm

Wonder why it is that you all decided to turn down the hashes??? https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/coinbase/btcusd

Greed is a nasty force in btc Grin

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/15/mike-hearn-resigns-and-leaves-bitcoin-permanently/

Ill leave this for you to dwell on.

If this is a good enough reason to not mine china pools i dont know what is

Sorry we do not accept the criticize. We are not blocking anyone from any other countries from adding hashrate to the network. Since Mike Hearn has “sold all his bitcoins”, I welcome him to set up his own huge mining farms in his own country using the money from these sold coins.

d57heinz

legendary

Activity: 1453

Merit: 1011

Bitcoin Talks Bullshit Walks

Hmmmm

Wonder why it is that you all decided to turn down the hashes??? https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/coinbase/btcusd

Greed is a nasty force in btc Grin

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/15/mike-hearn-resigns-and-leaves-bitcoin-permanently/

Ill leave this for you to dwell on.

If this is a good enough reason to not mine china pools i dont know what is

Thanks to f2pool chart.. Gives a good look at how centralized it really is..

Code:

[b]Bitcoin Litecoin
Country/Province Hashrate% Country/Province Hashrate%
China 88.73% China 95.35%[/b]
Anhui 21.02% Sichuan 41.30%
Henan 10.33% Anhui 20.43%
Hebei 9.63% Heilongjiang 9.52%
Heilongjiang 8.22% Liaoning 5.46%
Sichuan 7.68% Jiangsu 3.28%
Liaoning 5.58% Henan 3.09%
United States 5.08% South Korea 1.98%
Shandong 3.65% Shanxi 1.94%
Jiangsu 3.55% Fujian 1.59%
Guangdong 2.73% United States 1.44%
Shanxi 2.03% Shandong 1.44%
Beijing 1.71% Hebei 1.31%
Jilin 1.66% Shaanxi 0.77%
Tianjin 1.23% Jiangxi 0.75%
Russia 1.18% Shanghai 0.68%
Venezuela 1.02% Guangdong 0.62%
Guizhou 0.91% Beijing 0.61%
Hubei 0.76% Nei Mongol 0.46%
Hunan 0.70% Zhejiang 0.45%
South Korea 0.70% Hunan 0.37%
Shanghai 0.58% Russia 0.33%
Jiangxi 0.55% Hubei 0.21%
Taiwan 0.52% Yunnan 0.21%
Romania 0.47% Malaysia 0.17%
Zhejiang 0.46% Ningxia 0.14%
Shaanxi 0.45% Guangxi 0.13%
Malaysia 0.42% Netherlands 0.12%
Fujian 0.40% Poland 0.11%
Iceland 0.40% Taiwan 0.11%
Ukraine 0.34% Lithuania 0.11%
Canada 0.24%
Vietnam 0.20%
Yunnan 0.18%
Guangxi 0.16%
Netherlands 0.11%
Bulgaria 0.10%
2016-01-15T12:00:00Z – 2016-01-15T14:00:00Z 2016-01-15T12:00:00Z – 2016-01-15T14:00:00Z

what confidence will users have when most of mining is done in a country not known for its freedoms.. And damn look at ltc.. If its not almost entirely controlled by chinese.. How sad.. Just shows what money and greed can do to a person.. Got to have it all ehhh. Well the more and more i think about it maybe we need to start looking here instead of another monetary system..

https://www.thevenusproject.com/

adaseb

legendary

Activity: 3738

Merit: 1708

Quote from: joaogti36 on January 12, 2016, 06:23:23 PM

lo there... i saw a few days that coins per THs dropped from 516 to 464... is there a reason?

The difficulty went up, it also going to go lower in about 10 minutes or so.

joaogti36

full member

Activity: 162

Merit: 100

lo there... i saw a few days that coins per THs dropped from 516 to 464... is there a reason?

macbook-air

sr. member

Activity: 324

Merit: 260

Quote from: ltguk on January 10, 2016, 11:15:13 PM

Hi there, I just signed up on the F2pool. Now I need to 'invest' (I believe 4 pps is the payout scheme) my BTC in cloud mining with them what do I do? The webpage only has sections configuration payouts etc. Thanks for your help in advance. Again sorry if this is not the right thread. I have been introduced to bitcoin 72 hours and now I can't sleep!!!

You can buy hardware miners to mine at our pool. We do not accept any 'invest' other than that. Beware of scams.

ltguk

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 1

Hi there, I just signed up on the F2pool. Now I need to 'invest' (I believe 4 pps is the payout scheme) my BTC in cloud mining with them what do I do? The webpage only has sections configuration payouts etc. Thanks for your help in advance. Again sorry if this is not the right thread. I have been introduced to bitcoin 72 hours and now I can't sleep!!!

adaseb

legendary

Activity: 3738

Merit: 1708

Quote from: macbook-air on January 02, 2016, 05:29:18 PM

To whom it may concern, we have a page to show user hashrate by country/province at https://www.f2pool.com/regions update bi-hourly.

Holy, pretty much nobody in the USA and Canada according to that chart.

macbook-air

sr. member

Activity: 324

Merit: 260

To whom it may concern, we have a page to show user hashrate by country/province at https://www.f2pool.com/regions update bi-hourly.

Topic: F2Pool「魚池」🐟 - page 13. (Read 169327 times)