Topic: Miners are obviously scared of UASF setting a precedent (Read 1628 times)

The miners are heavily invested in bitcoin. Why wouldn't they support whatever is needed for bitcoin to grow and succeed?

I do not think so. miners do not have any fault in this situation. ONly the pool developers, especially those Chinese. Everything they want is to refuse the segwit because they will lose the chance to control Bitcoin if SEGWIT activates

Ohhh, you again, with your theories that miners don't want to increase the blocksize?  When essentially every miner has been screaming through every possible channel to increase it for 3 years now? The same miners that signed the Hong Kong agreement to increase the blocksize, which never happened?  You just have to do some basic reading to understand that CORE is the only camp against increasing the blocksize. Every other sane individual that understands bitcoin has been waiting patiently (or impatiently) for this to happen. It's just a fact.

So please just try to read up a little on the subject you're posting about. Putting you on ignore. No offense

1. pools cannot just increase the block size with a click of their fingers... NODE consensus matters!!
as proven by
drama over in 3 seconds

Just for the fun of it, I really would like to see the dynamics of a UASF against the miners to force them.  So in a way, just for sake of experiment, I'd like to see that happening, because I think it would be a major fiasco, it simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, if the miners decide to HF before, you could always say that they did so because they were scared in the same way the Japanese could claim that the US was so terribly scared of their superior army that they threw them a few nukes on their head in 1945, proving the superiority of the Japanese army.  Yeah....

I'd like to see the experiment done with a UASF, honestly, to see how it turns out, so in a way, I hope the miners don't HF before, and spoil the experimental setup.

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

UASF have empowered the bitcoin holders so that the miners will have no choice but to comply with the request and wants of the holders and players of bitcoin.

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity

yes


more data needed for full node = less people running full nodes

Miners are scared of UASF actually being a success since it would set a precedent: If they don't follow economic majority, they will get weeded out.

This is why they are coming up with stuff like the closed door agreement with the software node by amateur developers.

The only way to get a reasonable hard fork, is if it's not rushed (4 months is rushed) and if it includes more technological innovations than a mere 2MB increase. There are lots of cool things we could add in a proper hard fork.

The miners are heavily invested in bitcoin. Why wouldn't they support whatever is needed for bitcoin to grow and succeed?

My line of thinking is that if transactions get too clogged to the point where users begin navigating to shitcoins, then the miners will have to smarten up. Though if they're just looking for a quick 6-12 month profit and then they move on to the next new thing then yeah I see your point. But I think the more civilized/professional miners will succeed in the long run, and in the process they'll help raise the standards of the industry. If you don't like bitmain then maybe try to help support bitfury

Will SegWit + 2Mb make it technically unfeasible to run a node from my home? If not I don't see the problem.

The miners are heavily invested in bitcoin. Why wouldn't they support whatever is needed for bitcoin to grow and succeed?

The miners are heavily invested in bitcoin. Why wouldn't they support whatever is needed for bitcoin to grow and succeed?

The word integrative means to join several parts into a whole. Conceptually, this implies some cooperation, or a joining of forces to achieve something together. Usually involves a higher degree of trust and a forming of a relationship. Both parties want to walk away feeling they've achieved something which has value by getting what each wants. Ideally, it is a twofold process.

In the real world of business, the results often tilt in favour of one party over the other because, it's unlikely that both parties will come to the table at even strength, when they begin the talks.

Nonetheless, there are many advantages to be gained by both parties, when they take a cooperative approach to mutual problem solving. The process generally involves some form or combination of making value for value concessions, in conjunction with creative problem solving. Generally, this form of negotiation is looking down the road, to them forming a long term relationship to create mutual gain. It is often described as the win-win scenario.

Integrative Negotiation Basics

Multiple Issues - Integrative negotiations usually entails a multitude of issues to be negotiated, unlike distributive negotiations which generally revolve around the price, or a single issue. In integrative negotiations, each side wants to get something of value while trading something which has a lesser value.

Sharing - To fully understand each other's situation, both parties must realistically share as much information as they can to understand the other's interests. You can't solve a problem without knowing the parameters. Cooperation is essential.

Problem Solving - Find solutions to each other's problems. If you can offer something of lesser value which gives your counterpart something which they need, and this results in you realising your objective, then you have integrated your problems into a positive solution.

Bridge Building - More and more businesses are engaging in long term relationships. Relationships offer greater security.