Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 12. (Read 38029 times)

I'd say he has a pretty solid handle on things already.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to argue that nationalities don't matter as many western bitcoiners, including prominent ones, cite Chin as a factor in their assessment of the success of Bitcoin or lack thereof.
It is almost like to say that on the level of atoms, there is no sexuality or race, therefore the society should heed nothing but laws of physics.
I agree that code itself doesn't recognise nationality, but it is not only the code, but people who are involved with it.

As you know this is unfortunately very true of the Chinese culture - again I do invite you to PM me if you want some help with explaining things to fellow miners (one Chinese is a dragon but many become worms).

Some believe that the Chinese community's interest being underrepresented at the level of core development is much due to the fact that as a whole they have been myopically focusing on making money and not paying enough attention to protocol maintenance. As a result, they have almost no say and are little more than merely audience.

In Bitcoin, only the code matters and the protocol is nationality-neutral.  So there is no reason for any particular group to feel sorry for themselves.

Core devs may listen to anyone they want, but have no obligation to obey them or compromise with some token of good will.

Honey Badger only eats the sweetest code he can find.  Right now, the best code is being produced by Core, but everyone else is welcome to try doing a better job.

Honey Badger's nature and purpose is to be condescending; opinions are of no consequence to him.

He does not have to do what Core or miners or anyone else says.  That's why we love him.   

But if any group of miners or devs or anyone except the socioeconomic majority could tell Honey Badger what to do, he would die instantly.

What do you mean?

I see.

Actually, I think more people in China are coming to realise that they may have nobody to blame but themselves.  And my company, HaoBTC, has been contemplating sponsoring a core developer recently.

FYI, Eric, iCEBREAKER is not a core dev.

canth obviously understands better than @Dan_Pantera how a contentious hard fork will play out.

I expect canth will easily refute Dan's latest FUD, as seen below.

Eric - I live in China (my Chinese isn't great but my wife is Chinese) - feel free to contact me via PM to discuss anything about this (I am not paid nor associated directly with any of the parties involved in these disputes).

What I do know is how to code raw transactions and write software (I've been a software engineer for nearly 30 years now).

I thought that the core devs wanted to listen to "the community"? Now you are telling me that yes, they may condescend themselves but whatever you Chinese may have to say, it is of no consequence and should have zero effect on the outcome because we know better? Excuse my poor English but this strikes me as a bit condescending.

Maybe those Bitcoiners should be more loyal to the Core team that got us this far, and less eager to betray them on behalf of some poorly-vetted pretenders to the throne.

Or maybe they like backtracking?  I guess it's a good exercise in humility to come crawling back to Core, head hung in shame.

So how do you intend to see through the fog of war, and discern which chain is truly the minority?

Did you miss the XT debacle, in which we destroyed their fragile command and control structures, while jamming their signals with false version flags?

Did you miss the part where spoofed nodes were being prepared to lead XT into the death trap of a premature fork?

Do you need to be retaught the same lesson every year, when the latest shiny new potential hard fork declares its noble intention to push aside all contention and declare itself The New Bitcoin?

Aren't you assuming the cypherpunks who built and maintain the systems you presume to attack won't wreck Classic in self-defense?

At the peak of it's popularity, in October, 0.8% of miners voted for BIP 101

As of today, 0% of miners vote for BIP 101

Thanks for the informative response.

It is helpful to clarify and confirm that some of the agitation for 2MB is merely for the sake of "a test of Core team's willingness to listen" (wherein "listen" actually means "obey").

A contentious hard fork is not a "a small compromise" because it puts the entire system at risk of catastrophic consensus failure (and will almost certainly crash the price).

The 'you have to give me something because otherwise you're uncompromising and I will pout' negotiation tactic will not work on Bitcoin engineering decisions.

Our Honey Badger really does not care about hurt feelings from pushy token-demanding nobodies (of any nationality).

If Honey Badger starts negotiating and compromising simply to appease emotionally needy peoples' pleas for a pat on the head, the Bitcoin experiment ends in failure.

I hope this helps you understand why a 2MB increase is not as easy as throwing a bone to a barking dog.

Funny how them shameless noobs just linked a sourcecode from some random twatter account..

So legit.

Total BIP 101 blocks:  0 / 1000             Total Classic blocks:  0 / 1000

Interesting.  Looks like "Classic" is the least popular of the various fork-altcoins.  Not very surprising.

Wrong.  I know the fscking difference between KiB, MiB and kB, MB, and I am not mixing them up.

Have a look at Blockcypher yourself when there is a congestion.  Someone have turned down the spam volume now, so blocks are less than half full anyway.  Blockcypher give the size in bytes.  Blockchain.info use kB (= 1000 bytes).

Keep your religion out of this.  Neither Gavin or anyone else have presented any convincing proof of how a hard fork would develop.  Just pure speculation.  The only thing certain is that total chaos will prevail until difficulty has caught up.  Mostly because some people are mad enough to run SPV clients, and a block size increase will make it harder to run a full node at the same time.  Miners want their coins to have some value, and the value will drop significantly if most wallets become useless overnight.  Fortunately, since segregated witness is under heavy development by a lot of of very talented people, and only a very few people and fewer merchants and almost no developers support the altcoins, I am not very worried.  The segwit testnet has lots of activity, and there is a segwit block explorer as well.  Why risk Bitcoin because some small minority og users and merchants want a worse solution based on untested software which doesn't exist yet?

I don't understand why you are so against Blockstream?  The developers working for Blockstream aren't trying to break consensus in any way.  They do that the rest of the developers and the community want them to do.  I have never seen Blockstream trying to force anything through, and there are often disagreements among them.  E.g. about the removal of the priority system in Bitcoin Core (not a fork of any kind).

Sorry, when a coin operate according to different consensus rules, it will be an altcoin by definition.  This is pretty much the definition of an altcoin.  The blockchain will fork into two different blockchains, and there is no way the Bitcoin blockchain will accept the altcoin chains.

Sorry, I don't understand your question.  Consensus is not a physical object you can look at.

Sorry.  I am completely not interested in your conspiracy theories.  I haven't even read what he is supposed to have written in this thread.  I understand he is going to stick with Bitcoin, and not create some altcoin, which is good.

WTF have you been  smoking?  Can I have some?

The general agreement is written in software.  Nobody can change it.  Not Adam Black, not the Toomin brothers, not you, not even Satoshi himself.  Any change will require cooperation among all users running a full node.

Consensus was defined long before Blockstream was created, and even before most of the existing developers had even heard about Bitcoin, and there are no plans to change it.  (Except for a few small groups calling themselves "Bitcoin Classic", "Bitcoin Unlimited", "Bitcoin XT", "Bitpay Core", and a heck of a lot of other scamcoins.

Again: WTF are you smoking?  Miners don't define consensus.  They don't have the power to change the consensus rules.  They may add new rules, but that's all.  A fork would be a malicious attack on Bitcoin, but it can be worked around.  Most importantly it won't affect Bitcoin nodes in any other way than slower than usual confirmation of transactions for a while.  Users of SPV clients may suffer heavy losses, on the other hand, but who cares about them.

You haven't presented a valid proof of anything whatsoever.

Sorry.  You have misunderstood.  Read again.  I am beginning to understand why other intelligent people here are ignoring you.

Yes, a hard fork is a clean cut.  It is how all altcoins have been created.  No relation to Bitcoin, except for a similar name.  

No, a softfork does not require everybody to migrate.  That's the beauty of a soft fork!

Really?  So what you are saying, is that if only a amall part of the network, let's say a majority of the miners and a few merchants switch to a different consensus agreement by e.g. creating a few million extra coins for themselves, the rest won't have to agree and upgrade their software?  They will just automatically begin using the new coin?  No, you don't understand the difference between a soft an a hard fork at all.  No wonder you are confused about this.

A chain fork is a split into two or more chains.  In a hard fork the old nodes won't accept the new blockchain, and you need 100% consensus.  Otherwise they will live on as two or more different blockchains using different consensus rules.  If you want to end up with one single fork, all users, 100%, will have to switch to the alternative ruleset, which may contain anything.  A softfork doesn't  change the existing conensus.  It only add new restrictions in a backwards compatible way, so old nodes don't have to upgrade unless they want to use new features.  As long as the new rules has a majority among miners, a chain fork is impossible.

Why don't you think it is dangerous to render SPV wallets unusable, btw?  While a soft fork cannot lead to loss of coins, a hard fork will.  Is that entirely unproblematic from your point of view?