Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 23.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 10:07:53 AM

Are you actually serious, or is this some form of sophisticated propaganda ?

It seems rather obvious that you are in fact part of some sort of sophisticated propaganda.

I don't think I care to bother with you any more (so please stop wasting my time with your stupid replies).

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: canth on January 29, 2016, 10:04:42 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on January 29, 2016, 09:57:47 AM

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, breaking bitcoin's consensus, ~~you'll loose money.~~ we all loose money (and maybe Bitcoin).

Simple as that.

Umm, no. Only the weaker branch without the economic majority can lose money and even that's fairly hard to do.

Presuming Classic BIP is the one we are talking about:

Step 1) 750/1000 blocks mined indicating support
Step 2) 28 days pass
Step 3) At some point a miner creates a >1.0 MB block
Step 4) Either miners build off this larger block or reject it, continuing on the 1MB chain
Coinbase/BitPay/Bitfinex/etc have all indicated whether or not they accept larger blocks
Step 5) Miners stop mining on whichever chain ends up shortest. Doing anything else loses them piles of short term money.
Step 6) end of story...anyone on the wrong side of the fork will stop seeing new blocks

Any miner here want to commit to mining on the minority chain?

You dont knwo what you are talking about.

It is not about a chain with most VCs backed useless startups, or clueless powerful miners, that shall necessarily be considered VALID.
It is purely ideological in fact, and it is quite likely that bitcoiners would not give a damn about some Coinbase, pardon GoldmanSachsCoin.

The ones that will break consensus will end up bankrupt on their forked shitcoin. Its pretty obvious.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 10:04:12 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 10:01:44 AM

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

Well, using this way of thinking you could say that horse carriage inventors invented cars (because car is essentially just a horse carriage with combustion engine, right ?).

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 09:57:18 AM

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain. It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way.

Why do they need a 2MB block chain?
(so far the answer is just "because Gavin says so" and "maybe this is a popular thing")

Are you actually serious, or is this some form of sophisticated propaganda ?

You know, the blocks are actually getting quite full NOW. Also, guess what: in peak hours blocks get completely full (huge transaction backlog).

And SegWit is realistically at least 2 years from ready (including testing, implementation in all other clients and so).
Lightning Network is realistically at least 3-4 years from ready (including testing, implementation in all other clients and so).

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin
https://www.google.pl/search?q=mempool+backlog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=rH-rVtyGKIX1UpKpt6AL

You can't wait for a complex magical unicorn like LN or SegWit for come and save the day, while we have a practical, working solution right now and it can be deployed in hours.

This is some pretty obvious stuff, If you don't know this you must be pretty uninformed or you have a hidden agenda.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: canth on January 29, 2016, 10:06:06 AM

Yes, but that happened in 1997. 11 years passed before someone figured out how to use it and invent Bitcoin - the fact that he takes credit for inventing Bitcoin in this manner shows insights into the level of ego we are talking about.

Please quote where he does (I remember from when he joined this forum after me that he said in his sig that he invented Hashcash but not Bitcoin).

So "I'm calling bullshit".

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 10:04:12 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 10:01:44 AM

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

Yes, but that happened in 1997. 11 years passed before someone figured out how to use it and invent Bitcoin - the fact that he takes credit for inventing Bitcoin in this manner shows insights into the level of ego we are talking about.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Eric Mu on January 29, 2016, 10:03:22 AM

Quote from: Norway on January 29, 2016, 09:25:00 AM

Quote from: Eric Mu on January 29, 2016, 06:12:06 AM

Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

Hi Eric,

What do you think about the Classic implementation? What does chinese miners think about it?

Many Chinese Bitcoiners - not only miners, but also exchanges and wallet services, originally supported Classic for its support of 2MB block size, but after meeting Jeff Garzik in Beijing, many backtracked because they didn't believe that the team behind is capable or there is a roadmap.

LMao, poor Jeff.. XD

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: hdbuck on January 29, 2016, 09:57:47 AM

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, breaking bitcoin's consensus, ~~you'll loose money.~~ we all loose money (and maybe Bitcoin).

Simple as that.

Umm, no. Only the weaker branch without the economic majority can lose money and even that's fairly hard to do.

Presuming Classic BIP is the one we are talking about:

Step 1) 750/1000 blocks mined indicating support
Step 2) 28 days pass
Step 3) At some point a miner creates a >1.0 MB block
Step 4) Either miners build off this larger block or reject it, continuing on the 1MB chain
Coinbase/BitPay/Bitfinex/etc have all indicated whether or not they accept larger blocks
Step 5) Miners stop mining on whichever chain ends up shortest. Doing anything else loses them piles of short term money.
Step 6) end of story...anyone on the wrong side of the fork will stop seeing new blocks

Any miner here want to commit to mining on the minority chain?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 10:01:44 AM

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

Eric Mu

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 500

Quote from: Norway on January 29, 2016, 09:25:00 AM

Quote from: Eric Mu on January 29, 2016, 06:12:06 AM

Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

Hi Eric,

What do you think about the Classic implementation? What does chinese miners think about it?

Many Chinese Bitcoiners - not only miners, but also exchanges and wallet services, originally supported Classic for its support of 2MB block size, but after meeting Jeff Garzik in Beijing, many backtracked because they didn't believe that the team behind is capable or there is a roadmap.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: hdbuck on January 29, 2016, 09:57:47 AM

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, you'll loose money.

Simple as that.

Oh yeah, you are right.

Bitcoin Core is the fork that is contentious. It forked off the original vision of Satoshi.

1MB LIMIT was **never** supposed to be any kind of economical limit. It was only a quick-fix for DDoS and (at the time) it was at least million of times bigger than average block size.
So, if we would keep the ratio, today the block size LIMIT should be at least 1GB.

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 09:57:18 AM

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain. It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way.

Why do they need a 2MB block chain?

(so far the answer is just "because Gavin says so" and "maybe this is a popular thing")

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, breaking bitcoin's consensus, ~~you'll loose money.~~ we all loose money (and maybe Bitcoin).

Simple as that.

edit: and it is not just "blockstream" or "core devs" that do not want hardfork. Lots of people disagree with bumping the blocksize, and as Gmax highlighted it, there are lots of pitfalls to do so.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 09:47:30 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 09:45:58 AM

I am discussing very serious issues indeed. Namely, the corruption and obvious conflict of Interest of BitcoinCore and Blockstream.

In that case you should of course have worked out that the Core Devs do not all work for Blockstream (not even half of them do).

So what about the other half of them?

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain. It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way. Any developer in it for the good of Bitcoin would simply start working on code for the new chain.

Any developer in it for themselves (or profit, IE Blockstream devs) would complain and/or quit. We see that already. Tell me, if they are in it for the good of Bitcoin, why on Earth would they quit instead of trying to make the new fork the best it can possibly be?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 09:54:29 AM

Hah. You are so easy & naive.

Well calling your elders "naive" is just a form of insult - and as you are younger then I'll just say: "screw you" (I feel no reason to be polite to you as you bring no intellectual interest to anything whatsoever).

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 09:47:30 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 09:45:58 AM

I am discussing very serious issues indeed. Namely, the corruption and obvious conflict of Interest of BitcoinCore and Blockstream.

In that case you should of course have worked out that the Core Devs do not all work for Blockstream (not even half of them do).

So what about the other half of them?

Also corrupted because "you think so"?

Hah. You are so easy & naive.

Obviously, not all of them have to be corrupted for the Core to be corrupted. If only the ones at the steering wheel will be corrupted and the others are not, but will agree to everything the management does, the outcome will still be the same.

I mean what the hell are we even talking about ? Are you even familiar with the events of last 2 weeks ? The events of last 10 days should be enough for every good, honest & truthful person to hate Blockstream & Bitcoin Core for eternity !

I got the feeling we are not on the same page here.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 09:45:58 AM

I am discussing very serious issues indeed. Namely, the corruption and obvious conflict of Interest of BitcoinCore and Blockstream.

In that case you should of course have worked out that the Core Devs do not all work for Blockstream (not even half of them do).

So what about the other half of them?

Also corrupted because "you think so"?

(personally I am beginning to think whatever you think is just rubbish)

So - why don't you stop with the rubbish posts thinking that you have some sort of authority here to say who is corrupt or not?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 09:42:21 AM

Is that some sort of "smartass reply"?

If so then I'll just ignore it.

(I thought we were trying to discuss some serious issues here)

I am discussing very serious issues indeed. Namely, the corruption and obvious conflict of interest of BitcoinCore and Blockstream.

However I have no idea what are you discussing.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

@eric@haobtc

The most important and wise thing for you and all the chinese miners to do is to completely leave Bitcoin Core.

Even if Bitcoin Core agrees to 2MB, still:
- They are broken & corrupt with power,
- They think they always know everything better,
- They don't give a fuck (no, really) about what the users want
- They (most probably) use censorship to force their view on users

Whether Core can compromise or not, they just need to go. Such corrupt, insane & power-hungry people cannot steer Bitcoin into success.

Want proof ? Just check Adam Back's (Blockstream's President) twitter profile. The guy thinks he actually invented Bitcoin ! If that is not insanity, I don't know what is.

EDIT:
Here, archived for posterity:

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 09:38:36 AM

You even talking to me ?

I am not sure, because you are completely not on topic.
[/quote]

Is that some sort of "smartass reply"?

If so then I'll just ignore it.

(I thought we were trying to discuss some serious issues here)

Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 23. (Read 38062 times)