Would miners switch, if most nodes where Classic nodes?

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: calkob on February 16, 2016, 03:51:26 PM

Just wondering what you all thought. I just seen that there are over a 1000 nodes that are Classic nodes now. If most nodes where classic do you think miners would switch to classic and start mining bigger blocks?

They may switch to Classic if everyone is on it, but they could still put a soft 1MB limit on the blocks that they generate for performance reasons. It may be better to keep generating and propagating 1MB blocks efficiently than trying to generate 2MB blocks for the additional scrap fees and having those orphaned.

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: calkob on February 16, 2016, 03:51:26 PM

Just wondering what you all thought. I just seen that there are over a 1000 nodes that are Classic nodes now. If most nodes where classic do you think miners would switch to classic and start mining bigger blocks?

Not as only reason. Also I doubt most nodes switch from Core to Classic anytime soon because of high network effect Core has and most people are very reluctant/lazy when it comes to change even if it is slightly better option.

Quote from: Lauda on February 18, 2016, 04:05:49 AM

Quote from: Cuidler on February 17, 2016, 07:45:36 PM

Generally if you count nodes only by unique IPs which coin.dance is doing, it can be trusted. Ironically the few days ago I checked, bit more fake nodes were Core ones, like fake 20% Core nodes and 15% fake Classic nodes (the same IP)

This is a very weird method that you're suggesting. So you're telling me that if I run two nodes on the same IP, they should be considered as fake?

I believe so because there is high likelihood these nodes are either on the same computer or on the same location like specific datacenter or room complex. I know some ISP sharing the same IP between its clients, so there is chance the same IP might be from 2 different individuals separated few miles, but most likely not - so it is good method to exclude probably fake nodes - or do you know better method ?

DarkHyudrA

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

English <-> Portuguese translations

Must remember that the total hashpower is not manipulable, while the full nodes is.
I can hire just for a moment very low end VPS just to increase the count of the nodes of some fork.

Yes, it's totally possible, just remember how there was the blockchain overloading because of simply testing.

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Quote from: calkob on February 16, 2016, 03:51:26 PM

Just wondering what you all thought. I just seen that there are over a 1000 nodes that are Classic nodes now. If most nodes where classic do you think miners would switch to classic and start mining bigger blocks?

Simple answer.No!
Nodes can be spoofed very easily and therefore shouldn't be used as parameter as long as we can not say if someone just set up a thousand nodes via amazon web service for instance.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 17, 2016, 07:45:36 PM

Both helping people to get 1st Bitcoin confirmation sonner so very important for Bitcoin surviability, and Segwit can be done only once, while you can increase base blocklimit from 1 to 2 to 4 then 6 or 8 or whatewer based on demand (number of people using Bitcoin) + technical possibility to keep node decentralization.

No. People tend to be very hyperbolic when it comes to this. They either say that the fees will skyrocket or that Bitcoin will die. Neither one will happen. Segwit is superior because it solves problems like transaction malleability.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 17, 2016, 07:45:36 PM

Generally if you count nodes only by unique IPs which coin.dance is doing, it can be trusted. Ironically the few days ago I checked, bit more fake nodes were Core ones, like fake 20% Core nodes and 15% fake Classic nodes (the same IP)

This is a very weird method that you're suggesting. So you're telling me that if I run two nodes on the same IP, they should be considered as fake?

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on February 17, 2016, 04:25:52 PM

Quote from: Jet Cash on February 17, 2016, 02:02:17 AM

2Mb seems such a simple change, and I guess that is why some people run with it. It would only be a temporary solution though.

2 MB block size limit solves nothing. Segwit on the other hand comes with many benefits.

Both helping people to get 1st Bitcoin confirmation sonner so very important for Bitcoin surviability, and Segwit can be done only once, while you can increase base blocklimit from 1 to 2 to 4 then 6 or 8 or whatewer based on demand (number of people using Bitcoin) + technical possibility to keep node decentralization.

Quote from: Lauda on February 17, 2016, 04:25:52 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on February 17, 2016, 04:21:38 PM

Correct, hence why I said nobody would really switch... Faking nodes could be easily detected, like the case you referred from when someone deployed a huge number of fake nodes. That's not support and makes your statement true.

I don't even trust the current number. It went up very quickly in a short period of time. I just hope that we don't go into some sort of "node wars" where each side keeps bumping up the number of nodes.

Generally if you count nodes only by unique IPs which coin.dance is doing, it can be trusted. Ironically the few days ago I checked, bit more fake nodes were Core ones, like fake 20% Core nodes and 15% fake Classic nodes (the same IP)

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Lauda on February 17, 2016, 04:25:52 PM

Quote from: davedx on February 17, 2016, 01:46:01 AM

But of course, you couldn't resist making a snarky correction, could you?
-snip-

Appeal to emotion and ad hominem. Classic.

Quote from: Jet Cash on February 17, 2016, 02:02:17 AM

2Mb seems such a simple change, and I guess that is why some people run with it. It would only be a temporary solution though.

2 MB block size limit solves nothing. Segwit on the other hand comes with many benefits.

Quote from: unamis76 on February 17, 2016, 04:21:38 PM

Correct, hence why I said nobody would really switch... Faking nodes could be easily detected, like the case you referred from when someone deployed a huge number of fake nodes. That's not support and makes your statement true.

I don't even trust the current number. It went up very quickly in a short period of time. I just hope that we don't go into some sort of "node wars" where each side keeps bumping up the number of nodes.

if lauda had his way we would only have 0.5mb blocks and then pressure people over to buy his allocation of the re-mined sidechains he is getting paid to try keeping the blockstream agenda ontrack.

he has become very narrowminded and blind to anything that is not blockstream to such a point that if blockstream was a 'basement' and someone showed him a window. he would say that the sky is wrong because its not made of wood beams.
the sun is not made of a lightbulb.

he cannot see outside of his little box

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: davedx on February 17, 2016, 01:46:01 AM

But of course, you couldn't resist making a snarky correction, could you?
-snip-

Appeal to emotion and ad hominem. Classic.

Quote from: Jet Cash on February 17, 2016, 02:02:17 AM

2Mb seems such a simple change, and I guess that is why some people run with it. It would only be a temporary solution though.

2 MB block size limit solves nothing. Segwit on the other hand comes with many benefits.

Quote from: unamis76 on February 17, 2016, 04:21:38 PM

Correct, hence why I said nobody would really switch... Faking nodes could be easily detected, like the case you referred from when someone deployed a huge number of fake nodes. That's not support and makes your statement true.

I don't even trust the current number. It went up very quickly in a short period of time. I just hope that we don't go into some sort of "node wars" where each side keeps bumping up the number of nodes.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: calkob on February 16, 2016, 04:43:09 PM

yeah but what i mean is, if most nodes are classic then surly that would show that the consensus is for an increase in the block size? Would it not be in the miners interest to go with consensus, rather than there own self interest, otherwise people will lose interest and use other coins to transfer wealth.

Yes, if most nodes were in fact Classic nodes, it would definitely be showing a trend there... But that's not the case. Don't forget that just because node operators change their client doesn't mean that forking to that client's rules is a certainty.

Quote from: davedx on February 16, 2016, 04:49:04 PM

Blocks have been mined with classic.

https://coin.dance/blocks

Thank you, I was unaware that one could already mine with Classic. Didn't see any warning regarding that.

Quote from: Lauda on February 16, 2016, 05:16:06 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch.

The number of nodes is not an accurate metric and technically can't be trusted. What I mean by this is that somebody could relatively easily start up a high number of nodes. Because of this, it might seem like there is support behind something when in fact there isn't. IIRC there was a day when the number of XT nodes suddenly spiked.

Correct, hence why I said nobody would really switch... Faking nodes could be easily detected, like the case you referred from when someone deployed a huge number of fake nodes. That's not support and makes your statement true.

davedx

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Jet Cash on February 17, 2016, 02:02:17 AM

2Mb seems such a simple change, and I guess that is why some people run with it. It would only be a temporary solution though. SegWit and sidechains are much more sophisticated, and I believe it is time for Bitcoin to start to mature and gain some sophistication, as it moves away from faucets and gambling towards more advanced financial applications.

SegWit is a temporary solution too. It's a space optimization that buys some breathing space. Increasing blocksize buys more breathing space. Neither solution is inherently bad, but Bitcoin Classic has the big advantage of being available today. Miners are already mining blocks with it in test runs. When will SegWit be available?

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

2Mb seems such a simple change, and I guess that is why some people run with it. It would only be a temporary solution though. SegWit and sidechains are much more sophisticated, and I believe it is time for Bitcoin to start to mature and gain some sophistication, as it moves away from faucets and gambling towards more advanced financial applications.

davedx

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on February 16, 2016, 05:16:06 PM

Quote from: davedx on February 16, 2016, 04:49:04 PM

Blocks have been mined with classic.

Do you not know the difference between singular and plural? I see only 1 block mined by Classic.

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch.

The number of nodes is not an accurate metric and technically can't be trusted. What I mean by this is that somebody could relatively easily start up a high number of nodes. Because of this, it might seem like there is support behind something when in fact there isn't. IIRC there was a day when the number of XT nodes suddenly spiked.

2 now. I was just making a point that it is possible to mine with Bitcoin classic software.

But of course, you couldn't resist making a snarky correction, could you?

It is literally impossible to have a civil discussion about Bitcoin forks with people like you. You just refuse to talk to people like human beings.

So, keep up the good work pissing random people off for no fucking reason. Maybe one day you will look back on all this and wonder why you were so butthurt about some open source software being forked.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: davedx on February 16, 2016, 04:49:04 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch. These nodes are just relaying transactions like Core, XT and Unlimited nodes... And last time I checked, you couldn't even mine with a Classic node.

Blocks have been mined with classic.

https://coin.dance/blocks

I'm Here.

I'm curious about the blocks mined by Classic - it looks like they are not larger than 1MB.

Will they be incorporated into the Core blockchain when Classic dies?

steeev

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 103

this thread's existence is the admission of failure by the Gavinistas, of course...

and the man himself was just talking truce, wasn't he ?

https://redd.it/45ym76

incidentally, what's that curious spike in core, xt and classic nodes ? strange...

http://www.xtnodes.com/#all_nodes

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Lauda on February 16, 2016, 05:16:06 PM

Quote from: davedx on February 16, 2016, 04:49:04 PM

Blocks have been mined with classic.

Do you not know the difference between singular and plural? I see only 1 block mined by Classic.

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch.

The number of nodes is not an accurate metric and technically can't be trusted. What I mean by this is that somebody could relatively easily start up a high number of nodes. Because of this, it might seem like there is support behind something when in fact there isn't. IIRC there was a day when the number of XT nodes suddenly spiked.

awww look at lauda still trying hard to earn his promised premined sidechain coins, keep it up lauda. i know you want blockstream to be the sole owner of bitcoin and charging others licence fee's and registration requirements just to use bitcoin.

im just glad lauda is not actually a bitcoin dev. and is just one of their religious flock..

because even with a larg majority of nodes that may swing in the favour of 2mb buffer. even with miners that may switch to 2mb buffer.. it will be the religious flock that will remain with their heads in the sand playing with clams.

where as smarter devs know that after april there is no need to stay blind to 2mb proposal as the malle would be fixed, and so if the majority of people want 2mb, they would move with it..

so goodluck to him and his clams and his promised sidechain premines. as his life is now not about monetary freedom but about making a quick buck by selling his soul to his cult leader.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: davedx on February 16, 2016, 04:49:04 PM

Blocks have been mined with classic.

Do you not know the difference between singular and plural? I see only 1 block mined by Classic.

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch.

The number of nodes is not an accurate metric and technically can't be trusted. What I mean by this is that somebody could relatively easily start up a high number of nodes. Because of this, it might seem like there is support behind something when in fact there isn't. IIRC there was a day when the number of XT nodes suddenly spiked.

calkob

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 521

Quote from: ShrykeZ on February 16, 2016, 04:58:49 PM

Very unlikely miners will switch, I think the vast majority of miners are happy with core.

Good for them but most users are not happy with waiting 3 hours for confirmation with a perfectly fair fee ......

ShrykeZ

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Very unlikely miners will switch, I think the vast majority of miners are happy with core.

davedx

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch. These nodes are just relaying transactions like Core, XT and Unlimited nodes... And last time I checked, you couldn't even mine with a Classic node.

Blocks have been mined with classic.

https://coin.dance/blocks

calkob

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 521

Quote from: unamis76 on February 16, 2016, 04:18:27 PM

No, just having more Classic nodes won't make people switch. These nodes are just relaying transactions like Core, XT and Unlimited nodes... And last time I checked, you couldn't even mine with a Classic node.

yeah but what i mean is, if most nodes are classic then surly that would show that the consensus is for an increase in the block size? Would it not be in the miners interest to go with consensus, rather than there own self interest, otherwise people will lose interest and use other coins to transfer wealth.

Topic: Would miners switch, if most nodes where Classic nodes? (Read 953 times)