|
Title: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 03:17:12 AM I urge the community to be extremely careful what they vote for. BIP 100 simply gives miners too much power.
We must remember bitcoin value isnt from mining cost but from the utility of the network: the merchants, services and users. Let miners decide the volume of the bitcoin network is a bad move. Our system has always been designed such that miners can be profit driven without affecting the protocol rules ( block rewards, avg block time....) Now BIP100 will let them to manipulate the voting mechanism for a short term gain. Bandwidth should be one of the costs of their mining operation. Make them follow the rules ( blocksize) and have no ability to change it for their profits. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: tokeweed on August 28, 2015, 03:27:42 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it.
Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: knight22 on August 28, 2015, 03:31:01 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it. Maket makers can still reject it. They are the ones ultimately giving value to the coins. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 03:31:16 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it. Wrong.... Miners can fork bitcoin to raise block rewards. Does not mean they will because users, exchanges and service providers wont adopt their fork. Bitcoin economy system isnt about mining. Ofcourse if a BIP gives power to one group, that group will support it. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: unholycactus on August 28, 2015, 03:35:50 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it. Wrong.... Miners can fork bitcoin to raise block rewards. Does not mean they will because users, exchanges and service providers wont adopt their fork. Bitcoin economy system isnt about mining. Ofcourse if a BIP gives power to one group, that group will support it. Raising block rewards with a selfish lucrative goal would instantly crash Bitcoin. How does BIP100 go against what you call "utility for the network"? Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: spazzdla on August 28, 2015, 03:36:50 AM Its less aggressive then gavincoin imo. Miners tend to love btc.. Although this wont always be the case so your concer is quite valid.
Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 03:43:26 AM Its less aggressive then gavincoin imo. Miners tend to love btc.. Although this wont always be the case so your concer is quite valid. There is no guaranteed long term commitment from miners. Any of them can quit if they face technological challenge. This alone can lead to manipulation for short term gain while they still hold good percentage of network hashrate. Just because you dont like one proposal (BIP101), you should not rush into another one. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 03:47:37 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it. Wrong.... Miners can fork bitcoin to raise block rewards. Does not mean they will because users, exchanges and service providers wont adopt their fork. Bitcoin economy system isnt about mining. Ofcourse if a BIP gives power to one group, that group will support it. Raising block rewards with a selfish lucrative goal would instantly crash Bitcoin. How does BIP100 go against what you call "utility for the network"? Blocksize limit should have says from all players of the game. Miners are known to be purely profit driven. They can only see short term gain (due to the nature of the industry )and thus give them power to do is a bad decision. Mining right now is very centralized. Most hashrate is from ONE country. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: achow101 on August 28, 2015, 04:22:31 AM So how exactly can miners manipulate the block size for their short term gain?
One scenario that I can think of are increasing the blocksize limit so that all transactions are accepted and confirmed and then they can collect all of the fees for higher profits. Another is decreasing the blocksize limit and hope that a fee market exists so they can earn more from fees. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: knight22 on August 28, 2015, 05:06:07 AM So how exactly can miners manipulate the block size for their short term gain? One scenario that I can think of are increasing the blocksize limit so that all transactions are accepted and confirmed and then they can collect all of the fees for higher profits. Another is decreasing the blocksize limit and hope that a fee market exists so they can earn more from fees. Exact. It gives incentives to miners to create a cartel lowering the block size and artificially increase fees. Like any cartels are decreasing productivity to increase their profits in a non competitive environment. BIP100 incentives are very badly aligned. No wonder why miners like it. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: uvt9 on August 28, 2015, 06:04:51 AM I have same concern, BIP 100 can't promise bigger blocks while it undermines decentralization by giving miners more control. I want blocksize increase but if i have to choose between BIP100 and staying at 1MB forever, i would choose the latter. Core devs need to reject this proposal.
Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Amph on August 28, 2015, 06:28:03 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it. Maket makers can still reject it. They are the ones ultimately giving value to the coins. in this case it would be bad if in the future miners themselves will become market also, even in some cases only i can see a big company of mining generating good profit and expanding their business to be a merchant also, only to take advantage of this issue Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: marky89 on August 28, 2015, 06:58:41 AM Its less aggressive then gavincoin imo. Miners tend to love btc.. Although this wont always be the case so your concer is quite valid. There is no guaranteed long term commitment from miners. Any of them can quit if they face technological challenge. This alone can lead to manipulation for short term gain while they still hold good percentage of network hashrate. Just because you dont like one proposal (BIP101), you should not rush into another one. Well to be honest, I felt a lot of pressure to support BIP 101... people have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, screaming about the sky falling because we don't have 8MB blocks yesterday. At the end of the day, bitcoin is PoW. Miners are kept in check by economic incentive (and disincentive)..... to suggest that they don't already have the power (ie to fork bitcoin) is silly. The beauty is that there are great disincentives to them irrationally doing so. Priority #1: consensus. If we want bigger blocks, we want a less controversial implementation that the vast majority of miners are likely to support. That simply isn't going to be BIP 101. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Kakmakr on August 28, 2015, 07:00:53 AM It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it. Wrong.... Miners can fork bitcoin to raise block rewards. Does not mean they will because users, exchanges and service providers wont adopt their fork. Bitcoin economy system isnt about mining. Ofcourse if a BIP gives power to one group, that group will support it. The miners is a very important part of the Bitcoin network, and they should have a more active role in the Bitcoin development. I am more worried about the control we are giving to the GovCoin groupies for their financial gain. Let's be objective, without the miners there will be no Bitcoin network. I also believe they have too much power, but say what you want, we need them to be able to use Bitcoin. The best solution would have been to develop a system where everyone could vote on this, but then the Chinese will win. :o Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: marky89 on August 28, 2015, 07:29:52 AM We must remember bitcoin value isnt from mining cost but from the utility of the network: the merchants, services and users. Huh? But miners are fundamental to bitcoin value. They secure the network. Competitive mining is what protects the neutrality of the network by preventing anyone from being able to block certain transactions. It also prevents anyone from replacing parts of the block chain to roll back their own spends. Merchants, services and users are left with an insecure network without a robust mining economy. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Nagle on August 28, 2015, 08:27:01 AM Miners make the rules. That's how the system is designed.
The problem is that the design didn't anticipate 2 or 3 mining pools being a majority. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: emelac on August 28, 2015, 10:18:36 AM So how exactly can miners manipulate the block size for their short term gain? One scenario that I can think of are increasing the blocksize limit so that all transactions are accepted and confirmed and then they can collect all of the fees for higher profits. Another is decreasing the blocksize limit and hope that a fee market exists so they can earn more from fees. Miners are already manipulating the block size for their short term gain. Some miners refuse to accept any transactions and mine an empty block because it's slightly faster to do that. It's not helping the network and purely selfish behavior to make more profits, but they are in it for the money. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: medUSA on August 28, 2015, 10:50:37 AM Without miners' support, we can't fork bitcoin to accept higher than 1M blocksize. It is important to have a majority in the mining sector to make any changes to the bitcoin protocol. If BIP100 is the only BIP they would support, then we would have to accept BIP100 unless we miraculously find hashing power to secure a non-BIP100 fork.
Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: colinistheman on August 28, 2015, 11:31:32 AM OP, I agree with you on this. I was studying the differences between BIP 100 and 101 and while at first BIP 100 sounds good, but it does put too much power in the miner's hands. It needs to be more of a balance. Mike Hearn best said it here:
Quote It [BIP101] gives miners additional power to modify the system for no obviously good reason beyond "some miners are saying they'd like more power". Miners are not the only stakeholders. Users, merchants, exchanges, etc matter too - if not more! The upper limit is meant to be a kind of DoS limit, to stop troll miners generating giant mega-blocks. It's not meant to be a stick that miners can use to beat important but voteless economic players. source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/oFmzqn46v74/B1CKY7bNBgAJ Miners vote for miners to be in control. I am shocked. [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3insp0/21_inc_joins_other_pools_and_backs_bip100/cui3r2h)] This is a slippery slope. It's easy to give more control to miners (they'll always vote for), but much harder to take away control, once they have it... [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3insp0/21_inc_joins_other_pools_and_backs_bip100/cui5roo)] Miners voting for miners to vote. Shocking indeed. [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3insp0/21_inc_joins_other_pools_and_backs_bip100/cui8ap6)] Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and Miners tend to favor BIP100. So what happens if all the merchants/businesses want BIP101 and the miners want BIP100? [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3insp0/21_inc_joins_other_pools_and_backs_bip100/cui892a)] If merchants and exchanges are only using a chain that's ignored by miners, it's a useless chain. It goes both ways. [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3insp0/21_inc_joins_other_pools_and_backs_bip100/cuif91l)] TL;DR: Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and Miners tend to favor BIP100. A developer working for a mining firm (Bitfury) proposed a solution which give miners more control, and this proposal gains enormous support from miners. [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3insp0/21_inc_joins_other_pools_and_backs_bip100/cuicxre)] Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: uxgpf on August 28, 2015, 12:05:02 PM Is it possible that greedy miners could try to squeeze more fees from existing transactions by voting for smaller blocks?
Maybe there's something I don't understand here. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Ingatqhvq on August 28, 2015, 12:13:42 PM Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: tiggytomb on August 28, 2015, 12:34:01 PM Miners make the rules. That's how the system is designed. I agree, it would have been expected or assumed that there would be many many miners and not a few large pools dominating. The problem is that the design didn't anticipate 2 or 3 mining pools being a majority. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 12:59:23 PM Without miners' support, we can't fork bitcoin to accept higher than 1M blocksize. It is important to have a majority in the mining sector to make any changes to the bitcoin protocol. If BIP100 is the only BIP they would support, then we would have to accept BIP100 unless we miraculously find hashing power to secure a non-BIP100 fork. Wrong, cant believe you're a legendary member and saying this. If miners forces a rule that we dont agree, we will have to ignore them and treat them as an 51% attack. Ignore the longest chain with checkpoints. However the economic incentives dictates that they will only follow rules by the network. Thats exactly how its always been. BIP100 will change this. The effect by their manipulation will not be seen short term or instantly as a 51% attack. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 01:01:20 PM Yes, we should reject BIP 100. but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it. So ask yourself, what happens if miners decide to increase block reward? create high minimum tx fees? Simple, we will not use their fork. Mining cost does not give one coin its value. Edit: everyone seems to think miners make rules or dictate the proposal. Thats a wrong. Miners are rewarded to secure the network. It goes both ways. Thats why its in their best interest to follow the healthy chain. They dont even give any rat about bitcoin, they're only in for profits. If merchants and exchanges dont support their BIP, thats the end of it. Simple as that. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: johnyj on August 28, 2015, 01:34:33 PM BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like
Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: turvarya on August 28, 2015, 01:39:19 PM BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: adamstgBit on August 28, 2015, 01:45:06 PM silliness,
letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: TinEye on August 28, 2015, 02:14:58 PM Yes, we should reject BIP 100. but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it. So ask yourself, what happens if miners decide to increase block reward? create high minimum tx fees? Simple, we will not use their fork. Mining cost does not give one coin its value. Edit: everyone seems to think miners make rules or dictate the proposal. Thats a wrong. Miners are rewarded to secure the network. It goes both ways. Thats why its in their best interest to follow the healthy chain. They dont even give any rat about bitcoin, they're only in for profits. If merchants and exchanges dont support their BIP, thats the end of it. Simple as that. but what happen if miners and a good percentage of big merchants choose bip100? at the end we must follow right? and they will be able to dictate what they want with the fees there was a case where bitpay was supporting XT for example, which isn't good for the rest of us, in the worst scenario a thing like this can kill bitcoin Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: johnyj on August 28, 2015, 02:25:48 PM BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: knight22 on August 28, 2015, 02:29:01 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: achow101 on August 28, 2015, 02:37:43 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: johnyj on August 28, 2015, 02:40:24 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: knight22 on August 28, 2015, 02:45:09 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 gives them incentives for collusion. That's how I see it. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 02:49:20 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value You've been crying about centralization of mining for so long everone on this board heard you. You say these evil mining corps are not what you saw in Satoshi's vision. You said the industrial mining only care to make money.... Blah blah So please dont embarass yourself.... This is why i cant never take you seriously Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: meono on August 28, 2015, 02:56:43 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 give incentives for collusion. That's how I see it. Exactly. We are not trying to fix a simple problem (blocksize limit increase) with a complex solution. Whether you like it or not it all comes down to if you agree with Gavin's preditction of technological growth or not. The blocksize limit should be increased accordingly to the techonological growth and ignores everything else. You're mining on top of Himalayas? Tough luck if you dont have network infrastructure to support it. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: adamstgBit on August 28, 2015, 03:02:03 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 give incentives for collusion. That's how I see it. Exactly. We are not trying to fix a simple problem (blocksize limit increase) with a complex solution. Whether you like it or not it all comes down to if you agree with Gavin's preditction of technological growth or not. The blocksize limit should be increased accordingly to the techonological growth and ignores everything else. You're mining on top of Himalayas? Tough luck if you dont have network infrastructure to support it. theres also the idea that sidechains will sgainifacily reduce traffic on the main chain. we should kick the can down the road and implement a more permanent solution like BIP101 if its is needed, not try to guess what the future holds. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: MCHouston on August 28, 2015, 03:06:15 PM When you get down to the core of Bitcoin it is mainly just the miners and the node operators, in most cases these are the same people. Only two things are really required for the blockchain to exist and bitcoins to be generated and secured, and that is full nodes and miners. As these are the people that basically run the network for everyone one else, why do you think giving them the ability to adjust block size is too much power?
Its not like you are giving the decision to one person or company, it will be many many companys/people. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: knight22 on August 28, 2015, 03:09:27 PM silliness, letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power" what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size? So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 give incentives for collusion. That's how I see it. Exactly. We are not trying to fix a simple problem (blocksize limit increase) with a complex solution. Whether you like it or not it all comes down to if you agree with Gavin's preditction of technological growth or not. The blocksize limit should be increased accordingly to the techonological growth and ignores everything else. You're mining on top of Himalayas? Tough luck if you dont have network infrastructure to support it. theres also the idea that sidechains will sgainifacily reduce traffic on the main chain. we should kick the can down the road and implement a more permanent solution like BIP101 if its is needed, not try to guess what the future holds. Although I am all for sidechains, forcing the market off the blockchain is a terribly bad idea. Higher fees on the blockchain will gives incentives to go offchain lowering incentives to miners to mine the blockchain and keeping it secure. The market should always have the choice to go where it see fit. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: adamstgBit on August 28, 2015, 03:12:24 PM When you get down to the core of Bitcoin it is mainly just the miners and the node operators, in most cases these are the same people. Only two things are really required for the blockchain to exist and bitcoins to be generated and secured, and that is full nodes and miners. As these are the people that basically run the network for everyone one else, why do you think giving them the ability to adjust block size is too much power? Its not like you are giving the decision to one person or company, it will be many many companies/people. because these companies/people might all decided to team up and harm bitcoin by lowering the limit so they can incress the fees. because obviously they would make more money if bticoin was <1TPS with 1$ fee pre TX. lol this agreement is invalid.... Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 28, 2015, 03:13:08 PM BIP 100 is still work in progress. maybe there will be some changes.
Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Denker on August 28, 2015, 03:14:23 PM Wow what the hell is going on?
Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101? This is getting more and more ridicolous. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: knight22 on August 28, 2015, 03:17:49 PM Wow what the hell is going on? Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101? This is getting more and more ridicolous. Debates are there to evolves you know? The final output and consensus might not be something anybody here can expect right now. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: turvarya on August 28, 2015, 03:22:56 PM BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything The only incentive here is an ideological one and that is just not enough. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: MCHouston on August 28, 2015, 03:24:28 PM When you get down to the core of Bitcoin it is mainly just the miners and the node operators, in most cases these are the same people. Only two things are really required for the blockchain to exist and bitcoins to be generated and secured, and that is full nodes and miners. As these are the people that basically run the network for everyone one else, why do you think giving them the ability to adjust block size is too much power? Its not like you are giving the decision to one person or company, it will be many many companies/people. because these companies/people might all decided to team up and harm bitcoin by lowering the limit so they can incress the fees. because obviously they would make more money if bticoin was <1TPS with 1$ fee pre TX. lol this agreement is invalid.... They can do this now. If every mining pool in the world decided not to accept any fees under .1 BTC per Kb this would be the same thing. Transaction fees are meant to rise at the halvings but only slightly, but just as now miners would never agree to something like a crazy price for transactions. Keep in mind that miners want more people to use bitcoin, your are paying them to process your transactions. So decisions that would force people to make less transactions or not use bitcoin is also bad for the miners. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Kprawn on August 28, 2015, 03:25:30 PM Wow what the hell is going on? Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101? This is getting more and more ridicolous. Nope, it's still the same two groups going up against each other to see who will win the popularity contest. ;) ..... The debate has become a little more civilized now, which is better than what we had before. I see no censorship against the BIP 101 too... and that is good too. I think the miners will have a bigger incentive to make a good decision on this one. You cannot make a decision that will kill the cow that is producing the milk, and that keeps them honest. For some of the other players, it seems to be all or nothing. ??? ::) Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: adamstgBit on August 28, 2015, 03:26:30 PM BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything The only incentive here is an ideological one and that is just not enough. if mining is at all profitable it should be possible to buy "cloud mining" that tend to break even in USD terms. invest 500$ into cloud mining get ~500$ worth of bitcoin over the next year. right now profit margins are tight, so this might not be possible, but we are also 2 years in a bear market... Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 28, 2015, 03:28:25 PM Wow what the hell is going on? Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101? This is getting more and more ridicolous. not "vs", just a debate. maybe it is better to launch 2 MB blocks at the begin of next year and win some more time for the evaluation. :-\ Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: Klestin on August 28, 2015, 03:41:14 PM Wow what the hell is going on? Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101? This is getting more and more ridicolous. It was BIP 101 vs no change at all, and now it has evolved to BIP 101 vs BIP 100. Title: Re: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it Post by: johnyj on August 29, 2015, 01:22:39 AM BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything The only incentive here is an ideological one and that is just not enough. These are not fansy numbers, but a very conservative estimation, I guess the real numbers is much higher than this. If you look at early days of mining, many people treat this as a hobby/game and they pay lots of money/time to play with the hardware/software, continuously build up the network hash power. And later, there are others with long term plan, treating mining as infrastructure investment towards a global financial system. They all contributed lots of time and money in the process, thus of course hold more rights to vote for the future of the system The real ideology is to change the rules of a global financial system by just talking ;D |