Bitcoin Forum

As a result of the Beijing conference, the mining farm agrees to stick with bitcoin core and 1M plan.
Apparently they couldn't afford to lose the user base and the risk of their ASICs being rendered useless.

bitcoin酱：矿工缩了
http://8btc.com/thread-28217-1-1.html
http://8btc.com/data/attachment/forum/201601/20/174139fcy8sjm88ysyyy51.png.thumb.jpg

So, what is written here is wrong ?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/

Do not visit the document from GermanGiant, you will be tracked by USA.

USA FBI or some agency take over site "Reddit".

Organized group by U.S.A banks is posting to "Reddit" to convince everybody that hard fork must happen.

USA Newspaper washingtonpost.com posting propaganda that Bitcoin is failed and dead.

Mike Hearn developer join the side of USA banker to create Bitcoin alternative R3CEV

You are a psychopath. >:(

Satoshi Nakamoto will return. Mark my words.

As crazy as it sounds there might be grain of truth in this. After all bitcoin is not convenient for banks, government and other centralized organisations.
I wouldn't be surprised than Haern did something like that at all, he want to have power. And bitcoin is a collective entity, his words were ignored.

What he is saying might actually be true. They are trying to convince people to dump their BTC so the price crashes and it becomes useless.

i was aware that basically every chinese farm out there is pro 2mb change, you can even see so in the wiki info

are they against segwit too? because at this point, they are the only one hindering bitcoin

The above is pure FUD.  R3 is not a Bitcoin alternative.  It is not a peer to peer currency whatsoever.

I think banker conspiracies against Bitcoin are limited to Jamie Dimon putting out negative press.
Some banks may not like it but it will be a long time before it actually threatens their business,
and there's no evidence to suggest any meaningful conspiracy.

Would you please tell us who said what? And which mining farm they represent? The site has gone down and taken the image with it.

People need to stop following the banksters plans and start following their own understanding.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

-hey guys would you support our new Bitcoin fork that renders all your hardware useless?  We know you will lose millions of dollars but its for the best really...

LOL!

is the first part of you posting the translation from the text in the picture?

When did this Beijing conference happen? What did I miss?

Who the fuck is China? A dictatorship enslaving most of its citizens, executing thousands each year. We should definitely listen to them.

I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.

There are more people in China then any other country on this planet why shouldn't they have the majority of the hashing power? The US government or the Russian or the British are just as likely to crack down on bitcoin mining farms as the Chines Government.

Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville.

Can someone post an actual translation of what was said on the website?

No, you won't. Especially not if you use the right technology.

XT/BU/Classic is the side that is trying to power grab Bitcoin in the false pretenses of 'decentralized development' and 'multiple implementations is better'.

Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern.

It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand.

This is a fair point to make as they do not make the distinction between implementations that break consensus rules and a diversity of implementations  that cooperate with each other. Additionally, I have seen the same users jump from XT to BU to the now classic iteration going from 20MB to infinity to 8MB to Infinity to Let's vote on Infinity to 2MB BiP 102...

P.S.... I have nothing technically against BIP 102 with the right sigop protections ... but don't see any advantages above segwit to it technically .

I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY!

But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless.

Greg Maxwell was the one to say that if a fork happens where miners go to Classic, that he will push through a change to the POW so current ASICs are incompatible. Sounds to me like with that out there now, miners would be safer going with Classic. Is that what you are insinuating as well?

I'm pretty sure GMaxwell never said that.  He was asked to comment on the feasibility of such an action, and he confirmed that it could be done, hypothetically.  That's all.

What's false about it? 

I say decentralized development and multiple implementations are indeed better.

What is misleading about it is the "white lie of omission"  where you leave out some important details in your propaganda where you don't acknowledge the fact that multiple implementations do already exist with different developers and the fact that you don't make a distinction between implementations that are trying to change the consensus rules with the others and ones that cooperate, and the salient fact that Bitcoin core is working on libbitcoinconsensus to make bitcoin more modular for the express reason of supporting multiple implementations.

If you had more integrity your statements would be less misleading if written like this:

"I acknowledge that Bitcoin core is working on libbitcoinconsensus to improve modularity for the sake of cooperative implementations coexisting, but I am frustrated that more that only 6 full implementations exist and many other partial implementations. I additionally would prefer implementations that were competing with each other to change the primary consensus rules where the network could always be on the verge of a hardfork."

I'll PM lottery248 and ask him if he would mind stopping by this thread to translate the OP.

The issue is that, as it stands in society, more people are interested in checking out the latest social media fad or liking their friend's selfies than learning more about economics. They simply want to get paid, hit like, repeat, and die. Very few people, specifically the ones on this forum, are interested in doing other things in our lives.

It's actually really discouraging, but you gotta live with it.

I shouldn't have to contextualize everything I say, especially when certain facts
are obvious.  That fact that you're demanding I communicate a certain way and
accusing me of propaganda and dishonesty is petty and ridiculous.

Everyone knows that Classic wants to hard fork to 2 MB. It's right on their
website!   So stop acting like a tool, ok?   I know you're passionate about
Bitcoin, we all are.

I could say that your spin of "always be on the verge of a hardfork" is dishonest,
is propaganda, and lacks context (because I think it is and does).

I'd explain further if you were interested, but clearly you're not, and
anyway you are a bit too combative for me to have an intelligent
conversation with.

If Classic was successful with miners luke-jr proposed PoW change which was dismissed by Iriez and sipa see http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/20#l1453313394.0

Let's say more and more node operators continue to increase the limits for the size of blocks they are willing to accept.  They do this to signal to miners "if you want to produce a bigger block, I would be willing to accept it!"  Eventually, the "Wall at 1 MB" falls and a brave miner has enough confidence to try to produce a 1.1 MB block.  Let's image that block gets accepted into the blockchain.  

https://i.imgur.com/jLsnQmR.gif

In such a case, who was it that changed the consensus rules?  

Did the rules actually change?

How do we know what the consensus rules today are?

well maybe instead of the blockstream crew only arguing the politics of the r3 crew.. how about random programmers from all the different camps release a bitcoin-core that has 2mb limit.

that way there is no debate about r3 group as people can get a 2mb implementation from people that are not r3 related.

EG imagine the blockstream crew having 2 implementations: 2mb and segwit1mb.. and then let the community choose the preferences without having to be involved in the politics of the people behind it

holding the source code to only one download location and implementing only one rule depending on the politics of one party is the main debate.. so open up the politics and have both, that way people will finally see that there is no political agenda to worry about. and ultimately just whats the best FEATURES of the CODE, as thats all that counts in the end.. the code

http://8btc.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=28217&pid=354944


Translation: the original weibo is posted by P2PBUCKS, but he has already deleted it. It's still uncertain.

here is my possible translation: after the conference in beijing, the bitcoin core remains. bitcoin classic by Jeff and Gavin did not get the support throughout the bitcoin users in China. in the future, the bitcoin 'decentralized value of network', the transaction fees increases, in order to increase the miners. the full node user will increase throughout the network. the major companies will often use the 'super flash network' or viceversa to confirm/conclude the agreement.
china refuses to use XT, the core is now being agreed throughout the china. (in a nutshell)

if it is helpful, please tip a little.

relax
iceland (https://blockchain.info/pools) is taking over as the new spot for mining. and so far china only has 114 full nodes (2%) (https://bitnodes.21.co/) running so lets not be sheeple and follow china decision. remember 4800 nodes around the world can happily have 2mb in their settings and still receive china's 1mb blocks, because 1mb is still less than 2mb so there wont be any problem for USERS to upgrade limits and then leave miners to upgrade only when consensus allows it..
miners will stick to 1mb long after people upgrade. as thats how it works, miners stay a couple of generations of updates behind the rest of people, to ensure happy co-existance, and only upgrade once the community as a whole are settled and ready

so dont wait for miners to decide for you.. instead you decide for the miners.. they will adapt eventually when the time is right. just be sure your ready.

and dont worry about what bandcamp you get into.. there are lots of guides to tell you how to manually change the block limit even in bitcoin-core.. so dont fall for the political drama. just concentrate on the code

i would believe that this is a very great news to the majority of the core user, because they won't need a certainly large amount of spaces to sustain the bitcoin core, and besides it could help not to create a lot of electric wastes. that's good to the earth, but it would only lag the bitcoin blockchain when more people starts to use the bitcoin.  :-\

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but there's a mechanism for handling consensus disputes built into the code.
While I can appreciate that there is a human element, it doesn't mean that changes should be vetoed by any minority that decides it's not on board.

Game theory doesn't support that and Satoshi didn't design it in - this 'nothing should be contentious' property is something that has been described after the fact and it's not an intrinsic quality that Bitcoin displays.

What about we ignore your consensus?

nice to hear!

Scare tactics, trying to convince miners with false claims that Classic supports a PoW change because luke-jr managed to submit the pull request in Classic github calling for a PoW change. jtoomin closed it. Then gmaxwell suggested that changing PoW in Core would be on the table if miners adopted Classic. sipa reminded everyone (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/20#l1453313394.0) that changing PoW in Core is really off the table.

Its not scare tactics but a really old wish list to solve mining centralization concerns that we have had for some time. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

I agree that not every one of the 45 core devs will move over to the new fork , but some of them very well may and I would be interested in joining them.

They have more people than any other country but they only have about 20% of the global population, so why should they have more than 50% of the hashing power?

What they do have is cheap energy, but cheap energy accelerates climate change, which is a very serious problem.

isnt the best way to avoid mob rule to remove the block size limit from the protocol layer?

The electricity costs in Iceland are even lower than China, and it's mostly geothermal, so presumably not so much of an environmental problem.  Maybe someone should look into that... ;)

On the forefront it would appear that way ... being unrestricted and just allowing the free market to take its course. It may sound like a slippery slope argument but the same thing could be said about all other rules/restrictions within the protocol. Should we simply allow unrestricted sigops per block and let the market decide?

The reality of the situation is there are indeed restrictions and rules within bitcoin and for a good reason. It represents a careful balance of game theory and incentive structures that need to carefully reflect an understanding of technical limitations and economic realities.

This being said, it is a good idea to have many implementations of different devs cooperating or using coopertition with each other. The picture being painted of Core isn't quite accurate either with them being represented as controlling tyrants. Anyone can propose a BIP and anyone can contribute code to Core... sure it will be scrutinized and peer reviewed but that form of meritocracy is a good thing with vetting the right ideas.

i mostly agree.  the market does in fact decide what code to run in actuality.  if other constants become controversial, i'm sure there would be attempts to change them as well. 

Entrenchment is the hallmark of centralized development. Devs cooperating/competing within one repository doesn't really do it for me. 
I think perception of 'controlling tyrants' will be inevitable given that structure.

There could indeed be some further improvements upon governance within core as there appears to be an informal consensus being made where some developers are able to have a greater say than others(right now mostly because they have a proven record and are the most talented) ... but we could formalize a better governance model certainly that was more consistent.  

The difference between a democratic vote on the various implementations and a democratic vote within an implementation is great however. As the uninformed mob still may choose a conservative approach of picking the team with the most developers and highest experience out of fears of bugs and mistakes being introduced. This is both great in the sense that the best people are working on it and there isn't the most charismatic people voted in instead. Case in point -- Peter Todd is naturally hated by most for his contentious attitude and being obsessively stringent and nitpicky ... these qualities are typically abrasive and make him one of the worst marketing salespeople for bitcoin but one of the best testers, and troubleshooters and the fact that he is brilliant and a prolific coder doesn't hurt either.

consider.it may be good for somethings and I like the Toomin brothers but it is insane using that as a governance model.

It's funny just how riled up you get by the truth!

Like you are desperate to try and discredit it.

In your haste, you didn't even make sense!

perhaps we should return mining to individual wallets and eliminate chinese pools by replacing PoW with something energy efficient and more importantly 1cpu=1vote rather than the current "union block voting"

Exactly what is your plan to prevent 1 person = thousands of votes (botnet)? People sometimes tend to propose foolish ideas without looking at the global picture or thinking about various aspects of it. Let's not forget the fact that this would effectively mean throwing away over 1 Exahash of security.

I don't intend to insult you, but do you believe that you're the first person to think of this?

It's like saying "lets just have world peace".  It would be _fantastic_ to be in a world where hashrate was much more uniformly distributed. But wanting it to be true and there existing mechanisms to make it true (and to do so without even worse side effects) are not the same thing.

it seems Bitcoin Core BS whatever won't be seeing any more updates before July 2017 because the developers are too lazy to get around to it :)

what you're talking about, the roadmap is telling me that everything will be settled before the halving or around that

They are trying to convince people to dump their BTC so the price crashes and it becomes useless.