There is no source. That's the estimate that people believe Bitmain has produced so far. I doubt you could provide a source for any exact number (unless Bitmain publicizes the number of shipped miners, but even that is not enough).
so in short you have just seen the 70% nay sayer /abstainer and just named that your 70% "bitmain" estimate... (facepalm) You don't have any proof that supports any other views. This is a reasonable estimate considering the current state of the ASIC manufacturing industry. The only one who should facepalm is yourself for your own ignorance. i guess you missed my subtly in the other post where i said i hope im not too subtle. you may want to re-read it |
|
|
|
There is no source. That's the estimate that people believe Bitmain has produced so far. I doubt you could provide a source for any exact number (unless Bitmain publicizes the number of shipped miners, but even that is not enough).
so in short you have just seen the 70% nay sayer /abstainer and just named that your 70% "bitmain" estimate... (facepalm) |
|
|
|
proof of claim?
and dont quote reddit / twitter
Estimations based on reasonable assessment of the ecosystem. Does that even ring a bell for you? Almost ALL of your posts don't have any sources, yet you keep asking for them in nonsensical situations. Please give me the huge list of current ASIC manufacturers (who sell to individuals in normal quantities).  i canaan should mention a few, but ill leave you to ebang your heads against a wall to show your "estimates" and "assessments" claims. also i am not gonna get baited into the loaded questions of useless hardware such as USB devices. so i will just let you get a bitfuryous about me not spoonfeeding you the data, and instead wait for you to show where you lot got your 70% figures from. too many people are quoting 70% so i want to see your source hopefully i have not been too subtle |
|
|
|
bitmain (with 70% of miner production and largest mining pool)
proof of claim? and dont quote reddit / twitter |
|
|
|
it's freaking pathetic to see what r/btc has become. i started off checking there sometimes and then rapidly found myself rolling my eyes at almost every thread. at this point it's beyond redemption.
same goes for r/bitcoin best advice just stay away from reddit... its just like fox news |
|
|
|
This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck }   finally someone gets it |
|
|
|
pie charts of nodes but doesnt show proof of backing (no ip lists) - result, ignore it and trust bitnodes as better source "community measure" weighted to exaggerate results. where some of the advocates are just consultants that dont need nodes, or have listed their 3 subsiduaries as 3 separate votes even though its the same 'team' in all 3 votes.. also only a small selection of bitcoin merchants - result biased limited overview questionnaire of 61 people, hmm who got told where to vote - result biased by spamming link to only one side
also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff.. if billy not around lauda will each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it P.S want to see the narrative control  P.P.S question 4 (as advertised by lauda and other) is do you want MINERS to activate BU .. if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data |
|
|
|
I think it is obvious that the backdoor is purposely included, although most likely there is no plan to use it. However, this is still a betrayal of the trust of everyone using the antminers. a node
FTFY and now you are talking about the bip9 node bypass backdoor PS even gmax and luke both admit that using the 'anyonecanspend' is a backdoor to go soft. and intent to make it easier to do things soft in the future by opening the backdoor wider which they did exactly that with bip9 and UASF and more things to come now imagine this what if hearne did what blockstream devs did.. (the only way to possibly get blockstreamists to think outside of the box) |
|
|
|
the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware.
proof of claim? please dont refer to reddit or twitter P.S achow, remember last year i presented the anyonecanspend issue and for a month you said it was nothing. now ask yourself a year later 1. why is core is coded to prevent old nodes (downstream) from getting unconfirmed segwit keys 2. why is core is coded to prevent old pools allowed to add a segwit tx in a non segwit block have a nice day.. it only took months for them to realise the risks and then change a few things, including waiting till way after segwit activates before releasing the wallet activated version of segwit on mainnet p.p.s are you and lauda still making money from people with core issues, and not even bothering to report the issue to core to fix so fture people dont run into the issue? |
|
|
|
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network?
if you think jihan owns the whole 9time of posting) 67% nay sayer/abstainers.. then maybe its time you done some research i find it funny how all the blockstreamists are throwing around the 70% 'control' and blame jihan, bomb jihan bomb china, without doing any realistic and rational thinking reddit scripts are sounding too much like fox new scripts these days.. western countries wants the middle-east (1900-2000) western countries bomb the middle east (otterman war-iraq/gulf wars) middle east fight back western countries throw a victim card and do the fox news media stories of 'bomb them, bomb them bomb them' blockstream wants bitcoin as theirs, where blockstream is the engine and at the centre of bitcoin.. at its 'core' blockstream REKT anything outside of blockstream support anything outside of blockstream support fight back blockstream throw a victim card and do the reddit script stories of 'bomb them, bomb them bomb them' |
|
|
|
I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.
bitmain having a switch in its own server, that only affects only its own equipment, which will cause its customers to request refunds. hmm oh and also if they wanted it as a weapon they would have pulled the trigger already however this last month has all been about blockstream flock trying to find any bug in anything not blockstream advocated.. but not willing to listen when code made by blockstream has flaws |
|
|
|
3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demenads or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen
This has no relevance to my post, the thread or anything at all actually (putting aside it being nonsensical). this topic is about finding a bug in anything thats not in full core support. where the core group are trying to find any excuse to pull the UASF pin on pools to get their way |
|
|
|
2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network
Which is completely far-fetched from reality. Statements like these prove that you're either a delusional individual or a paid shill. bip 9 deadline from november 2016 - november 2017 BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach. basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)
a->b->c UASF deadline from august 2017 to november 2017 if there are still nay sayers.. a mandatory activation by late 2018 blockstream cannot take no for an answer instead of doubling down on threats.. the blockstream team and fanboys should think of plan B if they are going to pull a pin actually recode sgwit to be 1 merkle and a proper network wide 4mb that is also dynamic and add other community desird features. dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network |
|
|
|
Nonsense. This code does what it was intended to do, therefore not a bug per definition. This makes them even look more ridiculous. 
Classic example of a shill:  1. if any brand thats not blockstream wanted to kill bitcoin they would have pulled the pin already or atleast set deadlines 2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network 3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demands or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen |
|
|
|
dont worry about lauda he has not learned c++ to learn/read the code or read more than a couple paragraphs of the documentation. he spends too much time on reddit with the tl:dr; short scripted bias thoughts to defend blockstream.... not the bitcoin network but i will not waffle and will keep things short for his benefit 1. blockstream(core) went soft to bypass node consensus. 2. blockstream(core) are getting angry all their all-inclusive long weekends they paid for pools, was not enough to buy pools into automatic yays 3. blockstream(core) have now employed their pool banning ambassador to turn say 80% to 95% or above 4. blockstream(core) and their flock of fanboys pretend chain splits are bad, but then demand all implementations not core to F**k off evidence 1. december 2015 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki2. round table events.. p.s BTCC jumped in real quick due to the DCG funding linking blockstream to http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b3. samson mow USAF https://blockstream.com/team/samson-mow/ - chief strategy officer @ blockstream, marketing strategist, 4. ReKT campaigns, calling them altcoins begging them to fork off however its the other implementations that are not core that are the ones plodding along, no threats, no demands, no deadlines no biased node/pool killing code.. just letting people have a free open choice . infact when actually offered a change to split off. they refused and laughed at the desparation lauda may post "wrong because wrong" or "wrong because i insult you to make you sound bad" or "you are just a shill" but all he is doing is protecting blockstream by trying to put people into different groups. a couple years ago it was xt, then classic now bu.. purely because he doesnt understand people care more about a diverse decentralised peer network.. rather than blockstreams puppet master devs |
|
|
|
Finex is just frozen cause banks being a beech. (Well's Fargo in particular)
actually bitfinex 'dun goofed' they thought by using tether they didnt have to follow al fiat regulations. but because tether is a 1:1 pegged currency to fiat, it is deemed as a 'virtual/e-money' representation of fiat' and thus still has to abide by fiat regulations.. much like paypal dollars in their mysql database is not real fiat, it is 'virtual/e-money representation of fiat' bitfinex withdrew its complaint against wells fargo because they realised they 'dun goofed' and wouldnt win against wells fargo |
|
|
|
I've read conflicting reports as to whether or not there is a deeper affiliation between the USDT devs and Bitfinex management. I saw some posts claiming there was a parent company that owned both -- anyone know if this was definitively debunked?
https://tether.to/legal/1.1.2 “Associates” means Tether Limited, Tether Holdings Limited, BFXNA Inc., iFinex Inc., and each and every one of their respective shareholders, subsidiaries, employees, contractors, agents, directors, officers, partners, affiliates, insurers, and attorneys; https://www.linkedin.com/in/reevecollinsAlways on the cutting edge of technology, Collins has been a pioneer in the Bitcoin/Blockchain space and was co-founder and CEO of Tether. His efforts revolutionized the way currency is transacted by creating the world’s first fiat currency platform on the Bitcoin blockchain. In just over one year from inception, Tether was acquired by Bitfinex the world's largest bitcoin exchange. https://themerkle.com/wells-fargo-blocks-180m-in-funds-belonging-to-ifinex-and-tether-customers/ifinex taking banks to court lol sorry but just because ifinex uses "usdT" does not make them absolved from fiat regulations. any virtual currency that is easily transferable (paypal dollar to fiat dollar.. tether dollar to fiat dollar) where its pegged 1:1.. the 'virtual currency' is treated as if it is fiat. so although bitfinex uses bitcoin.. its still ALSO playing with something thats deemed as fiat (tether pegged 1:1 for dollar.. much like paypal MySQL balance of paypal dollar is not real dollar, but resembles and easily translatable visually representing fiat) |
|
|
|
the first thing that came to my mind after reading this was a question! "Why now". why is it that these days, all these news about mining, miners' equipment, backdoor, boost, etc are coming out. ASICs weren't created yesterday!
its because segwit as a softfork has last month been found to hit a hurdle, so now people are hurrying to find any reason to push mining aside to drag segwit in without having to change segwit as a soft fork.(even though segwit is not even active and can easily be redone as a proper community uniting version that includes other features the community desire.. rather than the tier network cesspit version) funny part is that segwit is using its own backdoor (going soft) to bypass node consensus and its admitted that they want to make it easier to implement changes even easier in the future. (code backdoors that outsiders can exploit to add in their own features by 'going soft') EG imagine if hearne coded segwit as a soft fork(line for line the same) and said how he wants to add more ways to add new things in without node consensus, would you remain positive about it? EG imagine if hearne tried to blame pools for holding things back(after giving only pools the vote) and wanted to find ways to ban/orphan blocks/pools based on brand bias.. not tx/block validity |
|
|
|
|
if its an fiat<->btc exchange then expect AML/KYC
if its just an altcoin<->btc exchange that has no mention of fiat use/trading or accepting fiat in any form then it wont be hit by fiat regulations.
if you find a fiat accepting exchange thats not got any AML/KYC then be more concerned, because its flaunting fiat laws which can leave it to have bad things happening later. so dont hold/leave funds in those exchanges for long
|
|
|
|
I wasn't specifically calling you out or Jonald but more or less the many btcu shills while quoting the other reply, and the Chinese thing is because Jihan is Chinese and he is willing to throw money around to get his way.
I don't want a pow change I would like there to definitely be more asic producers and them come from all around the world. The issue is the production is just going to be cheaper in China due to the many factories and cheap labor, the other issue is Jihan buying out his competition there. I don't mine Bitcoin directly anymore because it's just past me with noise and power consumption for a home miner, but I do worry about the network. Jihan seems like a bad player in the Bitcoin world and it seems like he is starting to sabre rattle to protect his interest and this could just be a new weapon in his arsenal especially with all future miners.
Along with the fix we know large mines won't take down their miners and flash them, too much work for a large mine until an attack happens.
you may realise other countries are in the manufacturing game and its not (current 67% nay/abstainers) of asics are bitmain or chinese. thats the reddit hysteria of blaming the segwit nays'/abstaining on one person(illogical facepalm). many people who are independent like myself who just think critically rather than ass kissery see some flaws in segwits 2 merkle approach. even gmax sees now that 2merkle approach has hit issues last month looking deeper at the matter i can see a few countries with low labour, low facility costs and low electric costs. and some manufacturers are already using them. but it does not matter about blaming china(as a country).. what people should be doing is defending a decentralised diverse peer network not just pointing fingers to find excuses of why bitcoin should centralise to one one brand by pretending its getting attacked by another brand it might be worth you taking a step back from the reddit hysteria of blaming the (current 67% nay/abstainers) on jihan because those numbers dont rationally add up, the community is wider than that |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
