Someone's been dumping big on the pool for a few hours now.

They've managed to already score a nice best
"bestshare": 567139168582

Alas diff is over 100G more than that still, and really we've only covered 37.% of diff so far.

Good luck!

To be fair, Barry's a capitalist and not an engineer. He was well meaning but I have absolutely no doubts that he had no idea at the time that what the miners agreed to was completely impossible and in fact an aggressive anti-compromise stance. He almost certainly thought he had become the messiah for the bitcoin world in finding a middle ground between core and miners. All the talk of bits and activation and shit would have blown his mind. Additionally, I'm pretty sure some of the mining entities that agreed to it were equally ignorant. The twitter feeds from various sources made it clear they didn't all agree to what they thought they agreed to. Luke didn't start the BIP148 movement but he's become its biggest champion. His motives rarely make any sense to any objective observation of the world so I feel for the people who got caught up in his latest cult.


Pretty much. Thanks for chiming in.

I would suggest that unless you are doing it for gambling reasons (like all those mining on my pool) being able to mine 5 blocks on average per diff change - this would circumvent the potential losses of diff rising and you not finding a block in the previous diff. At current diff of 678G that would be over 10PH now...

Wow, just wow. Pools fluctuate by up to 20% per day regularly and you're making 1% a big deal? The reddittors have been claiming 30% hashrate improvement and I've been telling you that's bupkiss. And I said no, I DON'T believe they're doing it anyway, but that's fine. If your mindset is so fixed that you can't see how absurd your logic is getting then I'm wasting my breath.

Okay let's look at this the other way then. Let's say Jihan the cunt IS using asicboost. Okay? Still with me?

Now if you do an analysis of the power savings provided by asicboost (it does not increase hashrate, it saves power) then if we assume bitmain owns 500PH of current generation S9 mining hardware, then the yearly savings in power amounts to approximately $2M USD (credit to Guy Corem for doing maths). This is the 500PH that is producing say 180 BTC per day, or ~$500,000 USD per day.
Great, so asicboost is "crushing" the opposition by gaining them a rip roaring 1% in profits! Woohoo, kill the bastards!!!

Well it appears you didn't even read my post then. I assume you're proud of that too?

It's been discussed to death and the results of meaningful statistics largely ignored. This is again the reddit effect I'm afraid. Miners have never used the overt feature which leaves a trail and there is no evidence of them having used the covert feature though it theoretically could be possible to hide it well enough for it to not be spotted. Since I know the quality of code from bitmain, I can guarantee you they're not smart enough to be doing the latter. Additionally, and this is the one thing most people neglect, is that the profits from trying to build in use of the covert feature would be pitifully small compared to the overall profits of mining in the first place making using covert asicboost not worth the effort required to do so. An unfair advantage? Yes I agree it is inappropriate IF USED, which it isn't, and if it led to some massive profits, which it doesn't. The emphasis on it as though it's the reason bitmain is blocking segwit is marketing in my opinion. This is coming from me, a segwit advocate, but I also happen to be informed about the mining world.

Not sure, but there still is a bit of a scramble to push for a lower threshold activation of 80% before August 1, though I have no idea how they're going to get support for it that quickly even if it is ready. Some of the miners allege to be against the current segwit activation because the threshold is too high but then none of that matters without Jihan and his combined slave/cronies/faked personas agreeing to it. I've tried to point this out to some of the people in the discussions but they don't see it the way I do, and that is: some core devs are currently working hard to circumvent a change from activating from other core devs...

As I've said multiple times before, no it is not remotely clear based on existing support. Everyone is reading too much reddit which is making things look simple through feedback loops of people convincing each other without looking at the big picture. Don't believe the "it doesn't matter how little support it has, it can't fail by design" bullshit. Sure a forked chain with no one supporting it that can't ever reconnect with the existing chain can't ever be killed off with UASF, but then it can also simply remain as a zombie chain forever with <1% hashrate. If it got support of say 25% of the hashrate it would be a far more meaningful alternative. If you think that changing PoW as a way of increasing its relevance is the solution, then I think you need to seriously take a long hard think about how we got to where we are in terms of current bitcoin acceptance, value, perceived stability and future prospects. If you're willing to sacrifice all that on some overarching principle, then you should also accept that bitcoin's relevance as by far the most relevant cryptocurrency will never again be achieved.　Following Luke-jr standing alone of all people would be madness...

Not sure why you bring that up, core's position is segwit first before anything and everything else; I don't see why you expect them to offer anything else, it shouldn't even be a discussion point by now (at least not on this thread.)

And now I have to retract my comments about the segwit2x COOP options being proposed as not being rejected. Many of the core developers are starting to weigh in on the debate with a formal opinion on it and so far no one has agreed to it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Comments like this explain why they're not agreeing to it:
https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/873482749755088896
"Specifically, I believe the project got hijacked in a bait-and-switch."

Which means we do not have a consensus of any kind on any solution on the table yet that has both core and minerJihan support.

I don't think BIP148 will get any meaningful support in time for Aug1 so I'm guessing they're still hoping miners will buckle before November for the original segwit activation...?

Which is Hash rate (7d)   247G

So yeah only slushpool like I said.

Right, and given it's almost 100% slush at the moment, he would see the chain as being a dead end and see it as lost business and abandon it immediately, leaving the fork without any hashrate whatsoever (except that bogus uasfpool.com which has only 500GH and isn't even configured to support segwit properly and is actually likely a scam).

BIP148 advocates are fooled by slush's move. Slush is a businessman first and foremost. He'll advertise any old fucking crap option so long as it brings miners to his pool. That doesn't remotely mean he supports it himself. The default pool choice when left up to the pool to choose is currently advertising... nothing; not segwit, not BU, not BIP148, nothing. I guess it gives miners somewhere to mine if they support one of the options. I can't run a pool like that myself.

Not false. I said decent sized. Slush pool is big, but the amount of hash directed to his BIP148 option is not enough to sustain the entire network. Blocks would be days apart at the current rate.

Nonsense. After another non-segwit block is built on any BIP141 blocks, the segwit pools will still mine on top of those and even when they find new segwit blocks, they'll be built on top of non-segwit blocks so only the very first short chain of segwit blocks will be considered by BIP148 and then it will be left in the cold while any remaining BIP148 pools try to build on those first blocks. BIP148 doesn't need a miner majority to build a chain, but it needs a decent sized miner minority which it still doesn't have.

I think he means ethos the operating system which is this http://ethosdistro.com/
Either way that only mines altcoins anyway so he's still in the wrong place.

Love them, but they're tiny. I have a few Canaan contacts and I asked them for an official position too and they seem to have decided to not have a position at all...

You're describing the current state paying no deference to intent. BU has not been "gaining power" for months - the hashrate has remained the same based on pool support all that time and variance is the only reason % changes. It's been dead in the water since this "miner agreement"; the pools just haven't changed from what they're currently signalling since they have nothing new to signal yet and every time they change their mind and signal something else they're effectively going back on their previous allegiance.  PoW is here to stay, yes bitmain makes all the hardware but changing PoW would actually be the death knell for bitcoin. Bitmain doesn't have as much power as they think they have - the response to Jihan's call to arms was proof of this, even if they make all the hardware. Except for Roger Ver, whose motives might be related to raising the value of altcoins in preference to bitcoin, the miners aren't willing to destroy their own industry just to spite the users. That they came to an agreement of segwit+2MB is evidence of that fact already. Core is basically working on giving them what they want now which also suits users, core, exchanges and businesses so what disaster do you actually perceive here should PoW remain and bitmain continue making most of the hardware and we don't get a user forced minority MASF (which is what BIP148 is doing)?

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.