Are Mining pools spamming the network with fake transactions to prop up transaction fees and push a false narrative about full blocks to support BU and usurp the power to adjust block size?
Or am I just crazy? Its my personal belief that 80 to 90% of all transactions are fake.
Bitfury are including thousands of fake tx's into their blocks using this address. Bitfury support segwit. https://blockchain.info/address/3QQB6AWxaga6wTs6Xwq8FYppgrGinGu15fWait a minute... it's the propagation of unconfirmed transactions that leads to mempool blowout, transaction fees growing, and network backlog. Bitfury is mining the transactions into blocks and removing them from the network backlog. How does that implicate bitfury? |
|
|
|
The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)
That's perfectly logical, but the real antagonistic miners are clearly not interested in thinking through the consequences of something as pesky as the code (and the consequences of the code). Do you really think the behaviour of Bitmain is a consequence of them reading and understanding either the BU code or the Lightning code? Come on, now Not at all, but the actual deployment of LN would realise their alleged 'worst fears.' They won't need to understand code to know that it's already working. |
|
|
|
|
The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)
|
|
|
|
|
Did not everyone know that was what miners were actually protesting about...?
|
|
|
|
Ignoring them may not work, some of them are pretty skilled propagandists. Bear in mind, there are several who I don't respond to, despite them desperately trying to get my attention (I don't use the ignore feature at all, doesn't mean I have to read the trolls). Anyway, we're in danger of appearing a little diversionary ourselves, this is now way OT
Unfortunately I simply do not have the energy nor intestinal fortitude to tackle the trolls myself. I refuse to let my disgust with peoples' behaviour on this forum affect my mood in the real world. I don't think this is offtopic at all for dealing with FUD regarding segwit is an important part of acceptance and understanding and it's important for people reading this thread to understand there IS a lot of FUD and there ARE massive trolls who seem to make it a full time job to attack it. |
|
|
|
No longer joint owners of CKpool then? Well, at least that's your major conflict of interest out of the equation. Why do you still post in the same threads as kano without contradicting his lies? It looks like the same implicit approval you used to afford him.
If you're speaking of 'kanopool' then yes I am not a joint owner nor on any payroll. I don't respond to him because I don't engage trolls. It's why there are quite a few regulars here that I have on ignore as well. You're doing a great job entertaining their nonsense yourself - you seem to enjoy that sort of interchange whereas I find it like arguing with my own kids. I don't have the time or energy to engage them. My ignore list is much bigger courtesy of the main bitcoin discussion section than it ever was from mining/ ironically. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, just running bitcoin core 0.13.1 or later is enough unless you're mining.
|
|
|
|
You're still business partners with someone who's so arrogant that he thinks miners should just directly control the protocol! Unless you've quit that self-contradictory relationship....
You implicitly support the things you explicitly defy. Bit of a mixed message, ck
Actually I'm not. A business partner of his that is. |
|
|
|
Ultimately, mining needs a decentralising shot in the arm. I doubt you're in favour of that ck, but hey  Don't be so sure that you know what I want. |
|
|
|
Again, search before posting, unless you're just trying to increase your post count for your sigspam advertising. https://coin.dance/blocks |
|
|
|
|
This is not news. This happened a while ago and many other threads have already discussed this.
|
|
|
|
Signaling BU I see Booooooooooooooooo!
Block 457,904 SlushPool Vote BU!
Strictly speaking, slushpool offers a choice and is not only signalling BU, as miners can choose to mine for segwit as well. |
|
|
|
Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?
Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed. What about UASF? It seems great idea because stubborness of chinese miners are impressive I haven't seen any Core dev give the UASF proposal serious consideration. For the record, I think it's a horrible idea. I believe that if Core were to attempt a UASF, it would effectively end their role as custodians of bitcoin code. UASF is, in my opinion, dangerous and stupid. Funnily enough it resembles the emergent consensus bullshit from BU in many ways... |
|
|
|
Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?
Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed. |
|
|
|
|
You've all got to stop looking at the percentages as though they're some meaningful trend. The values are simply representative of the number of pools supporting one or the other. Once one pool decides to move from legacy to segwit or BU, the percentage will slowly rise by the hashrate of the pool till it levels out again. There is no "trend" in that; it's a stepwise change. The last rise in BU% was antpool choosing to signal BU as a protest against UASF and as a result the proportion of BU has gotten 3x higher, but no other pool is signalling it so the percentage has again levelled off. Yes, the overall signalling of BU is higher than segwit at the moment, but that doesn't mean there is any ongoing trend for either of them, until the next large pool decides to signal something.
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience the vast majority of miners choose whatever is giving them the most current profit or whatever they chose when they first started mining through minimal understanding of the difference between pools, choice based on size, language issues or wherever the hardware was preconfigured to mine. Those that are selective about their mining pool would mine on it even if it was mining something not bitcoin, provided it was earning them more profit. Saying that miners are choosing the direction bitcoin will take, be it segwit, BU, something else, or core unchanged, is a lie. The reality is that pool owners are choosing. Very few miners are making a choice based on what the pool runs or is signalling. Many probably don't even know what their pool is running, and are not even fully informed about the differences. Look at what antpool signalling BU has done to the network and confidence... and they did it only in protest against the User Activated Soft Fork movement, but as a result the BU signalling% on the network now looks like triple what it was.
Let's face it, mining is meant to be a profit venture so can you blame them? Of course mining on a pool that ends up being disruptive, detrimental or even just holding back progress of the network long term means less long term value to bitcoin and consequently less profit, but that equation is hard to quantify and what to choose to do is often not clear due to massive mudslinging matches. Seeing more bitcoin in your wallet after mining short term is easy to quantify.
|
|
|
|
Which it should, as its mining which helps add more bitcoins to the market.
Mining adds a fixed amount of bitcoin regardless of the amount of mining hardware thrown at it and the difficulty so difficulty and total hashrate is almost completely dissociated from the amount of bitcoin generated (it can only transiently affect it for up to 2 weeks but then the network balances out.) Additionally the perceived value of bitcoin is related to its perceived economic utility, affected by trade of/with bitcoin, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the mining process itself. The only relationships between mining and the value of bitcoin are indirect, related to the fact that miners tend also to be traders of bitcoin, and investors of money into mining hardware/entities/securities trade with bitcoin to do so. Confidence in bitcoin can be affected by the existence of miners/mining hardware/hashrate/investors into mining hardware, but again this relationship is only indirect. |
|
|
|
Hi!
Given all the news about fork and contingency plans, what is this pool going to do in case of fork? Run only Core, support BU, or new projects like BitcoinEC?
Rumours of a hard fork have been greatly exaggerated. There is no risk of this happening any time in the currently foreseeable future. This pool is currently signalling for segwit. At less than 0.1% of the network hashrate it's hard to imagine this pool's decision having any influence whatsoever. |
|
|
|
You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin.
You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in.
There a two paradigms here:
1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating
2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom
You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for.
I am for 2). Crystal clear.
Yeah great, just what bitcoin needs - less engineering  |
|
|
|
|
You cannot meaningfully mine bitcoin with just a computer; all bitcoin mining these days is done only with dedicated ASIC mining hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
