What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ?
We probably shouldn't jump to conclusions being that none of them are running classic nodes yet and the latest news indicate that they are sticking with core. The true vote is one that has commitment and resources behind it and not merely a nod of approval towards both core and classic. I asked what the percentage of mining is represented by that list. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but you clearly are - the tweet you quoted says "Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core" |
|
|
|
In other words: 2MB maxblocksize or not, segwit now or later -- in any case, the majority of the Bitcoin economy seems to be against artificial transaction scarcity.
Source? Hopefully you aren't basing this off of an unscientific Toomin like poll with small sample sizes and no controls of sample data. I would also like to analyze the questions posed in the poll as that can greatly effect the responses. I.E... 1) Do you want to increase the block size for bitcoin to have very small fees for everyday tx's? vs 2) Do you want the bitcoin chain to remain efficient and lean with a decentralized p2p payment layer that keeps tx's small for everyday purchases? Users would likely say yes to both the above even when they are very different plans. What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ? |
|
|
|
You are incredulous or simply lack details of the announcement? Aaron van Wirdum is a respected journalist so I would give a little credence to his announcement and wait to verify. Thats hilarious. Adam back quotes him on twitter every now and again, but his earlier tweet which included"more to follow" was bullshit as well. About the atempt to fud the f2p announcement. Respected my ass. Puppet more like. edit: added tweet link. |
|
|
|
But it becomes clear that he has something else in mind: 1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 10:05:39:i think the majority of devs want to work on the majority coin, and won't want to play chicken once it's clear which one that is
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:05:58:Why do you object to my vision of comeptition ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:04:Isn't competition good ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:17:I mean, you didn't want to git-cherry pick ? 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:29:45:Once you are forced to do Hard Fork once 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:30:04:And see that it's not hat terrible (my believe, not core), they'll do it more often  The opening gambits made it clear that this was not going to go pleasantly. But considering his meticulous approach and questioning style, I fell he comprehensively failed to fluster JT, and simply became angry at the end. I think he tried to tease out some statement from JT that all hell would break loose during a HF, but couldn't make that point stick - JT shut him down pretty well. How many times did he say "I'll get to that later" (which is code for "I know nothing more on that topic") ? tl;dr It shouldn't have happened. |
|
|
|
Toomim on wechat (I think). Gives a little more insight to what has happened, and what he thinks, agree or disagree... worth a read if you can handle it... loooong. http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQThere's even some stuff relevant to the WO-thread here: 1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 07:29:30:Chinese central bank want to issue digital currency...
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:29:43:(indeed. big news)
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:29:49:(thanks for the update)
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:02:oh darn, i already sold my bitcoin to pay for electricity a few days ago...
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:06:wish i had waited
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:30:12:
1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 07:30:20:[Grin]
Guy Corem has a great line in adversarial cross examination! weasel words, statements dressed as questions, the lot. And finally this: (referring to nodes) 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:03:39:or someone can fake it as well ? So, its just iceBreaker/Adam Back, just better trained. This is funny: (afer JT describes core_POW change as an alt coin) 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:15:With you permission, I want to call it Core + PoW change fork
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:21:And not altcoin
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:23:Ok ? Even funnier.... 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:33:Let's assume Core is implementing both changes 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:38:And we have different PoW 1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:22:45:they 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:54:sure 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:02:(It's bad translation from Hebrew) 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:08:We as a community From hebrew. No forks in hebrew. He has a serious isue with core-pow being called an altcoin, I'm surprised JT didnt pick up on it and leverage it. 1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:12:That both ClassicCoin and CoreCoin are alt coins and the OldCoreCoins are the real one
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:22:I know that there are some people still using old clients
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:28:And call those coins BTC
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:30:34:right, the original bitcoin has a 32 MB blocksize limit
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:30:39:we stopped using Bitcoin years ago
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:41:indeed
So we have been buying alt-coins for the last 4 years according to Mr. Corem. I'll stop now as I'm bored as you probably are. Still, I think Toomim did prety good, for someone with no legal/PR training. edit: why did i keep calling him cohen? |
|
|
|
You don't seem to understand. Bigblockers will win if we crash the price far enough to persuade the miners to switch. If we fail in that, it's because the price is going up and they have no reason to listen to us. (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). So it's simple. Just keep pumping until we go away. That's how you'll get us to capitulate.
Did you miss the bit when it's been tried & failed a number of times now? We just have to be lucky once....  Jusr to be clear I don't really give a crap which chain wins. All I care about is that my bitcoin's are safe & hopefully become a lot more valuable than it is now price wise etc. That's everybody's hope isn't it, to make lots of money from this 'thang'. I don't wear an 'I love Core' t shirt under my sweatshirt or anyrhing, I just want to make money & see bitcoin succeed. You and me both. I just want each side to get a fair crack of the whip. |
|
|
|
The problem is that if we deploy 2 MB blocks right now we have to postpone SegWit. A combination of those would be similar to a increase to 4 MB which is definitely unsafe, especially considering that a transaction at 2 MB could be created that would take over 10 minutes to validate. It is either 2 MB block size or SegWit right now. Tell me again what benefits come with a 2 MB block size? None.
The Toominista "2MB Right Fucking Now Because Reasons" plan is all cost with no benefit. That's why Classic is #rekt and DOA. You do realise that we are only doing this to fuck with your head, right? This isn't about big or small blocks - it only about you. We are keeping an eye on that pulsing vain on the side of your head, taking bets on when its gonna pop like a zit. |
|
|
|
since when it is not en vogue to drop some acid within the IT scene? ever heard of steve jobs?
Hell yeah! It was even tax deductible in my day....  |
|
|
|
@BjA If the PBoC gets out of line we can send LukeJr. in to change the algo on 'em. SHa69. Pit paff piffy. Inniit?
If the crytpos are united?  |
|
|
|
That article says nothing of the sort. Read it again. Its a tacit approval for the concept of Classic if anything. But maybe thats just me!! |
|
|
|
You don't seem to understand. Bigblockers will win if we crash the price far enough to persuade the miners to switch. If we fail in that, it's because the price is going up and they have no reason to listen to us. (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). So it's simple. Just keep pumping until we go away. That's how you'll get us to capitulate.
Did you miss the bit when it's been tried & failed a number of times now? We just have to be lucky once.... |
|
|
|
You suggest that the chain with 25% hash power is in the economic minority which is just flatly inaccurate. The sunk costs in previous generations of ASICs aren't worth much more than a doorstop with a flood of new money buying the latest generation of ASICs. 75% of Miners are not necessarily the economic majority. What is interesting about this attack is even if 95%+miners temporarily support the new coin (I.E.. Bitcoin classic) and every exchange supports bitcoin classic and refuses to accept bitcoin core coins, the attack can come unannounced as the ASIC manufactures can have a shell company or investors buy them out and use their own coin to simultaneously dump the price and gain a majority of the hashpower. To those that oppose a coup, they wouldn't even see this as underhanded but protecting the interests of the ecosystem and increasing the hash power.
Sorry, I respect your beliefs and all, but that is just getting plain ridiculous, desperate and implausible. Have a look at this and you will see there is nearly 90% consensus for 2mb blocks at this moment. Add to that all the exchanges that have stated they will follow the majority ( not a given that its classic) You have an extremely difficult battle with just 10% of hashing power and sky high difficulty. And for what? What will you gain with your shell companies and other whatnots you mentioned? When it comes to it, you, and all the others will be as pragmatic as anyone else in the network. You will protect the value of your coins. You will fork. Because its in your interest*. *unless you are an investor in Blockstream |
|
|
|
I never suggested anything of that kind. You brought up the notion of bagholders throwing their weight around.
Which I why I phrased it in the form of a question. Huh? How do you otherwise phrase your questions? It was a question - "are you suggesting...?" What other way would you ask it?  I did indeed bring it up, but not as a threat but to clarify to others the dangers of a minor majority fork of 75%
So... not a threat, but if you follow the minor majority 'certain' bad things will happen.... Okay. I've seen Goodfellas, so I think I get that.... The 'dangers' you speak of is if i follow that miner majority, you and your dev friends will mess me up with all your coinz. Got it. and how such a low number can cause a civil war where the apparent chain with the advantage can quickly becomes the losing chain. Once Bitcoin classic releases code I warn users to pay attention and be ready to pull their coins out of exchanges and store them in cold storage during any network split.
You see this is all based on your initial flawed concept: the economic majority on the chain with less hash power If you are on the weak/shorter chain, you are already the economic minority. You can convince yourself otherwise - that big bags of coins will redress the imbalance - but it wont. Only deliberate fraud and criminal actions will delay the inevitable - and I'm sure you are not really proposing that. |
|
|
|
I presume you are referring to Adam Back there, and yeah, I agree that he is more than capable of what you suggest, but is that a reason that I should be following him?
Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.
No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as fucked up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.
BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.
Yes, I am aware that Adam doesn't have many coins, as he wouldn't fit the description being that he joined in 2013 with his first coin being purchased at ~180. Look around you a bit and pay attention and don't merely select an exception to the rule that fits your agenda. I'll admit there are indeed some large bagholders which I can name that support bitcoin classic. Are you suggesting that a majority of bagholders support classic over core? If this is true you are delusional. For one thing, the core devs are almost all extremely large bagholders as they have been around since the beginning. Why do you think they are so interested in bitcoin succeeding and thus volunteering their efforts? I never suggested anything of that kind. You brought up the notion of bagholders throwing their weight around. I personally dont think it will ever come to that - it would be like the Bank of England trying to fight off Soros when he shorted the pound years ago. The more coins they throw at it, the more they loose. No, the threats are just that - threats. Except for the one you mentioned earlier - they can carry out nasty attacks, such as the ddos campaign on XT nodes. But that is a reason I would be less inclined to support them - not more. |
|
|
|
Large bagholders (almost all the core team and early crypto-anarchists who [...] can carry out some pretty nasty attacks
I presume you are referring to Adam Back there, and yeah, I agree that he is more than capable of what you suggest, but is that a reason that I should be following him? Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing. No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as messed up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz. BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013. edit: apologies for language, but its after 9pm here....  |
|
|
|
There are at least 4 choices that can be made in the event of a hardfork between competing chains -
1) Quickly move over to the longest chain with the most hashing power out of security fears
2) Stay on their chain with less hashing power and hope...
[snip]
You can stop at 2, as the other 'options' are just slash and burn/scorched earth policies that will end badly for those foolhardy enough to believe in them. Most rational players will want to conserve whatever value they have put into bitcoin and are unlikely to be as petulant as the core devs will be. They will follow the longest valid chain. Changing the POW is just empty sabre rattling from a dev who is seriously worried that this is getting away from him. |
|
|
|
Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.
Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function. There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone. Satoshi obviously understands human nature and planned Bitcoin accordingly. One of the mistakes he admitted was offering no reward for running a full node. People still do it with the best interests of the network in mind, but there are decreasing numbers of people prepared to do it for nothing. There would be an order of magnitude more nodes if people were rewarded for running one. I reckon a good number of the transient nodes are run as curiosities, and a larger number to support their owners wallets. Everyone else is running them more consistently as part of their business ( exchanges, miners, etc.) so are being recompensed either directly or indirectly. But, yeah, it would be nice if casual nodes could get some recompense for their service. Satoshi should have designed some sort of a faucet funded out of the coinbase tx's. |
|
|
|
Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.
Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function. There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone. |
|
|
|
but over 75% of nodes and the economic consensus decides not to which would be very dangerous No its not - if they choose to follow anything other than the longest, valid chain then they are no longer following bitcoin. If they want their coins, however, they will. most of the economic will simply do nothing tho, they will have stake in both forks, and watch as one of the forks loses all its value. so in a way speculators are the deciders. Indeed, but as it will only trigger @75%, the tipping point will have been reached and the majority of undecided nodes are unlikely to remain on the lower hashrate chain. |
|
|
|
right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?
[snipity snip] The Vote is = The longest valid PoW chain, with an emphasis on valid and only nodes deciding what is and isn't valid. The miners can hash all they want on an invalid chain , but they won't be necessarily following the nodes or economic majority. This matters because when you look at how the hardforks are rolled out they are not polling the nodes but miners for an rough and indirect means of determining node support. There very well could be a dangerous situation where 75% of miners decide to fork , but over 75% of nodes and the economic consensus decides not to which would be very dangerous. This is why I recommend that all hardforks have at least 95% consensus of blocks within the last 1k to activate a countdown. Luckily Bitcoin classic still has time to change their minds from 75% to 95% as they have yet to release code. What, exactly, are the nodes going to accept as valid except what the miners create? They (miners) crack the puzzle, then put the block together and publish it - the others then build on this.. Nodes then follow the longest one. What you are saying makes no sense. but over 75% of nodes and the economic consensus decides not to which would be very dangerous No its not - if they choose to follow anything other than the longest, valid chain then they are no longer following bitcoin. If they want their coins, however, they will. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
