|
Inaba, do you know that Gavin did also p2sh patch for 0.3.24? I'm using it without any issues. It is just FYI, I don't want to join the flamewar :-).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not rewriting history, I simply didn't do anything wrong. Period. I just started merged mining on the time. Again, I'm sorry that I forgot to PM you about my plans, just because I didn't see you on namecoin IRC channel. My apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
SAC, I hope you'll start bashing me for supporting BIP16, which I did in all secrecy! You know that it's my conspiracy with Gavin against all bitcoin users, because I have some % of Gavin's business for making Bitcoin tokens using multi signatures!
|
|
|
|
You're seriously ill. Nah, I cannot provide you any arguments because I provided them months ago and this is closed case for me. Actually I cannot believe that somebody is still solving this "issue". And you got the nerve to talk about inventing shit...
facepalm |
|
|
|
re namecoins: lol, please don't start again :-). Why not be a man and just come out and call BTCGuild a cheat
Because I'm not talking that btcguild cheated, but that the stats is telling that deepbit and me are honest. Do you see the difference? Btw me and tycho are NOT friends, but we can talk each other when it's important. |
|
|
|
You obviously didn't followed the instructions correctly, because you need to open *intraday* chart, not daily chart  . |
|
|
|
The next massive DDOS attack (and it will happen) use that to convince people to try out p2poolmining over Tor.
...which have almost the same DDoS resistancy, still provide low variance mining, is easier to setup and chainless (you don't need to run bitcoind on miners and have them well connected). |
|
|
|
|
BinoX, you're right that this is change which should not affect miners at all. I'm just writing it for people who are interested in recent fights about bitcoin protocol improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks digital, you expressed it exactly as I wanted :-)
|
|
|
|
The problem is that even the devs don't agree unanimously on which implementation of P2SH to use so that makes it so much harder for me.
Actually the only one developer who is strongly against BIP 16 is luke-jr (or anybody else?). On the other hand he can be very loud... I think that all the p2sh issue is getting more dramatic here that it need to be and some ^^ people are using it for their personal childish fights instead of thinking about bitcoin project more globally. |
|
|
|
I believe that without a deadline nothing would get done.
+1 Actually the discussion is here for long time, but only the near deadline pressed people to talk about it more intensively. |
|
|
|
why just large pools?
do you have evidence than pool X is 100% honest - if yes, then make a whitelist...
Yes, I have the evidence (well, it's stats, so nothing is 100%) that at least me and deepbit are honest (at least from the view of stealing blocks): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48889.0The point is that such statistics can be done only after many thousands of pool rounds, so it's impossible to tell if some new pool is honest or not. |
|
|
|
You still don't understand the underlying issue.
I think I understand. I'm in the business over the year and you're not the first who's panicking because of "large pools". Actually, as I said, I'm not keeping gun to anybody and changing the pool is *very* easy, when the miner think the pool is doing something nasty. Freedom of choice is also be free enough to join large pool if somebody want. I may be a bit aggressive with my approach but the truth is that most miners do not seem to understand nor care about P2SH. That is the real problem I absolutely agree. For that reason I think it's much more safer (for the Bitcoin network as global entity) to let decide few people who are in direct touch with main developers than let's decide by people who simply don't care. Yes, I understand that centralization sounds terrible, but honestly it's also the way how to move Bitcoin to any direction. Because, like in the real world politics, 90% of people simply don't care. Well, feel free to mine solo or connect to the pool which vote for your direction, I have no problem with that. But pressing everybody to vote for himself, even when he absolutely don't understand what's the issue, is the oposite extreme. |
|
|
|
You misunderstood my OP. I clearly stated that the problem is the centralization of voting power in the hands of a few individuals, such as yourself.
As far as there are big pools supporting both solutions, there's no real problem, because miner *can* vote by moving to the pool which is supporting the same thing. So you're wrong. And please remove my pool from your signature, because you ARE spreading the FUD. It sounds that people have no choice and they cannot vote FOR p2sh when they're mining on large pools, which isn't true. This is simply unacceptable.
What's your problem exactly? Pools arent holding guns on people's heads. If somebody want to support p2sh, let's connect to pool which want it too. If you don't want p2sh, move to deepbit. I must say that I'm pretty angry when I see this kind of misinterpretations and fears. |
|
|
|
Technically one entity (one miner, one pool) cannot vote for or against P2SH in the same time Actually it can. Just insert /P2SH/ tag in appropriate % of your blocks Actually they cannot. They can *insert* the text into the coinbase, but one entity cannot actually mine for both chains (except some strange solution) at the same time, so putting p2sh header in some blocks don't have the sense. |
|
|
|
I found that a lot of people started p2sh war on this forum and for some unknown reason they're "fighting" about my pool because of this. I want to tell that I'm *supporting* p2sh and Gavin's initiative, as I stated here and here. The only reason that I'm not in the blockchain.info/p2sh stats is that patching of pool's bitcoind takes some time, but I'm working on it with Gavin and other supporters intensively. So all you with signatures and forum threads "boycott slush", please stop spreading FUD. |
|
|
|
especially big mining pools such as Deepbit and to a lesser extent Slush and Guild. No one who cares about Bitcoin or the profitability of Bitcoin mining should mine in any of these pools.
Technomage, please don't spread the FUD. Where did you read that I'm not supporting p2sh? I'm in the touch with Gavin and I'm going to release p2sh patch on the pool soon and I stated this many times on forum (however I haven't time to spam *all* forum threads about p2sh topic). 23.Jan: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60482.msg709045#msg709045 |
|
|
|
Slush and BTCguild are 2 guys holding 40+% of the votes. Not so much of a difference.
yep. this is also a problem. but you are #1 on the list I'm supporting the p2sh, why do you think I'm not? |
|
|
|
|
Technically one entity (one miner, one pool) cannot vote for or against P2SH in the same time. So your only choice is to pick pool or mining company which has the same opinion like you.
As an example, MergedMining company is (afaik) supporting P2SH because they're mining on my pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
