Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 04:34:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Blocksize & Pools  (Read 1020 times)
cflocation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368

it's a hardware thing!


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:26:24 PM
 #1

What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
1513528466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513528466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513528466
Reply with quote  #2

1513528466
Report to moderator
1513528466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513528466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513528466
Reply with quote  #2

1513528466
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513528466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513528466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513528466
Reply with quote  #2

1513528466
Report to moderator
Josepht
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile WWW
June 01, 2015, 08:30:48 PM
 #2

I don't really get your point.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.

Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.

Where to gamble with your BTC?  Visit my     thread        or        website
cflocation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368

it's a hardware thing!


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:33:04 PM
 #3

I don't really get your point.
The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.

Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.


I guess my question is what chain are the pools going to go with. If AntPool 62PH goes with Bitcoin XT and Ghash the other it seems very fragmented.

Just wanting to understand it all.
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:43:23 PM
 #4

The blocksize is already determined, and I don't see how that can be changed.

Even if it was possible, I don't see why anyone would want that. It makes the previous mined BTC worth less.
You might be thinking about the block reward.

What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
There's a recent thread with some links to discussion about the maximum block size, with some feedback from some (certainly not all) pool ops:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077486

cflocation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368

it's a hardware thing!


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:48:12 PM
 #5

What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.
There's a recent thread with some links to discussion about the maximum block size, with some feedback from some (certainly not all) pool ops:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077486
[/quote]

Thanks Ill check it out.
dmwardjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


The Few, The Proud, The BTC


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:25:15 PM
 #6

I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"

BTC ADDRESS:
cflocation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368

it's a hardware thing!


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:35:54 PM
 #7

I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"

I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed. If they split Bitcoin and also create Bitcoin XT and 80% of the larger pools move to FORK XT then is it not the miners that have decided the outcome.

I am not an expert in any of this and am really trying to understand it myself that is why all the questions. It just seems that if Gavin wants 20MB and others do not one will ultimately win out based on hashing power.

Is my thinking off?



dmwardjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


The Few, The Proud, The BTC


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:38:20 PM
 #8

I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"

I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed. If they split Bitcoin and also create Bitcoin XT and 80% of the larger pools move to FORK XT then is it not the miners that have decided the outcome.

I am not an expert in any of this and am really trying to understand it myself that is why all the questions. It just seems that if Gavin wants 20MB and others do not one will ultimately win out based on hashing power.

Is my thinking off?


Your thinking is correct to a certain degree.  The "pools" who host for the miners that will ultimately decide.  Your thinking is right on for the most part.

BTC ADDRESS:
cflocation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368

it's a hardware thing!


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:39:50 PM
 #9

I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"

I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed. If they split Bitcoin and also create Bitcoin XT and 80% of the larger pools move to FORK XT then is it not the miners that have decided the outcome.

I am not an expert in any of this and am really trying to understand it myself that is why all the questions. It just seems that if Gavin wants 20MB and others do not one will ultimately win out based on hashing power.

Is my thinking off?


Your thinking is correct to a certain degree.  The "pools" who host for the miners that will ultimately decide.  Your thinking is right on for the most part.

Yes that is correct, thanks for the correction.


TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:47:06 PM
 #10

I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"

I thought this was the reason:
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.

And unfortunately most of the large pools just aren't very active here.  Nor has BitcoinTalk really been the best place for discussion anyway (see Dev & Tech).  A lot of the technical details and implications have been on the mailing list, and there's also been pretty good technical discussion over on reddit.  Recently a small stress test was unofficially coordinated and they found that most pools don't even fill up to the current 1MB maximum, for example.



I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed.
Hashing power is useless if nobody wants to do business with your mined blocks, though.  It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between miners and services (exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc.), but the latter group should have the deciding power.

cflocation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368

it's a hardware thing!


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:48:46 PM
 #11

Quote
Hashing power is useless if nobody wants to do business with your mined blocks, though.  It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between miners and services (exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc.), but the latter group should have the deciding power.

This makes sense thanks.
dmwardjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


The Few, The Proud, The BTC


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:08:14 PM
 #12

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your input.  I've read your posts on the subject in other threads in bitcointalk.org

I think the reason this thread was created was to get opinions about "The Fork"

I thought this was the reason:
What do the larger pools think about changing the block size. I haven't seen this talked about much unless I missed a post.

Isn't "The Fork" about block size as well?  Increasing the block size at "The Fork" is a large part of the discussion with "The Fork."

And unfortunately most of the large pools just aren't very active here.  Nor has BitcoinTalk really been the best place for discussion anyway (see Dev & Tech).  A lot of the technical details and implications have been on the mailing list, and there's also been pretty good technical discussion over on reddit.  Recently a small stress test was unofficially coordinated and they found that most pools don't even fill up to the current 1MB maximum, for example.



I am really thinking, is it not the miners that ultimately decide what fork is going to succeed.
Hashing power is useless if nobody wants to do business with your mined blocks, though.  It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between miners and services (exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc.), but the latter group should have the deciding power.

GHash is not large anymore.  Slush and BTCGuild is larger than GHash.  GHash is lucky to be 7 PH/s at the moment.  They used to be between 60 and 70 PH/s at one time.

Yes, I believe exchanges, merchants, consumers, etc... should be the ones to decide as well.

But again, I feel Gavin is trying to kill two birds with one stone.  He wants to solve the fork problem while increasing the block size at the same time.  That's why I say they go hand in hand.  At least Gavin wants to put them hand in hand.  Since he is more or less the voice of bitcoin at the time, he wants to bring block size into the "Fork" discussion.

BTC ADDRESS:
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Zabercoin – An Asset Backed Cryptocurrency


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:05:04 AM
 #13

it is not guaranteed that miners will move to the larger size, for now is still all pretty unclear, in the end it will be all about general consensus

but bears in mind that we can't remain with core forever, so at some point, we must move ahead and choose the bigger limit

there isn't must to choose actually, the problem is only related to a possible better alternative, which are not present for now

THE FUTURE OF
REAL ESTATE
..

║║
║║
║║
▬▬ ● ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ● ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ● ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬ ● ● ▬▬

║║
║║
║║
Bonio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 03:04:03 PM
 #14

I have been watching the discussion on block size around the net with interest but not really had any opinions one way or the other, however, I have an antminer S2 on a pool. Will it need new software to deal with bigger blocks? Sorry if its a dumb question but as they say the only dumb question is the one that isnt asked  Tongue Ill ask anyhow.

Cheers

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 03:09:24 PM
 #15

I have an antminer S2 on a pool. Will it need new software to deal with bigger blocks? Sorry if its a dumb question but as they say the only dumb question is the one that isnt asked  Tongue Ill ask anyhow.
No.  The pool takes care of assembling the header, which is what your hardware tends to work on.  While the exact content of the header changes, the characteristics stay the same.  Your mining hardware will be fine Smiley

Bonio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 03:26:34 PM
 #16

Thanks for the prompt reply Smiley

achow101
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


17kKQppUsngUiByDsce4JXoZEjjpvX9bpR


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 08:15:55 PM
 #17

I have seen that one of the biggest pools, f2pool in China, has responded to Gavin and actively participates in the discussion on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list. They said that they don't support the large increase to 20 MB because of bandwidth concerns in China, but they would not be opposed to having a 8 MB or 10 MB block size instead of the 20 MB proposed.

jeannemadrigal2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:32:22 AM
 #18

I think we should keep in mind that the fork will not be forced.  If there is a 50/50 split, or a 30/70, or whatever, then nothing happens, the fork does not happen, there is not created an alt coin.  Only when 90 or 95% (I forget the exact number sorry) consensus is reached, then there is the fork.  Even if a full 10% use the old stuff, they will be left out in the cold.  Problem solved.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!