Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 10:38:50 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Chinese Mining Pools Call for Consensus; Refuse Switch to Bitcoin XT  (Read 1397 times)
Huobi-USD
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 135


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2015, 10:27:21 AM
 #1

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114657/chinese-mining-pools-call-for-consensus-refuse-switch-to-bitcoin-xt?utm_source=CoinTelegraph&utm_campaign=ac1c8d5607-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e86993e3e8-ac1c8d5607-224771873

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

What do you think of Gavin Andresen's latest proposal?

Huobi Secure and Trustworthy!
A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 11:00:04 AM
 #2

Gavin said 8 MB will stay for 2 year only and it will keep doubling untill 2016 in every two year. That means, Chinese miners needed to accept 8GB max block size in 2036, if they went with XTcoin. I think, that is what is most disturbing. I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 03:25:09 AM
 #3

Actually I'm surprised to see those Chinese mining farms have commanded large political power almost forming an OPEC like organization in bitcoin ecosystem. At the same time, their western counterparts are too difficult to keep up with the hash market share competition because their profit oriented business model is hindered by the high manufacturing and running cost

A good example is Spondoolies tech, although they have similar or even better performance miners, but their R&D cost them a fortune, thus even with mass scale deployment they will not make the ends meet due to higher cost in labor/electricity etc...

I think they should change from the profit oriented model to auxiliary model, e.g. mining farms sponsored by most profitable bitcoin business, like exchanges and wallet providers. An exchange or wallet provider can prioritize its own transactions with 0 transaction cost if they own a mining farm

Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 06:04:21 AM
 #4

they are still talking about xt as altcoin when it is cleary a simply upgrade to the original client, i think they are just coming up with random excuse to not switch

Gavin said 8 MB will stay for 2 year only and it will keep doubling untill 2016 in every two year. That means, Chinese miners needed to accept 8GB max block size in 2036, if they went with XTcoin. I think, that is what is most disturbing. I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

it does not change much if you upgrade qt or you call it xt and do the same change, this is not the point...calling it xt is only for remember the shift more as an important thing in the history of bitcoin
Spondoolies-Tech
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


It was fun while it lasted


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2015, 11:16:10 AM
 #5

they are still talking about xt as altcoin when it is cleary a simply upgrade to the original client, i think they are just coming up with random excuse to not switch

Gavin said 8 MB will stay for 2 year only and it will keep doubling untill 2016 in every two year. That means, Chinese miners needed to accept 8GB max block size in 2036, if they went with XTcoin. I think, that is what is most disturbing. I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

it does not change much if you upgrade qt or you call it xt and do the same change, this is not the point...calling it xt is only for remember the shift more as an important thing in the history of bitcoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521520.msg11689268#msg11689268

We released the following miners only when we were operational: SP10, SP20, SP30, SP31 and SP35.
If you see anything else offered online, it's a scam.
We designed but never completed the SP50
medUSA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


--Signature Designs-- http://bit.ly/1Pjbx77


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2015, 11:33:14 AM
 #6

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

Basically, the Chinese miners supports Gavin's 8M limit (and the doubling afterwards) but wants Core to support this. This is fair. I believe most users want to remain with Core because it is opensource and the name is not patented (not the case with bitcoin-xt).

I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Most would like to see that that too. May be this is what Gavin had planned all along. Forcing Core devs to choose the better of the two evils  Wink
GingerAle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2015, 11:46:54 AM
 #7

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

Basically, the Chinese miners supports Gavin's 8M limit (and the doubling afterwards) but wants Core to support this. This is fair. I believe most users want to remain with Core because it is opensource and the name is not patented (not the case with bitcoin-xt).

I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Most would like to see that that too. May be this is what Gavin had planned all along. Forcing Core devs to choose the better of the two evils  Wink

Yeah, ultimately I think the game played here was something used in court often... I forget the term for it, but basically if you plant an extreme idea "The defendant should be awarded 1 billion dollars", then the jury will think that a 20 million dollar figure is a good compromise, whereas if the 1 billion dollar figure had not been planted, they might have come up with another number. Similar here, the 20 mb size was planted as an extreme, wherein smaller sizes will seem more "palletable" and/or realistic.... due to the magic number status of these figures.

< Monero Compile Instructions >   < Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > < Monero NVIDIA mining instructions > < MONERODO : An operating system for your dedicated decentralized node device > <<< What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! >>> @@@@@ Simple Monero Node Installer and Monitor for Windows @@@@@
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2015, 06:34:38 PM
 #8

"Andresen's proposal has been received relatively well by the Chinese mining pool operators, who themselves suggested a raise to 8 MB last week. Despite that, however, the proposal seems unlikely to be accepted as part of a unilateral hard fork through Bitcoin XT for now."

Basically, the Chinese miners supports Gavin's 8M limit (and the doubling afterwards) but wants Core to support this. This is fair. I believe most users want to remain with Core because it is opensource and the name is not patented (not the case with bitcoin-xt).

I'd rather like to see QT increasing the max limit to 8MB. That solves all the problem for next 2 years.

Most would like to see that that too. May be this is what Gavin had planned all along. Forcing Core devs to choose the better of the two evils  Wink

yeah, just for the PR we should use core and just make the changes in that version.

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!