Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2018, 02:08:40 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Pools should state their position on maximum block size increase issue.  (Read 518 times)
tl121
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 279
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 03:53:14 AM
 #1

Given the current maximum block size controversy, it would be helpful if pool operators could state their position regarding increasing the maximum block size and regarding various proposals related to this issue.

This would provide useful information for hashers looking to decide which pools to use.


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1539828520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539828520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539828520
Reply with quote  #2

1539828520
Report to moderator
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1015


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 02:51:01 PM
 #2

For p2pool, it is up to the node operator on whether or not to support XT.  This is of course assuming that forrestv's code can handle the larger block size in BIP101.  He had to make changes to the code to support BIP66 (bumped up the version of p2pool from 13.xx to 14.xx), so I'm not sure if similar changes would need to be implemented to support BIP101.

However, assuming that the underlying p2pool code can indeed handle the larger block sizes, then it will be up to the node operator to choose whether or not to use the XT code or the Core code to generate the blocks.

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1143


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 11:25:06 PM
 #3

I suspect the bulk of the pools feel the way Kano and I do: We're all in favour of bigger blocks but most of us don't want XT and are not adopting it. We're waiting in the vain hope core dev gets off its arse and increases block size itself.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
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!