The vote that counts: Miners and Mike's worst case scenario

[knight22]

BIP101 is finished

I'm still trying to figuer out excatly what this 8MB option is.

As I understand it, it is just an indication that a miner can add in a block that they support 8 mb increase. They can do that without any real implementation.

[adamstgBit]

BIP101 is finished

I'm still trying to figuer out excatly what this 8MB option is.

As I understand it, it is just an indication that a miner can add in a block that they support 8 mb increase. They can do that without any real implementation.

ya but this 8MB Block would be on running Core?

has the Core dev team actually proposed to implement 8MB block should the network agree?

[Muhammed Zakir]

BIP101 is finished

I'm still trying to figuer out excatly what this 8MB option is.

As I understand it, it is just an indication that a miner can add in a block that they support 8 mb increase. They can do that without any real implementation.

ya but this 8MB Block would be on running Core?

has the Core dev team actually proposed to implement 8MB block should the network agree?

This is what we are discussing. Final decision has not made. Personally, I don't think maximum block size will be increased to 8 MB.

[LiteCoinGuy]

thx OP, good summary. keep it up to date.

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.

[adamstgBit]

BIP101 is finished

I'm still trying to figuer out excatly what this 8MB option is.

As I understand it, it is just an indication that a miner can add in a block that they support 8 mb increase. They can do that without any real implementation.

ya but this 8MB Block would be on running Core?

has the Core dev team actually proposed to implement 8MB block should the network agree?

This is what we are discussing. Final decision has not made. Personally, I don't think maximum block size will be increased to 8 MB.

that's my feeling as well, which is why i'm confused as to why 8MB is even a voting option... altho it seem most popular, maybe Core should come up with a proposal we can actually vote on besides let's do nothing and wait for blockstream...

[alani123]

The miners voting for 8Mb, support an increase of the block size, but not through bitcoinXT's parameters. There's no consensus on a specific BIP about the block increase just yet, but those miners indicate that if consensus is formed, they'll be willing to join into an attempt to increase the block size to 8Mb.*

They're showing their support by adding a 'note' in the coinbase of blocks they mine, it's somwhat symbolic* at the moment. Support for bitcoinXT has a more practical meaning right now, since there's a fork that could potentially be triggered after January 2016 but as it's apparent, the miners standing behind it are insignificant right now.

Also, blocktrail started tracking blocks in support of BIP100 today, (update for OP coming shortly).

You can see a TL;DR of what each Bitcoin Improvement Proposal means here.

*Don't quote me on rhose as I'm not 100% sure. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong about something.

[Rampion]

DiscusFish is at least partially supporting Garzik's BIP100

[adamstgBit]

DiscusFish is at least partially supports Garzik's BIP100

BIP 100 sounds very interesting.

letting the miners increase the limit themselves, with some kind of voting scheme. its almost like using a sledge hammer to drive a nail... but seeing how this is the most sturban nail of all time, maybe not a bad idea.

i think its only a matter of time until poeple start to switch their votes just to achieve consensus and get this moving again.

let's all agree to agree on whatever it is we are all going to agree to, agreed?

[jonald_fyookball]

what's Bitfury's problem?  Why won't they go to big blocks?

[alani123]

I updated the pie chart to 24 hours to better reflect the support towards BIP100 that recently emerged. The table will remain as is until we're close to 1000 blocks (7 days) from when F2pool started supporting BIP100.

[Autobansux]

https://infotomb.com/77t4y.png

Where is this table from please? looks like blockchain.info, but I can't figure out where exactly.

[Rampion]

Where is this table from please? looks like blockchain.info, but I can't figure out where exactly.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

[adamstgBit]

[/quote]
whats ambiguous is the default votes

do these poeple want to stick to 1MB or would rather not vote?

i think they should not be counted and poeple that want 1MB should specifically  vote for it.

[alani123]

I updated the pie chart. It changed quite a bit since yesterday, f2pool has been mining BIP100 blocks for 20 hours now. Seeing that Antpool is mining blocks in support of 8Mb at an inconsistent pattern it wouldn't be unlikely to see BIP100 and 8Mb coming closer soon.

[hodedowe]

whats ambiguous is the default votes

do these poeple want to stick to 1MB or would rather not vote?

i think they should not be counted and poeple that want 1MB should specifically  vote for it.

No, they shouldn't. That's why it's called the "Default". You shouldn't have to "vote" to keep the status quo and not dilute your profits.

[adamstgBit]

whats ambiguous is the default votes

do these poeple want to stick to 1MB or would rather not vote?

i think they should not be counted and poeple that want 1MB should specifically  vote for it.

No, they shouldn't. That's why it's called the "Default". You shouldn't have to "vote" to keep the status quo and not dilute your profits.

thats absurd!

imagine there was a default vote for keeping who ever is in power in power for elections

most don't vote...

[hodedowe]

whats ambiguous is the default votes

do these poeple want to stick to 1MB or would rather not vote?

i think they should not be counted and poeple that want 1MB should specifically  vote for it.

No, they shouldn't. That's why it's called the "Default". You shouldn't have to "vote" to keep the status quo and not dilute your profits.

thats absurd!

imagine there was a default vote for keeping who ever is in power in power for elections

most don't vote...

Your analogy is wrong. This is more like breathing. You can breathe the default amount(value) or you can choose to be different. Bitcoin core is the default. You can choose to be different with XT, but you're straying from the default.

[adamstgBit]

whats ambiguous is the default votes

do these poeple want to stick to 1MB or would rather not vote?

i think they should not be counted and poeple that want 1MB should specifically  vote for it.

No, they shouldn't. That's why it's called the "Default". You shouldn't have to "vote" to keep the status quo and not dilute your profits.

thats absurd!

imagine there was a default vote for keeping who ever is in power in power for elections

most don't vote...

Your analogy is wrong. This is more like breathing. You can breathe the default amount(value) or you can choose to be different. Bitcoin core is the default. You can choose to be different with XT, but you're straying from the default.

its still ambiguous, i bet a large % of poeple mining default don't want to vote or don't know how. they might not even be aware they can vote.

[hodedowe]

whats ambiguous is the default votes

do these poeple want to stick to 1MB or would rather not vote?

i think they should not be counted and poeple that want 1MB should specifically  vote for it.

No, they shouldn't. That's why it's called the "Default". You shouldn't have to "vote" to keep the status quo and not dilute your profits.

thats absurd!

imagine there was a default vote for keeping who ever is in power in power for elections

most don't vote...

Your analogy is wrong. This is more like breathing. You can breathe the default amount(value) or you can choose to be different. Bitcoin core is the default. You can choose to be different with XT, but you're straying from the default.

its still ambiguous, i bet a large % of poeple mining default don't want to vote or don't know how. they might not even be aware they can vote.

I can guarantee you that every miner on the planet knows about the XT debate. The stance from miners I've spoken with is "It's bitcoin. If it changes I'll upgrade. If not I'm happy mining my coins and making money. I'm not going out of my way to mess with the system that pays my bills".

[dothebeats]

I can guarantee you that every miner on the planet knows about the XT debate. The stance from miners I've spoken with is "It's bitcoin. If it changes I'll upgrade. If not I'm happy mining my coins and making money. I'm not going out of my way to mess with the system that pays my bills".

Yep. As long as the miner profits, he will go on with the tide if needs be.