Vote BIP100

[adamstgBit]

XT is out
Core is good enough for now...
Sidechains are cool, but dont yet exists
So all we need is to "kick the can down the road" so to speak
Just a little longer, Just a little longer
BIP100 allows miners to do just that,
in a predictable as needed basis.

Vote BIP100 today.

[VirosaGITS]

Thats a funny post.

Might want to let know the end user that to vote, they can just point their hash at a BIP100 supporting pool.

[alh]

Thats a funny post.

Might want to let know the end user that to vote, they can just point their hash at a BIP100 supporting pool.

I am curious about something. Is mining with no BIP100 or BIP101 designation counted as BIP100 or what?  I mine with Slush, and do NOT use the BIP101 port. So who/what am I "voting" for? Is "abstaining" a vote for BIP100, BIP101, or neither?

[TheRealSteve]

I am curious about something. Is mining with no BIP100 or BIP101 designation counted as BIP100 or what?  I mine with Slush, and do NOT use the BIP101 port. So who/what am I "voting" for? Is "abstaining" a vote for BIP100, BIP101, or neither?

Abstaining is a 'vote' for neither.  It's a 'vote' for the status quo.

A 'vote' for BIP100 is also not technically a vote for anything at this time, as BIP100 has not yet been formalized and no code implementing anything is available - Jeff is working on that.  It could be seen as "we want change, but BIP101 is not the change we want - BIP100 would have our preference in lieu of something else".  The bitcoin-dev mailing list is probably the best place to keep an eye on BIP100 development.

Only BIP101 votes that adhere to the BIP101 mechanism (block version number change) are actual votes which - if there are enough miners and users supporting it - would result in an actual change.

[VirosaGITS]

I am curious about something. Is mining with no BIP100 or BIP101 designation counted as BIP100 or what?  I mine with Slush, and do NOT use the BIP101 port. So who/what am I "voting" for? Is "abstaining" a vote for BIP100, BIP101, or neither?

Abstaining is a 'vote' for neither.  It's a 'vote' for the status quo.

A 'vote' for BIP100 is also not technically a vote for anything at this time, as BIP100 has not yet been formalized and no code implementing anything is available - Jeff is working on that.  It could be seen as "we want change, but BIP101 is not the change we want - BIP100 would have our preference in lieu of something else".  The bitcoin-dev mailing list is probably the best place to keep an eye on BIP100 development.

Only BIP101 votes that adhere to the BIP101 mechanism (block version number change) are actual votes which - if there are enough miners and users supporting it - would result in an actual change.

The pool owners are simply tagging their block "BIP100" in a way that can't cause a fork, simply to show their support for the BIP100. It's not a mechanism that can bring any change. It just mean they're interested in going forward with BIP100, current bitcoin core for now works fine. But they don't want BIP101/XT etc.

[eleuthria]

XT is out
Core is good enough for now...
Sidechains are cool, but dont yet exists
So all we need is to "kick the can down the road" so to speak
Just a little longer, Just a little longer
BIP100 allows miners to do just that,
in a predictable as needed basis.

This seems to imply that BIP100 is somehow still Bitcoin Core.  BIP100 is not core either. BIP100 doesn't actually exist right now, there is no implementation in any client.  Until it actually gets merged into Bitcoin core, it's no different than BIP101 requiring a separate client implementation like BIP101 and XT.

[VirosaGITS]

XT is out
Core is good enough for now...
Sidechains are cool, but dont yet exists
So all we need is to "kick the can down the road" so to speak
Just a little longer, Just a little longer
BIP100 allows miners to do just that,
in a predictable as needed basis.

This seems to imply that BIP100 is somehow still Bitcoin Core.  BIP100 is not core either. BIP100 doesn't actually exist right now, there is no implementation in any client.  Until it actually gets merged into Bitcoin core, it's no different than BIP101 requiring a separate client implementation like BIP101 and XT.

Naw Core is good enough -> "For now". ("Thus lets aim at BIP100, because Core is only good for a limited amount of time.")

Was my interpretation anyways. Its still indeed a bit vague.

[Amph]

this mess tourned out even more complicated now with all those fork, they should just stick to core and implement the change to the tx block size

we don't need to turn the table in favor on miners, when there are already dangerous thing like chinese controlling 60+%

[notlist3d]

this mess tourned out even more complicated now with all those fork, they should just stick to core and implement the change to the tx block size

we don't need to turn the table in favor on miners, when there are already dangerous thing like chinese controlling 60+%

I predict this amount only goes up.  After having I really want to see numbers.

It also depends on BTC price but it's been to low for to long.  I still am holding as I believe.  Hopefully one day it pay's off.

[Mickeyb]

So just to make this clear, BIP100 is gaining traction, a lot of it. It's just a suggestion, no code or client still exist, so to say, it's just an idea and an idea that has a lot of support.

This just comes to show us that people are tired, people want the solution so we can move forward with our normal Bitcoin lives. I hope this will be possible soon!

[Carlton Banks]

So just to make this clear, BIP100 is gaining traction, a lot of it. It's just a suggestion, no code or client still exist, so to say, it's just an idea and an idea that has a lot of support.

This just comes to show us that people are tired, people want the solution so we can move forward with our normal Bitcoin lives. I hope this will be possible soon!

I suspect that 100 will fall by the wayside as with 101. The criticisms are well founded; miners can too easily collude under BIP100. Trends and fashions come and go quickly these days.

[alani123]

BIP100 as a proposal doesn't exist in code either. At least it's not going to come completely out of nowhere since Jeff is positive about an open development procedure. But to be perfectly honest, we have only seen the thought process behind the proposal so far and not the code to back it up.