BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it

[Denker]

Wow what the hell is going on?
Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101?
This is getting more and more ridicolous.

[knight22]

Wow what the hell is going on?
Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101?
This is getting more and more ridicolous.

Debates are there to evolves you know? The final output and consensus might not be something anybody here can expect right now.

[turvarya]

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion

Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms

Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything

Why should I suppose some fantasy numbers? Fact is, that mining is expensive and I doubt there will be a big number of people doing it at a big loss, just so they can vote for the blocksize.
The only incentive here is an ideological one and that is just not enough.

[MCHouston]

When you get down to the core of Bitcoin it is mainly just the miners and the node operators, in most cases these are the same people.  Only two things are really required for the blockchain to exist and bitcoins to be generated and secured, and that is full nodes and miners.  As these are the people that basically run the network for everyone one else, why do you think giving them the ability to adjust block size is too much power?

Its not like you are giving the decision to one person or company, it will be many many companies/people.

because these companies/people might all decided to team up and harm bitcoin by lowering the limit so they can incress the fees.

because obviously they would make more money if bticoin was <1TPS with 1$ fee pre TX.

lol

this agreement is invalid....

They can do this now.  If every mining pool in the world decided not to accept any fees under .1 BTC per Kb this would be the same thing.

Transaction fees are meant to rise at the halvings but only slightly, but just as now miners would never agree to something like a crazy price for transactions.

Keep in mind that miners want more people to use bitcoin, your are paying them to process your transactions. So decisions that would force people to make less transactions or not use bitcoin is also bad for the miners.

[Kprawn]

Wow what the hell is going on?
Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101?
This is getting more and more ridicolous.

Nope, it's still the same two groups going up against each other to see who will win the popularity contest.   ..... The debate has become a little more civilized now, which is

better than what we had before. I see no censorship against the BIP 101 too... and that is good too. I think the miners will have a bigger incentive to make a good decision on

this one. You cannot make a decision that will kill the cow that is producing the milk, and that keeps them honest. For some of the other players, it seems to be all or nothing.  

[adamstgBit]

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion

Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms

Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything

Why should I suppose some fantasy numbers? Fact is, that mining is expensive and I doubt there will be a big number of people doing it at a big loss, just so they can vote for the blocksize.
The only incentive here is an ideological one and that is just not enough.

if mining is at all profitable it should be possible to buy "cloud mining" that tend to break even in USD terms. invest 500$ into cloud mining get ~500$ worth of bitcoin over the next year.

right now profit margins are tight, so this might not be possible, but we are also 2 years in a bear market...

[LiteCoinGuy]

Wow what the hell is going on?
Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101?
This is getting more and more ridicolous.

not "vs", just a debate.

maybe it is better to launch 2 MB blocks at the begin of next year and win some more time for the evaluation.  

[Klestin]

Wow what the hell is going on?
Now it's not Core vs XT but BIP 100 vs BIP 101?
This is getting more and more ridicolous.

It was BIP 101 vs no change at all, and now it has evolved to BIP 101 vs BIP 100. 

[johnyj]

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion

Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms

Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything

Why should I suppose some fantasy numbers? Fact is, that mining is expensive and I doubt there will be a big number of people doing it at a big loss, just so they can vote for the blocksize.
The only incentive here is an ideological one and that is just not enough.

These are not fansy numbers, but a very conservative estimation, I guess the real numbers is much higher than this. If you look at early days of mining, many people treat this as a hobby/game and they pay lots of money/time to play with the hardware/software, continuously build up the network hash power. And later, there are others with long term plan, treating mining as infrastructure investment towards a global financial system. They all contributed lots of time and money in the process, thus of course hold more rights to vote for the future of the system

The real ideology is to change the rules of a global financial system by just talking