Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another?

[CIYAM]

Anyway, I don't really care about your opinion.

When you learn to grow up and be more polite then I might bother to give a fuck about anything more that you post but for now I am putting you on "ignore" as you come across as just a stupid troll to me.

[1714189408]

1714189408

[1714189408]

1714189408

[tomothy]

Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

Hi Eric,

What do you think about the Classic implementation? What does chinese miners think about it?

Many Chinese Bitcoiners - not only miners, but also exchanges and wallet services, originally supported Classic for its support of 2MB block size, but after meeting Jeff Garzik in Beijing, many backtracked because they didn't believe that the team behind is capable or there is a roadmap.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/92e1efd0493c1cbde47304c9711f13f413cc9099/bip-bump2mb.mediawiki
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4342u3/bip_block_size_increase_to_2mb_gavinandresenbips/


Hi Eric,

I recognize that a conservative approach is important and from your viewpoint, neither Classic nor Core is respecting this need. That being said, sometimes it helps frame and shape a discussion if you can elaborate as to what is meant by a conservative approach. Specifically, it seems like there may be, generally speaking, miner consensus for a block size increase sooner rather than later and with a hard fork. It seems additionally, that this method may be more acceptable due to the unknown effects of segwit. Is this a correct assessment? Assuming that is so, is your concern then specifically relating to the activation mechanism? What do you mean by a conservative approach?

I think you are asking the right questions; questions that many members also share and wonder about. It is difficult to tell who is telling the truth, there version of the truth, and what interests that viewpoint represents. As miners have their own interests, I think it is imperative, if not a necessity, for miners to have developers representing their interest. It would be very sensible to partner with either known western developers or for the creation of your own team.

Additionally, I think it can help examine the bitcoin project when you look at it as an outsider or if you look at it from the view of a university group student project. Some people, in such a project, may have the goal of getting things done as soon as possible to go home and watch tv, others just want to impress the pretty object of their affection in the group(a cute girl/guy/dog/cat), and others may want a solid grade, and some will accept nothing but the best grade. Sometimes you have groups split up to handle different portions of the project and maybe the work is not up to your own personal standards but could be satisfactory to other members of the group. These projects require the ability to collaborate, to work together, to negotiate, and to most importantly, compromise to create a finished project. I think when choosing who you want to work with and whether the project will ultimately be successful, I think you need people who are will to compromise. Otherwise the project turns into US politics where nothing ever happens because no one will work with each other.

If you were to form a mining developer team, do you have an idea as to what your goals would be? It seems like you there had been miner suggestion of a third alternative, neither classic nor core, but intead mining code with  95% consensus HF for a 2mb increase, remove RBF, and segwit testing possibly a year down the road?

Thank you for your time concerning this matter.

-Tomothy

[oakpacific]

For some, it is that Bitcoin will continue to function as a payment network for individual users rather than a settlement network where only large transactions can be processed cost-efficiently.

I would like to know why that is perceived to be an issue (especially in China when you have payment networks that work instantly with almost no fees already)?

(such as Alipay, QQ, etc.)

And Wechat payment, geez, these days people just throw red envelopes back and forth as a way of messaging, try to beat that tps.  Albeit tencent can't even achieve internal database consistency IIRC.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be

Hahahaha.

That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there.

Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream:
Adam Back
Gregory Maxwell
Luke-Jr
Matt Corallo
Pieter Wuille
Peter Todd - EDIT: incorrect, my mistake

That's not all - people above are actually the founders of Blockstream & whole lightning concept.

Just a reminder, Adam Back, president of blockstream openly condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

Gregory Maxwell also condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/

And he is a manipulative lying bastard, proof:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/

And he openly supports attacking competing projects:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/

...which Adam Back also does. He really likes sabotage, that one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hc4nu/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Anyway, I don't really care about your opinion.

When you learn to grow up and be more polite then I might bother to give a fuck about anything more that you post but for now I am putting you on "ignore"

This day just gets better and better.

[CIYAM]

And Wechat payment, geez, these days people just throw red envelopes back and forth as a way of messaging, try to beat that tps.  Albeit tencent can't even achieve internal database consistency IIRC.

The point (that you can clearly see) is that China doesn't need a "new payment network".

It won't offer anything better than is already available (and has been for years).

[watashi-kokoto]

The consensus is to respect the Satoshi's 1MB cap for now. Maybe in 2018 or 2019 we can discuss the hard fork.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

The point (that you can clearly see) is that China doesn't need a "new payment network".

It won't offer anything better than is already available (and has been for years).

I don't care what's best for China, I care what is the best for Bitcoin.

And what is the best for Bitcoin is also best for China.

BTW,
Notice it - the guy changed topic again. This may be a manipulative tactic used in order to water down the discussion.

[CIYAM]

This day just gets better and better.

Let's see - how many people support @ShadowOfHarbringer?

How about we set up two BTC addresses to work this out - either support or reject?

(you are just an annoying troll)

[sturle]

The 2nd half of the Scaling Bitcoin conference was China, where many photos were taken of the world's biggest miners sharing a stage.  So I don't see how Chinese Bitcoiners have "little say in the matter" of scaling.

But as one of the Chinese panelists said at the event, they felt like merely an audience who are asked to sit there to choose between options given to them.

The development is open, everyone with a github account can contribute.  Actually, you can get pretty far even without a github account.  The rest have to choose between options, or not even that.  The miners are free to hardfork if they want to.  A hardfork will just create a new altcoin. which some users may be interested in.  As long as there are some users mining and using standard Bitcoin, standard Bitcoin will live on in parallel.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

The consensus is to respect the Satoshi's 1MB cap for now.

The 1MB cap is a completely irrelevant temporary thing, which Satoshi clearly stated.

At the time of the cap's creation, the proportion of avg. block size to block size limit was over 1 MILLION. So today to keep the proportions, the proper block size limit should be around 1 GB.

[CIYAM]

At the time of the cap's creation, the proportion of avg. block size to block size limit was over 1 MILLION. So today to keep the proportions, the proper block size limit should be around 1 GB.

Who the fuck put *you in charge*?

(that's right - no-one so stop trying to tell everyone what the rules should be)

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

This day just gets better and better.

How about we set up two BTC addresses to work this out - either support or reject?
(you are just an annoying troll)

Much worse.

I am an annoying troll with logic & arguments.

Can't stand it, can you ?

[oakpacific]

While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be

Hahahaha.

That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there.

Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream:
Adam Back
Gregory Maxwell
Luke-Jr
Matt Corallo
Pieter Wuille
Peter Todd

Misattributing one dev as a Blockstream employee is understandable, but two at the same time, is probably too coincidental.

[CIYAM]

Can't stand it, can you ?

So - such a coward you won't agree to a BTC challenge.

(seriously you are the kind of weak punk I eat for breakfast)

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

At the time of the cap's creation, the proportion of avg. block size to block size limit was over 1 MILLION. So today to keep the proportions, the proper block size limit should be around 1 GB.

Who the fuck put *you in charge*?
(that's right - no-one so stop trying to tell everyone what the rules should be)

Sorry. No arguments, not answering this.

[CIYAM]

Sorry. No arguments, not answering this.

Yup - "weak punk" as I thought.

If you want to "grow a pair" then challenge me.

[Carlton Banks]

At the time of the cap's creation, the proportion of avg. block size to block size limit was over 1 MILLION. So today to keep the proportions, the proper block size limit should be around 1 GB.

lol, the gigabyte man. Is this your scaling proposal? You could code that up yourself, you should do it.

[tAP]

This day just gets better and better.

Let's see - how many people support @ShadowOfHarbringer?

How about we set up two BTC addresses to work this out - either support or reject?

(you are just an annoying troll)

You guys need to stop feeding each other, lol.

It's obvious which side I support (2MB increase) but all I care about are logical arguments, and there is a lot of mudslinging going on that certainly is not addressing the topic of this post - which side should miners support.

Unrelated, but it's pretty well-known this forum is very Pro-Core.  As far as setting addresses goes we know which way that would go, just as we know which way it would go if we posted it on /r/btc.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be

Hahahaha.

That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there.

Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream:
Adam Back
Gregory Maxwell
Luke-Jr
Matt Corallo
Pieter Wuille
Peter Todd

Misattributing one dev as a Blockstream employee is understandable, but two at the same time, is probably too coincidental.

Sorry, my mistake.

These two are only strongly affiliated with blockstream. Not employees.

I will have proof in a minute, working really hard here.