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

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Start with the arguments. Only then will you gain my respect.

Fact 1: r/btc is censored

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/

[citation needed]

[1714776706]

1714776706

[1714776706]

1714776706

[CIYAM]

Start with the arguments. Only then will you gain my respect.

Fact 1: r/btc is censored

 https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/

So what has that to with this forum?

(I was being accused of being off-topic but I think that this is far more so)

[hdbuck]

So - how did you get your BTC in order to buy coffees?

(are you paid in BTC for your work and if so how is that done?)

I got paid with bitcoin for translation services a few times. I am not sure how is this relevant to the discussion though...

(you people that say that you have BTC USD to buy coffees are actually hated in the poor world where they have no BTC USD  at all - so I hope you are proud of the fact that you make most poorer people feel sick when you complain that you can't buy coffee for BTC USD when they cannot even hope to get any BTC USD at all)

I really don't understand that argument but same can be said with USD no?

Lol conflating btc with usd. Fucking retard.

[CIYAM]

Lol conflating btc with usd. Fucking retard.

Calling someone names doesn't make you look very good "asswipe"

[knight22]

So - how did you get your BTC in order to buy coffees?

(are you paid in BTC for your work and if so how is that done?)

I got paid with bitcoin for translation services a few times. I am not sure how is this relevant to the discussion though...

(you people that say that you have BTC USD to buy coffees are actually hated in the poor world where they have no BTC USD  at all - so I hope you are proud of the fact that you make most poorer people feel sick when you complain that you can't buy coffee for BTC USD when they cannot even hope to get any BTC USD at all)

I really don't understand that argument but same can be said with USD no?

Lol conflating btc with usd. Fucking retard.

Explain.

[watashi-kokoto]

Start with the arguments. Only then will you gain my respect.

Fact 1: r/btc is censored

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/

[citation needed]

[oakpacific]

Frankly that's why I believe the Chinese should not buy into the rhetoric of Bitcoin Classic developers, who clearly have a political agenda(in addition to the absymal record in development of many among them), and supported by people with questionable motives, as Toomim openly acknowledged in the Chinese miners Wechat group.

Nice FUD.

Toomim acknowledged it in an interview with Guy Corem that it was Olivier Janssen and Marshall Long who got him to be the lead dev of Classic, a position Gavin and Jeff repeatedly refused to take over despite repeated requests, get you facts straight.

You might think that choosing Classic over Core is the best option to get a short-term block size expansion, but Classic's plan doesn't stop here, they also intend to decide changes to the code by popular vote: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...bitcoinclassic:master , within an environment clearly to the disadvantage of users and businesses in China and many other nations, it's not hard to imagine what most of the outcomes of such votes would be-representing only the opinion of English speaking Bitcoiners, even if we neglect all the technical reasons why it's an amusingly bad idea.

Why would one have to be English speaking to cast a vote? Are Chinese translations so difficult to make? Or is it that (mainland) Chinese are not used to voting?

Because why should a Chinese Bitcoin users be supposed to keep up with whatever happening on Reddit and Github(websites probably blocked in China)? How are they supposed to know if something is going on, and the view points of all sides?  Those in whatever ways closer to the devs naturally get more information and don't forget, Toomim & Co also haven't really clarified on lots of things, e.g., what they meant by Miner's vote, how do they count these votes? Who are eligible? Anyone with a miner counts? Are Butterfly Jalapenos included? If so, what about CPUs?

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, the consciousness they have thus far displayed, I believe, is in alignment with the general interest of Chinese Bitcoiners, e.g., one of the most important reasons why Core devs oppose to a rash block size increase is the network connectivity problem of people living in China, and Blockstream is, as far as I know, the only company with both the technical expertise and willingness to work on some of the best solutions to the problem: weak blocks and IBLT, and they are working on it. In contrast with this is Classic devs' clear lack of long term sustainable plan to the block size problem, what if 2 MB blocks are filled up again, do we just double it every year, ad infinitum? I am sure you understand that this is unsustainable.

Classic would not be necessary if Core wouldn't let the network get jammed, as it is letting it do now.
 

Core has no power to have the network upgrading, and could not do so in a timely manner, much of which is still using badly vulnerable client, which Core repeatedly urged to abandon, I have personally spoken to people who told me he wouldn't change anything until the first >1MB block drops, dude, have you ran a full node ever?

Also, if it's possible for such a political fork to take place, it would set a very bad precedent, as any interest group can possibly pay some developers to create a campaign to further split the network, by tweaking with some block parameters, for example, imagine some developers try to appeal to the interest of gamers with high-end GPUs by promising them a change of PoW function, under the banner of "re-decentralizing" the network, in which case the miners' opinion would not even matter to them.

You mean like Core devs like Luke-jr are advocating?!! Talking about very bad precedents...

You really don't get the point do you? Luke-jr's patch would not be accepted by Core, and even if it did, it would not be accepted by the wider community(which doesn't take their orders),  and all I have heard is that they are oh so unpopular, you failure to grasp this is probably the origin of all your disagreements and misunderstandings.

After all, it never costs much to pay for an army of shills to flood the online discussion forums to create a superficial "economic majority", like what we are seeing now,

How do you know? From experience perhaps?

I did test it, but I was more pointing out the fact that so called "economic majority" was merely a fiction, like, do you even hold a referendum for that?

I am not a Core dev and I could not speak for them, my personal suggestion would be: wait for Segwit to roll out,

...we don't have time to wait that long...

You have to, the network wouldn't magically upgrade overnight even if you do a hard fork.

and if anything goes wrong with it, or the blocks are filling up again, we can push them harder for a block size raise, while wait for weak blocks and IBLT to be implemented, at which time they would have no further excuse, and it would be the moment of truth when we understand if they are truly sincere or not.  

Yes, give Core yet another chance. Because they have been so sincere until now.  

I wonder why you are trusting the code they write, even if you switch to Classic.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Start with the arguments. Only then will you gain my respect.

Fact 1: r/btc is censored

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/

[citation needed]

[images]

/r/btc is not censored. You may be shadowbanned from reddit, or from that subreddit.

You may also be a troll which has been banned from /r/btc.

Anyway, this is not enough proof to make an argument. More please.

EDIT:
This thread has been archived for posterity:
https://archive.is/6Oqgk

[watashi-kokoto]

More please.

More of what?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

More please.

More of what?

Arguments.

Seriously, are you a child ? Start the arguments or leave the train.

Or you can also state: "You are right, my arguments were incorrect" and that will do it.

EDIT:
This thread has been archived for posterity:
https://archive.is/6Oqgk

[watashi-kokoto]

More please.

More of what?

Arguments.

all I have is facts

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

More please.

More of what?

Arguments.

all I have is facts

You have nothing.

A screen that can be really easily faked is not a fact or proof of any kind.

Also your inability to post may be a technical malfunction.

EDIT:
Again, offtopic. Not continuing this any longer. What's with the offtopic making, people ? Can't you really stay straight for an hour ?

[watashi-kokoto]

Can't you really stay straight for an hour ?

Is a plenty of upvoted well-written posts by many distinct accounts on the social media what people believe nowadays?

[oakpacific]

Can't you really stay straight for an hour ?

Is a plenty of upvoted well-written posts by many distinct accounts on the social media what people believe nowadays?

If you would like to use TLSNotary to prove that your screenshot is genuine, PM me. 

[watashi-kokoto]

If you would like to use TLSNotary to prove that your screenshot is genuine, PM me. 

Yes

[sturle]

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?

If the pool operators were the only ones interested in >1MB blocks then this would fail since most users and merchants would reject their larger blocks. this is not the case however...these companies are supporting it too:

Coinbase OKCoin Bitstamp Blockchain.info (Peter Smith) Xapo Bitcoin.com Foldapp Bread Wallet Snapcard.io Cubits Vaultoro Coinify Bitso Bitnet BitOasis Lamassu BlockCypher BitQuick.co itBit BitAccess Coinfinity Chronos Crypto

Not more?  Consensus is certainly at 1 MB then.  As I suspected.  To break the rules of the blockchain, e.g. by increasing the blocksize, increasing the money supply or inflation rate, etc, 10% is not enough.  Neither is 51% or 75% or even 90%.  You need 100% consensus.  Otherwise you will just create another altcoin which a few merchants have agreed to support.  I can not see a clear consensus here.  On the contrary most exchanges and merchants are not there.  Of course the developers won't increase the blocksize if only a few support it.  From the list it is unclear what blocksize they all want as well.  There are so many different suggestions and BIPs on blocksize, I have lost count of them.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?

If the pool operators were the only ones interested in >1MB blocks then this would fail since most users and merchants would reject their larger blocks. this is not the case however...these companies are supporting it too:

Coinbase OKCoin Bitstamp Blockchain.info (Peter Smith) Xapo Bitcoin.com Foldapp Bread Wallet Snapcard.io Cubits Vaultoro Coinify Bitso Bitnet BitOasis Lamassu BlockCypher BitQuick.co itBit BitAccess Coinfinity Chronos Crypto

Not more?  Consensus is certainly at 1 MB then.  As I suspected.  To break the rules of the blockchain, e.g. by increasing the blocksize, increasing the money supply or inflation rate, etc, 10% is not enough.  Neither is 51% or 75% or even 90%.  You need 100% consensus.

100% consensus is most probably unachievable because of the ability of a single powerful miner to destroy consensus.
I assume we are talking about miner consesus, right ?

1. But that is not really important. The last time hard fork happened (because of network malfunction), the network upgraded, resolved itself & reached "consensus" in around 6 hours. So miner consensus can happen almost instantly. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of the fork - that is pretty obvious.

2. Lately "consensus" means whatever Adam Back wants it to mean. Check out these links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/434spq/adam_back_on_twitter_understand_bitcoin_social/
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/692756252418576384

.@jnxpn understand #bitcoin social contract: majority MUST NOT be able to override minority. that is how political money fails. #consensus

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad with power.

Last time I remember, Bitcoin was all about what majority wants. When minority wants to change rules of the game then it is called a HARD FORK and they go their separate way.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Adam Back lies you all in the face and pretends like nothing has happened.

What he says has nothing to do with original Bitcoin social contract designed by Satoshi. The original vision was that majority of miners and majority of users decide. Users decide by running their clients and miners decide by mining the longest chain. If users start using a client with another chain that is the longest, miners switch to that.

It is really simple. Users decide. MAJORITY of users decide. Where the hell did he get the "minority" from ?

Also, please remember that even if you don't understand Bitcoin technically, you can still vote correctly in the blocksize debate:

How ? The only thing that you actually need to consider is the actions taken by both sides of the debate.

There is only one side of the debate here that repeatedly tries to stifle discussion by resorting to censorship, DDoSing, outright lying while simultaneously pretending that nothing is actually happening. Check out yourself.

If they wanted the best for Bitcoin users, they wouldn't have to lie, censor and directly attack their opponents. Such actions clearly show their evil intentions and their ulterior hidden agenda. Words are often meaningless. Words are cheap. These days you can actually detect bullshit and real intentions of evil people only by watching their actions.

This is at least a 2000-year old truth. "You will recognize them by their fruits" it said in some ancient book.

So basically, the side of the debate that resorts to censorship, lying, manipulation and attacks, is 99,99% of the time the dishonest side which is trying to do something evil while pretending to do something good.

[oakpacific]

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?

If the pool operators were the only ones interested in >1MB blocks then this would fail since most users and merchants would reject their larger blocks. this is not the case however...these companies are supporting it too:

Coinbase OKCoin Bitstamp Blockchain.info (Peter Smith) Xapo Bitcoin.com Foldapp Bread Wallet Snapcard.io Cubits Vaultoro Coinify Bitso Bitnet BitOasis Lamassu BlockCypher BitQuick.co itBit BitAccess Coinfinity Chronos Crypto

Not more?  Consensus is certainly at 1 MB then.  As I suspected.  To break the rules of the blockchain, e.g. by increasing the blocksize, increasing the money supply or inflation rate, etc, 10% is not enough.  Neither is 51% or 75% or even 90%.  You need 100% consensus.

100% consensus is most probably unachievable because of the ability of a single powerful miner to destroy consensus.
I assume we are talking about miner consesus, right ?

1. But that is not really important. The last time hard fork happened (because of network malfunction), the network upgraded, resolved itself & reached "consensus" in around 6 hours. So miner consensus can happen almost instantly. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of the fork - that is pretty obvious.

2. Lately "consensus" means whatever Adam Back wants it to mean. Check out these links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/434spq/adam_back_on_twitter_understand_bitcoin_social/
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/692756252418576384

.@jnxpn understand #bitcoin social contract: majority MUST NOT be able to override minority. that is how political money fails. #consensus

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad with power.

Last time I remember, Bitcoin was all about what majority wants. When minority wants to change rules of the game then it is called a HARD FORK and they go their separate way.

No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks.

Are we talking about clients, relays or miners ?