Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2019, 11:17:45 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another?  (Read 37765 times)
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 08:29:35 AM
 #261

Current thread backup in case of censorship,

Tinfoil hat on?
Grin
Clown hat on ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/

1569151065
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569151065

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569151065
Reply with quote  #2

1569151065
Report to moderator
1569151065
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569151065

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569151065
Reply with quote  #2

1569151065
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1569151065
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569151065

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569151065
Reply with quote  #2

1569151065
Report to moderator
watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 08:39:11 AM
 #262



r/btc
r/bitcoin_uncensored


>credible source of information

Yes it happens, even to the brightest ones of us. It's not a shame to admit that one has been deceived. I know it looks really convincing. These many, credible looking accounts, with various achievement badges, on social media. A flood of well written posts, a carefully copy pasted arguments, followed by a fear and doubt inducing statements. A robotic -generated burst of down votes, and a slight burst of up votes for every post that needs to be legitimized. A "majority" couldn't be possibly wrong.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 08:42:48 AM
 #263

@Luke-Jr

-snip-
Also keep in mind that back when Satoshi was around, the idea was that every node would be a miner among equals. That is no longer the case.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Quote
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

And you responded with:

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

@Luke-Jr
Elaborate, or I call bullshit.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 08:44:46 AM
 #264

You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.

Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.

Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.

watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
 #265


You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.

Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.

Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.

Again, If you did not accept the Fact 1, that those boards are censored, and there are down vote robots that hide every single post that challenges the official narrative, why should I waste my time in further discussion?

 I am not paid to convince people.

You have the freedom to fork back off to reddit, and you can Believe What You Want To Believe.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 09:06:56 AM
 #266


You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.

Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.

Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.

Again, If you did not accept the Fact 1, that those boards are censored, and there are down vote robots that hide every single post that challenges the official narrative, why should I waste my time in further discussion?
There were no facts in what you supplied.
There was no proof. And downvote robots are everywhere. I am actually starting to believe you may be a robot of some kind.

Anybody can photoshop such a fake, this means nothing.

Seriously, are you a troll, a child or a mentally disabled person ? I am sorry, but I really don't have time to explain such simple things.

I am not paid to convince people.
Nobody accused you of being paid, so why are you explaining yourself ? This is suspicious. Now it's like you actually are paid by somebody.

You have the freedom to fork back off to reddit, and you can Believe What You Want To Believe.
I have the freedom to believe you are a troll with
- No facts
- No proof
- No arguments

Give us something concrete or get out of this discussion. You are really wasting mine, your and everybody else's time.

watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 09:40:11 AM
 #267

Here is your concrete:

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 09:46:56 AM
 #268

Lol the VERified whiners are having a hard time convincing people to follow them in their shitty inflated shitcoin fork.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 09:56:51 AM
 #269

Here is your concrete:
[image]
OK great, so that's it.

You are officially a troll now and this is how I will treat you.

Lol the VERified whiners are having a hard time convincing people to follow them in their shitty inflated shitcoin fork.
Another troll pretender ?

watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 10:04:56 AM
 #270

Ok. I admit it. I am a shill and associated Theymos. We want to undermine Bitcoin.

Let me tell you what I really believe:

Honestly, Core vision, if you do the math, is not viable in the long run.

There must be a considerable capacity increase when block reward diminish otherwise fees wont cover expences.

How can bitcoin live without miners? Bitcoin is Dead and has no future.

Grin
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 10:33:03 AM
Last edit: January 30, 2016, 11:29:35 AM by ShadowOfHarbringer
 #271

Issue update:

Peter Todd is starting to have serious doubts if implementing SegWit as soft fork is the right way to go:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43bgrs/peter_todd_sw_is_not_safe_as_a_softfork/

Quote from: Peter Todd
While segregated witnesses is a soft-fork, because it adds new data blocks that old nodes don't relay segwit nodes can't sync from non-segwit nodes and still be fully validating; once the segwit softfork has activated full nodes need witness data to function. This poses a major problem during deployment: if full node adoption lags miner adoption, the segwit-supporting P2P network can partition and lose consensus.

Quote from: Peter Todd
While Pieter Wuille's segwit branch(1) doesn't yet implement a fix for the above problem, the obvious thing to do is to add a new service bit such as NODE_SEGWIT, and/or bump the protocol version, and for outgoing peers only connect to peers with segwit support. Interestingly, a closely related problem already exists in Bitcoin Core: neither addrman nor the outgoing connection thread takes what service bits a peer advertises into account. So if a large number of non-block-relaying nodes joined the network and advertised their addresses the network could, in theory, partition even without an explicit attack. (My own full-RBF fork of Bitcoin Core does fix(2) this issue, though by accident!)

EDIT: This was said by said by Pieter Wuille:
Quote from: Pieter Wuille
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

So basically, Bitcoin Core may no longer be safe - and this is said by (edit:) Core-Team supporters.

And guess what: Peter Todd actually proposes to do a hard-fork in order to make SegWit safe !

Gavin Andersen said long ago that segwit as a soft-fork is worse than as a hard fork:
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/segregated-witness-is-cool


watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 10:45:52 AM
 #272

Issue update:

Solution: Deploy Classic with security errors and pocket redditard's funds.

Grin
oakpacific
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 11:24:06 AM
 #273

Quote
Quote from: Peter Todd
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

It was not said by Peter Todd, but Pieter Wuille in his original Segwit presentation: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/  he was talking about the possibility of a new kind of node between SPV and full node, and it has nothing to do with the full node security during a hard fork. Cypherdoc misrepresented it as " and since one of the stated benefits of SWSF was that it shifts the security assumptions away from miner collusion and non-Sybiling to that of "non censored partially validating SPV node connections" via as yet uninvented/coded fraud proofs in an attempt to scale nodes, this just compounds the problem given that we now know that the p2p network in a SWSF can be parititioned. we can't tell if SWSF is safe."

Your full node would not be downgraded to a "fraud-proof" node in the scenario of a SWSF, AFAIK the code for fraud proof has not even been written(he did mention that, but apparently contradicting himself), it's until now a mere theoretical construction.

https://tlsnotary.org/ Fraud proofing decentralized fiat-Bitcoin trading.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 11:27:31 AM
 #274

Quote
Quote from: Peter Todd
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

It was not said by Peter Todd, but Pieter Wuille in his original Segwit presentation: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/  he was talking about the possibility of a new kind of node between SPV and full node, and it has nothing to do with the full node security during a hard fork. Cypherdoc misrepresented it as " and since one of the stated benefits of SWSF was that it shifts the security assumptions away from miner collusion and non-Sybiling to that of "non censored partially validating SPV node connections" via as yet uninvented/coded fraud proofs in an attempt to scale nodes, this just compounds the problem given that we now know that the p2p network in a SWSF can be parititioned. we can't tell if SWSF is safe."

Your full node would not be downgraded to a "fraud-proof" node in the scenario of a SWSF, AFAIK the code for fraud proof has not even been written, it's until now a mere theoretical construction.
Very well, I have misquoted something in a hurry.

Thanks for clarification.

BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 12:02:30 PM
 #275

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

1.
Quote
The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.
2.
Quote
Those few nodes will be big server farms.

Isn't 2 a reference to miners?

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
sturle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1444
Merit: 1001

https://bitmynt.no


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2016, 12:08:14 PM
 #276

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.
Acutally not.  Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB.  If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.

Sjå https://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner.  Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010.
I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell.  See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.pl
Warning: "Bitcoin" XT, Classic, Unlimited and the likes are scams. Don't use them, and don't listen to their shills.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1001


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 12:20:29 PM
 #277

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.
Acutally not.  Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB.  If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000 bytes
1 000 000 bytes / 1024 = 976,56 bytes

So current (EDIT:) maximum blocksize limit is 976 kibibytes or 1000 kilobytes. That is the source of "976".

But not all mines will always produce maximum blocksize blocks. Some even mine empty blocks. It has always been this way and it probably always will. And they have right to do so.

By the way, that is the reason why blocks are full right now. Because there will never be a situation when all blocks are at 1MB, because some miners always mine smaller ones.

watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 01:02:41 PM
 #278

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.
Acutally not.  Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB.  If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000 bytes
1 000 000 bytes / 1024 = 976,56 bytes

So current (EDIT:) maximum blocksize limit is 976 kibibytes or 1000 kilobytes. That is the source of "976".

But not all mines will always produce maximum blocksize blocks. Some even mine empty blocks. It has always been this way and it probably always will. And they have right to do so.

By the way, that is the reason why blocks are full right now. Because there will never be a situation when all blocks are at 1MB, because some miners always mine smaller ones.

You are right. This is why the block 395783 has 974.8271484375 KB

They packed it full of some transactions, it's not exactly full but it's obvious that all these miners respect the 1MB limit.

sturle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1444
Merit: 1001

https://bitmynt.no


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2016, 01:13:56 PM
 #279

Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what
would happen if the network split 80/20.
Check it out:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen)
Many people, me too, think he is wrong. 
He has perfect understanding of how things would work after the fork,
do you ?
Keep your religion out of this.  Neither Gavin or anyone else have presented any convincing proof of how a hard fork would develop.  Just pure speculation.  The only thing certain is that total chaos will prevail until difficulty has caught up.  Mostly because some people are mad enough to run SPV clients, and a block size increase will make it harder to run a full node at the same time.  Miners want their coins to have some value, and the value will drop significantly if most wallets become useless overnight.  Fortunately, since segregated witness is under heavy development by a lot of of very talented people, and only a very few people and fewer merchants and almost no developers support the altcoins, I am not very worried.  The segwit testnet has lots of activity, and there is a segwit block explorer as well.  Why risk Bitcoin because some small minority og users and merchants want a worse solution based on untested software which doesn't exist yet?

He is actually right, I can understand it (I am a technical person, though not Bitcoin developer).

Hell, even Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers can also surely understand it, but I am not sure if any of them is
willing to admit that.
They may be too deep with their heads in the bullshit, propaganda & manipulation web they have created.
I don't understand why you are so against Blockstream?  The developers working for Blockstream aren't trying to break consensus in any way.  They do that the rest of the developers and the community want them to do.  I have never seen Blockstream trying to force anything through, and there are often disagreements among them.  E.g. about the removal of the priority system in Bitcoin Core (not a fork of any kind).

I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought (...) businesses wanting to switch to an
altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.
I don't think you understand how things work in Bitcoin network function at all.
Once Bitcoin Classic wins, Bitcoin Classic becomes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core stops being
Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Core will be *THE* altcoin you are talking about.

Sorry, when a coin operate according to different consensus rules, it will be an altcoin by definition.  This is pretty much the definition of an altcoin.  The blockchain will fork into two different blockchains, and there is no way the Bitcoin blockchain will accept the altcoin chains.

Bitcoin this agreement is defined in
the
software.
No, this is not what I was asking.
Let me rephrase the question: "how do you think consensus looks in Bitcoin world" ?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.  Consensus is not a physical object you can look at.

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad
with power.
I don't see how what you think someone else claim is relevant at all here.  (Read again – what he wrote is not
what you think he claims.)
Oh, it is extremely relevant.

- Adam Back is the president of Blockstream.
- Adam Back lies and manipulates, as clearly proven above
- Adam Back condones censorship.
- Adam Back has clear conflict of Interest as previously proved in this thread.
- Adam Back wants to cripple the Bitcoin network for his personal (his company) gain.

So yeah, it has everything to do with what is happening here, because anything that man says can be now treated as
bullshit and/or manipulation of the topic for his gain.
Sorry.  I am completely not interested in your conspiracy theories.  I haven't even read what he is supposed to have written in this thread.  I understand he is going to stick with Bitcoin, and not create some altcoin, which is good.

Nope, I read it again - with
context and I still think my argument stands.
Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding.
You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority".   Which is
actually the opposite of what he actually wrote:  "majority MUST NOT be able to override minority"  I.e.
consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants.
Let's sum it up.
- Consensus is NOT what majority wants
- Consensus is NOT what minority wants

Loigically, the only thing left is that Consensus, according to Adam Back, is what a
strictly selected group of people wants.
And that is exactly what I have stated
.
WTF have you been  smoking?  Can I have some?

The general agreement is written in software.  Nobody can change it.  Not Adam Black, not the Toomin brothers, not you, not even Satoshi himself.  Any change will require cooperation among all users running a full node.

Consensus is based on the agreement
which was there from the beginning.  Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general
agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain.  Neither can a majority.
Soe logically by what you are saying is:
- Majority cannot override "consensus"
- Users cannot override "consensus" (they are the majority !)

So everything checks out. Blockstream / Bitcoin Core are the ones who define consensus. That is exactly the same I have
said.
Consensus was defined long before Blockstream was created, and even before most of the existing developers had even heard about Bitcoin, and there are no plans to change it.  (Except for a few small groups calling themselves "Bitcoin Classic", "Bitcoin Unlimited", "Bitcoin XT", "Bitpay Core", and a heck of a lot of other scamcoins.

You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any
way you want.
If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is
the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true"
Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it.
You don't get it.  Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes. 
Not just a majority.
This is incorrect, and this is not how Bitcoin network work.

You are actually talking about how soft-fork would work.
With hard fork, you can quickly & easily split 2 incompatibile parts of the network, so the one majority chooses
becomes "the Bitcoin", and the other one is abandoned and dies.

The separate chains coould obviously work as separate coins, but that is very difficult to maintain and therefore
highly unlikely.

- Gavin knows this
- Jeff knows this
- All Core devs know this

The problem is whether they are willing to honestly admit this, because - as clearly proven above - some of them are
lying bastards completely full of shit
.
Again: WTF are you smoking?  Miners don't define consensus.  They don't have the power to change the consensus rules.  They may add new rules, but that's all.  A fork would be a malicious attack on Bitcoin, but it can be worked around.  Most importantly it won't affect Bitcoin nodes in any other way than slower than usual confirmation of transactions for a while.  Users of SPV clients may suffer heavy losses, on the other hand, but who cares about them.

Are you telling me you don't support this!?  Why do you hate children?  Do you kill babies for a hobby? Shocked
Stop this offtopic now.

I have proven that you are incorrect. That is all here.
You haven't presented a valid proof of anything whatsoever.

Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine.  Read it again, and see if you can understand it.
ROFL!  Read it again.  "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new
protocol consensually.
"

How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate?  At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into
many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or
that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain.  (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if
they gain more mining power.)

Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade.  SPV clients are mostly safe after a
softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid.  (In a
hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending
on
which node it connects to.)
Oh, now I get it.

You and me are talking about 2 different things.

You are all the time talking about a soft-fork "consensus".
I am talking about what happens when hard fork, not soft fork is performed.
Sorry.  You have misunderstood.  Read again.  I am beginning to understand why other intelligent people here are ignoring you.

Hard fork is a clean cut. Soft fork is messy, because - as you say - it requires everybody to migrate to the new
system, otherwise there may be problems.
Yes, a hard fork is a clean cut.  It is how all altcoins have been created.  No relation to Bitcoin, except for a similar name.  

No, a softfork does not require everybody to migrate.  That's the beauty of a soft fork!

By the way, this is reason why what Core devs are trying to do is dangerous. They are trying to upgrade the
network using soft-fork which requires much greater "consensus" than hard forks do.
Really?  So what you are saying, is that if only a amall part of the network, let's say a majority of the miners and a few merchants switch to a different consensus agreement by e.g. creating a few million extra coins for themselves, the rest won't have to agree and upgrade their software?  They will just automatically begin using the new coin?  No, you don't understand the difference between a soft an a hard fork at all.  No wonder you are confused about this.

A chain fork is a split into two or more chains.  In a hard fork the old nodes won't accept the new blockchain, and you need 100% consensus.  Otherwise they will live on as two or more different blockchains using different consensus rules.  If you want to end up with one single fork, all users, 100%, will have to switch to the alternative ruleset, which may contain anything.  A softfork doesn't  change the existing conensus.  It only add new restrictions in a backwards compatible way, so old nodes don't have to upgrade unless they want to use new features.  As long as the new rules has a majority among miners, a chain fork is impossible.

Why don't you think it is dangerous to render SPV wallets unusable, btw?  While a soft fork cannot lead to loss of coins, a hard fork will.  Is that entirely unproblematic from your point of view?

Sjå https://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner.  Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010.
I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell.  See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.pl
Warning: "Bitcoin" XT, Classic, Unlimited and the likes are scams. Don't use them, and don't listen to their shills.
sturle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1444
Merit: 1001

https://bitmynt.no


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2016, 01:22:30 PM
 #280

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.
Acutally not.  Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB.  If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000 bytes
1 000 000 bytes / 1024 = 976,56 bytes

So current (EDIT:) maximum blocksize limit is 976 kibibytes or 1000 kilobytes. That is the source of "976".
Wrong.  I know the fscking difference between KiB, MiB and kB, MB, and I am not mixing them up.

Have a look at Blockcypher yourself when there is a congestion.  Someone have turned down the spam volume now, so blocks are less than half full anyway.  Blockcypher give the size in bytes.  Blockchain.info use kB (= 1000 bytes).

Sjå https://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner.  Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010.
I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell.  See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.pl
Warning: "Bitcoin" XT, Classic, Unlimited and the likes are scams. Don't use them, and don't listen to their shills.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!