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

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I am discussing very serious issues indeed. Namely, the corruption and obvious conflict of Interest of BitcoinCore and Blockstream.

In that case you should of course have worked out that the Core Devs do not all work for Blockstream (not even half of them do).

So what about the other half of them?

Also corrupted because "you think so"?

Hah. You are so easy & naive.

Obviously, not all of them have to be corrupted for the Core to be corrupted. If only the ones at the steering wheel will be corrupted and the others are not, but will agree to everything the management does, the outcome will still be the same.

I mean what the hell are we even talking about ? Are you even familiar with the events of last 2 weeks ? The events of last 10 days should be enough for every good, honest & truthful person to hate Blockstream & Bitcoin Core for eternity !

I got the feeling we are not on the same page here.

[1714776742]

1714776742

[1714776742]

1714776742

[1714776742]

1714776742

[CIYAM]

Hah. You are so easy & naive.

Well calling your elders "naive" is just a form of insult - and as you are younger then I'll just say: "screw you" (I feel no reason to be polite to you as you bring no intellectual interest to anything whatsoever).

[tAP]

I am discussing very serious issues indeed. Namely, the corruption and obvious conflict of Interest of BitcoinCore and Blockstream.

In that case you should of course have worked out that the Core Devs do not all work for Blockstream (not even half of them do).

So what about the other half of them?

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain.  It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way.  Any developer in it for the good of Bitcoin would simply start working on code for the new chain.

Any developer in it for themselves (or profit, IE Blockstream devs) would complain and/or quit.  We see that already.  Tell me, if they are in it for the good of Bitcoin, why on Earth would they quit instead of trying to make the new fork the best it can possibly be?

[hdbuck]

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, breaking bitcoin's consensus, you'll loose money. we all loose money (and maybe Bitcoin).

Simple as that.


edit: and it is not just "blockstream" or "core devs" that do not want hardfork. Lots of people disagree with bumping the blocksize, and as Gmax highlighted it, there are lots of pitfalls to do so.

[CIYAM]

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain.  It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way.

Why do they need a 2MB block chain?

(so far the answer is just "because Gavin says so" and "maybe this is a popular thing")

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, you'll loose money.

Simple as that.

Oh yeah, you are right.

Bitcoin Core is the fork that is contentious. It forked off the original vision of Satoshi.

1MB LIMIT was **never** supposed to be any kind of economical limit. It was only a quick-fix for DDoS and (at the time) it was at least million of times bigger than average block size.
So, if we would keep the ratio, today the block size LIMIT should be at least 1GB.

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

[Eric Mu]

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.

[CIYAM]

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

[canth]

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, breaking bitcoin's consensus, you'll loose money. we all loose money (and maybe Bitcoin).

Simple as that.

Umm, no. Only the weaker branch without the economic majority can lose money and even that's fairly hard to do.

Presuming Classic BIP is the one we are talking about:

Step 1) 750/1000 blocks mined indicating support
Step 2) 28 days pass
Step 3) At some point a miner creates a >1.0 MB block
Step 4) Either miners build off this larger block or reject it, continuing on the 1MB chain
Coinbase/BitPay/Bitfinex/etc have all indicated whether or not they accept larger blocks
Step 5) Miners stop mining on whichever chain ends up shortest. Doing anything else loses them piles of short term money.
Step 6) end of story...anyone on the wrong side of the fork will stop seeing new blocks

Any miner here want to commit to mining on the minority chain?

[hdbuck]

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.

LMao, poor Jeff.. XD

[canth]

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

Yes, but that happened in 1997. 11 years passed before someone figured out how to use it and invent Bitcoin - the fact that he takes credit for inventing Bitcoin in this manner shows insights into the level of ego we are talking about.

[CIYAM]

Yes, but that happened in 1997. 11 years passed before someone figured out how to use it and invent Bitcoin - the fact that he takes credit for inventing Bitcoin in this manner shows insights into the level of ego we are talking about.

Please quote where he does (I remember from when he joined this forum after me that he said in his sig that he invented Hashcash but not Bitcoin).

So "I'm calling bullshit".

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain.  It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way.

Why do they need a 2MB block chain?
(so far the answer is just "because Gavin says so" and "maybe this is a popular thing")

Are you actually serious, or is this some form of sophisticated propaganda ?

You know, the blocks are actually getting quite full NOW. Also, guess what: in peak hours blocks get completely full (huge transaction backlog).

And SegWit is realistically at least 2 years from ready (including testing, implementation in all other clients and so).
Lightning Network is realistically at least 3-4 years from ready (including testing, implementation in all other clients and so).

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin
https://www.google.pl/search?q=mempool+backlog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=rH-rVtyGKIX1UpKpt6AL

You can't wait for a complex magical unicorn like LN or SegWit for come and save the day, while we have a practical, working solution right now and it can be deployed in hours.

This is some pretty obvious stuff, If you don't know this you must be pretty uninformed or you have a hidden agenda.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

[sarcasm]
Why do we need this satoshi guy anyway for ? Adam Back is the true inventor of Bitcoin after all !
[/sarcasm]

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

Well, using this way of thinking you could say that horse carriage inventors invented cars (because car is essentially just a horse carriage with combustion engine, right ?).

[hdbuck]

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, breaking bitcoin's consensus, you'll loose money. we all loose money (and maybe Bitcoin).

Simple as that.

Umm, no. Only the weaker branch without the economic majority can lose money and even that's fairly hard to do.

Presuming Classic BIP is the one we are talking about:

Step 1) 750/1000 blocks mined indicating support
Step 2) 28 days pass
Step 3) At some point a miner creates a >1.0 MB block
Step 4) Either miners build off this larger block or reject it, continuing on the 1MB chain
Coinbase/BitPay/Bitfinex/etc have all indicated whether or not they accept larger blocks
Step 5) Miners stop mining on whichever chain ends up shortest. Doing anything else loses them piles of short term money.
Step 6) end of story...anyone on the wrong side of the fork will stop seeing new blocks

Any miner here want to commit to mining on the minority chain?

You dont knwo what you are talking about.

It is not about a chain with most VCs backed useless startups, or clueless powerful miners, that shall necessarily be considered VALID.
It is purely ideological in fact, and it is quite likely that bitcoiners would not give a damn about some Coinbase, pardon GoldmanSachsCoin.

The ones that will break consensus will end up bankrupt on their forked shitcoin. Its pretty obvious.

[CIYAM]

Are you actually serious, or is this some form of sophisticated propaganda ?

It seems rather obvious that you are in fact part of some sort of sophisticated propaganda.

I don't think I care to bother with you any more (so please stop wasting my time with your stupid replies).

[canth]

Yes, but that happened in 1997. 11 years passed before someone figured out how to use it and invent Bitcoin - the fact that he takes credit for inventing Bitcoin in this manner shows insights into the level of ego we are talking about.

Please quote where he does (I remember from when he joined this forum after me that he said in his sig that he invented Hashcash but not Bitcoin).

So "I'm calling bullshit".

"cryptographer, privacy enhancing tech, ecash, inventor of hashcash (bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control)"

Bitcoin is far more than hashcash+

[tAP]

I don't know why they can't simply work on the 2MB forked chain.  It's not like they are stuck supporting a defunct 1MB chain if it goes that way.

Why do they need a 2MB block chain?

(so far the answer is just "because Gavin says so" and "maybe this is a popular thing")

Listen, I am not coming out and attacking you or giving you trash arguments, please don't assume the majority (as admitted by Adam Back) who want 2MB increases are uneducated and simply parrot what we hear Gavin or someone say.

Core ALREADY has come out in support of increasing block limit.  The issue most have with this, is that it isn't quick enough.

Right now there is an artificial fee-market based off of the fact that Core Devs don't want to push out an increase fast enough.  I think we can all admit, regardless of intentions or reasons, about the fact that this DOES benefit Blockstream (pushing users onto sidechains due to lack of ability to be included in the main blockchain due to block size) doesn't LOOK good.

We should have a block size increase because the fee market doesn't need to exist right now until block rewards are gone.  

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Are you actually serious, or is this some form of sophisticated propaganda ?

It seems rather obvious that you are in fact part of some sort of sophisticated propaganda.

I don't think I care to bother with you any more (so please stop wasting my time with your stupid replies).

Please don't.

You are so naive and have completely no understanding of the topic you are discussing. It would be a waste of time.

[CIYAM]

You are so naive and have completely no understanding of the topic you are discussing. It would be a waste of time.

Personally I think your parents should have taught you better than to try and lecture your elders about "being naive" but seemingly they didn't (perhaps your parents were not educated at all?).

So unfortunately you have a bit of a problem in even knowing how to be polite (apart from not knowing when you are wrong).

We'll wait and see if you can ever "grow up" (but I doubt it).