Bitcoin Forum
September 15, 2019, 07:17:39 PM *
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)
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 31, 2016, 07:11:09 PM
 #401

To give Garzik a little bit of credit , he attempted to raise the the threshold to a slightly better number of 80% but was shutdown by Olivier Janssens in a couple minutes with support of the lead classic dev

https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/693461617296678912
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/60#issuecomment-177162092

It doesn't appear that Classic will budge to the concerns to the miners wanting at least 90%.

Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ.

I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public.  Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia.

Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there.

Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's?

Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency.

I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's.

How big is this trophy case?

http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568575059
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568575059

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568575059
Reply with quote  #2

1568575059
Report to moderator
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 08:59:52 PM
 #402

To give Garzik a little bit of credit , he attempted to raise the the threshold to a slightly better number of 80% but was shutdown by Olivier Janssens in a couple minutes with support of the lead classic dev

https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/693461617296678912
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/60#issuecomment-177162092

It doesn't appear that Classic will budge to the concerns to the miners wanting at least 90%.

Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ.

I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public.  Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia.

Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there.

Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's?

Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency.

I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's.

How big is this trophy case?

http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/

Oh c'mon stop being such enraged virgin. That's humor. Grin
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 09:33:47 PM
 #403

To give Garzik a little bit of credit , he attempted to raise the the threshold to a slightly better number of 80% but was shutdown by Olivier Janssens in a couple minutes with support of the lead classic dev

https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/693461617296678912
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/60#issuecomment-177162092

It doesn't appear that Classic will budge to the concerns to the miners wanting at least 90%.

Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ.

I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public.  Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia.

Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there.

Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's?

Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency.

I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's.

How big is this trophy case?

http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/

Oh c'mon stop being such enraged virgin. That's humor. Grin

Humor is supposed to be funny. Angry

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.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 09:40:15 PM
 #404

To give Garzik a little bit of credit , he attempted to raise the the threshold to a slightly better number of 80% but was shutdown by Olivier Janssens in a couple minutes with support of the lead classic dev

https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/693461617296678912
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/60#issuecomment-177162092

It doesn't appear that Classic will budge to the concerns to the miners wanting at least 90%.

Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ.

I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public.  Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia.

Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there.

Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's?

Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency.

I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's.

How big is this trophy case?

http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/

Oh c'mon stop being such enraged virgin. That's humor. Grin

Humor is supposed to be funny. Angry

1BTC on the head of somebody is a joke.. unless bitcoin hits 100k? Grin

OTOH some racist looser pretending to represent bitcoin is also a joke. Unless he manages to disrupt the wonderful technology satoshi left us with, breaking the holy consensus and making all our coins worth 0.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 09:44:12 PM
 #405

At the risk of sounding all PC here, I approve of neither death threats or racism, not only because they aren't funny. But if a thing is gonna be said it should be funny. That's all I'm saying.

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.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
 #406

Seriously, Classic supporter, with your money, you really stand by

the gavin chief scientist (no bitcoin commits in years!),
the toomin junkie unable to write more than 2 lines of code by himself,
the bodiwala altcoin developer,
the peter r gifmaker,
the marshall long scammer,
the cypherdoc scammer,
the roger ver bullshitter,
the jansens racist looser,
the goldmansachs subsidy (coinbase) and all the stupidly naive VC backed up corporations

Huh

MP is a blessing in comparaison, he never wanted to harm bitcoin, in any ways, and he did denounce all the scams and frauds in bitcoin, from the bitcoin foundation, to gavincoin, all the way with gox etc..
fatbitcoinfan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 31, 2016, 11:26:37 PM
 #407


My bet is that Chinese miners will sponsor Luke-jr so that he can change the PoW to put all the Chinese miners out of business.

It's a disgrace.

I realize now that I've made a mistake. Chinese miners will sponsor a "core" dev but not a Core dev.

That is, not one of the existing Core devs.

I think the important question is what will happen if and when the dev sponsored by the Chinese miners tries to bring the code in a direction contrary to Core's.

Either the Chinese miners plus dev would start a new fork (with majority hashpower) or they would suffer loss and humiliation as their pull requests were rejected.

So you're either a contender for the throne or a servant to the powerful.

Choose wisely, Chinese miners.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 11:29:25 PM
 #408


My bet is that Chinese miners will sponsor Luke-jr so that he can change the PoW to put all the Chinese miners out of business.

It's a disgrace.

I realize now that I've made a mistake. Chinese miners will sponsor a "core" dev but not a Core dev.

That is, not one of the existing Core devs.

I think the important question is what will happen if and when the dev sponsored by the Chinese miners tries to bring the code in a direction contrary to Core's.

Either the Chinese miners plus dev would start a new fork (with majority hashpower) or they would suffer loss and humiliation as their pull requests were rejected.

So you're either a contender for the throne or a servant to the powerful.

Choose wisely, Chinese miners.

This idea doesn't really pass my smell test and I'm not sure why. BIP's are accepted or rejected based on merit. Throwing money at a developer in the hopes of getting some code past the gates? I don't get it.

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.
fatbitcoinfan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 31, 2016, 11:35:48 PM
 #409

This idea doesn't really pass my smell test and I'm not sure why. BIP's are accepted or rejected based on merit. Throwing money at a developer in the hopes of getting some code past the gates? I don't get it.

Maybe the Chinese miners think they are able to judge merit by themselves.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 11:40:08 PM
 #410

This idea doesn't really pass my smell test and I'm not sure why. BIP's are accepted or rejected based on merit. Throwing money at a developer in the hopes of getting some code past the gates? I don't get it.

Maybe the Chinese miners think they are able to judge merit by themselves.

I don't doubt they can and that isn't quite what I said. Smiley

This is an open source project. Anybody is free to submit code. Am I wrong?

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.
fatbitcoinfan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 31, 2016, 11:48:04 PM
 #411

I don't doubt they can and that isn't quite what I said. Smiley

This is an open source project. Anybody is free to submit code. Am I wrong?

I apologize for misrepresenting you. I was trying to be laconic. Smiley

I think there's universal agreement that everybody is free to submit.

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 31, 2016, 11:50:03 PM
 #412

I don't doubt they can and that isn't quite what I said. Smiley

This is an open source project. Anybody is free to submit code. Am I wrong?

I apologize for misrepresenting you. I was trying to be laconic. Smiley

I think there's universal agreement that everybody is free to submit.

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.

You mean in a contentious hard fork situation? Ain't nobody got time for that. Roll Eyes

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.
fatbitcoinfan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 01, 2016, 12:01:31 AM
 #413

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.

You mean in a contentious hard fork situation? Ain't nobody got time for that. Roll Eyes

You're darn tootin'.

When you're got more than 90% of the hashpower, it's not really contentious any more.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1000


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
February 01, 2016, 12:02:28 AM
 #414

All chainforks are not hardforks.  Short chainforks happens every day.  Usually because miners can't distribute their newfound blocks fast enough.  This one was caused by a malicious miner not validating blocks, and mining on top of an invalid one.  It disappeared as soon as the correctly validated chain overtook it.  This only show the dangers of one miner controlling too much hashrate.  All nodes, new and old, accepted the correctly validated chain as soon as it overtook the bad chain, and nobody were forced to upgrade anything.  (Those who hadn't upgraded were potentially vulnerable to double spends however, as with all chainforks when you don't require enough confirmations.  This is a good reason for merchants to stay up to date.)

The August 2010 fork was much longer, btw.  That fork was caused by a bug which had to be fixed for the nodes to reject the faulty chain.

A hard fork is different.  In a hard fork where the fork has a miner majority, the two chains will live on in parallel.  Correctly validating nodes will never switch to the fork.  The so-called "Classic", "XT", "Unlimited", etc forks are especially dangerous, since upgrading won't help either.  There will just be different coins, and you have to make a choice of one of them.  Due to incompetent fork developers, you can't even run one of the other coins on the same computer at the same time as Bitcoin Core, since they demand to bind to the same ports.  Constantly keeping up with which fork to use this week is too much for most users, and since their SPV wallets will be rendered useless, they will probably just try to get rid of their coins ASAP.  It would be sad end for Bitcoin, I think. Cry

If some competent developer should think about forking bitcoin, he should start here and get 100% consensus first.  There are many good reasons for a fork.  Forking for a simple block size change is just dumb, and most people see that.

Hard forks are indeed dangerous if there is no major consensus, but if there is major consensus like 80%, then it is safe. Since the minority fork will just become an alt-coin with much less value (hash power decide value due to arbitraging)

We already have hundreds of alt-coin exists in parallel with much less value but similar code to bitcoin. The reason majority of people don't care about them is because they believe the anti-inflation promise is given by limited total coin supply, so they support only bitcoin to make sure the coin supply is limited in bitcoin ecosystem

Follow the same logic, in the event of a hard fork that bitcoin fork into two chains, majority of people would still support only one bitcoin fork to make sure the total coin supply is limited

But the problem with soft fork is that it forces minority miners to upgrade if they don't comply with new rules, otherwise they will never be able to mine any coins. This is like communist party throw people with different political ideas into prison to make sure their politics are always widely adopted by every one in the society

Bitcoin community consists mostly of libertarian type of people, and it is unavoidable there will be different views, it is impossible to reach consensus 100%, so when the majority wants to move to a new implementation, the minority miner must have choice to not change, if that fork will be succeed economic wise is irrelevant, the freedom of choice is the most important reason people come here


BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
February 01, 2016, 12:12:08 AM
 #415

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.

You mean in a contentious hard fork situation? Ain't nobody got time for that. Roll Eyes

You're darn tootin'.

When you're got more than 90% of the hashpower, it's not really contentious any more.

This is just hypothetical, but imagine the other 10% consists of die-hard nutters for whom it isn't just about the money?

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.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1000


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
February 01, 2016, 12:20:12 AM
 #416

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.

You mean in a contentious hard fork situation? Ain't nobody got time for that. Roll Eyes

You're darn tootin'.

When you're got more than 90% of the hashpower, it's not really contentious any more.

This is just hypothetical, but imagine the other 10% consists of die-hard nutters for whom it isn't just about the money?

There are already people who would like to see bitcoin become a totally anonymous and trace-less system, so that no one can really understand how money moves in this system. But they can already fork their small chain and use that new dark bitcoin, and there will be people specifically interested in those features. But to hijack the whole network hash power to support their chain will be too much, I think majority of the large actors in this industry must follow regulation due to their size and visibility

BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
February 01, 2016, 12:22:09 AM
 #417

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.

You mean in a contentious hard fork situation? Ain't nobody got time for that. Roll Eyes

You're darn tootin'.

When you're got more than 90% of the hashpower, it's not really contentious any more.

This is just hypothetical, but imagine the other 10% consists of die-hard nutters for whom it isn't just about the money?

There are already people who would like to see bitcoin become a totally anonymous and trace-less system, so that no one can really understand how money moves in this system. But they can already fork their small chain and use that new dark bitcoin, and there will be people specifically interested in those features. But to hijack the whole network hash power to support their chain will be too much, I think majority of the large actors in this industry must follow regulation due to their size and visibility

I think you're talking about CT the sidechain? This worries people?

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.
fatbitcoinfan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 01, 2016, 12:28:49 AM
 #418

This is just hypothetical, but imagine the other 10% consists of die-hard nutters for whom it isn't just about the money?

Then there are two branches.

One has 90% of the hashpower and has blocks every 11 minutes.

The other has 10% of the hashpower and has blocks every 100 minutes.

The slow chain has only 10% of the transaction processing capacity that it had before the fork. 1 MB every 100 minutes. It quickly becomes unusable.

Checkmate.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
February 01, 2016, 02:10:59 AM
 #419

BIP's are accepted or rejected based on merit.
Not really. There's been some pretty crappy BIPs the community has accepted, and some good BIPs that are as of yet not.

BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
February 01, 2016, 02:17:42 AM
 #420

BIP's are accepted or rejected based on merit.
Not really. There's been some pretty crappy BIPs the community has accepted, and some good BIPs that are as of yet not.
Do you have any examples?

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.
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!