f2pool not supporting roundtable was Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com

[Fatman3001]

I think it's more likely that the people who have financial incentive invested in seeing one side succeed over the other would engage in these tactics.

So both sides? Great, this helps out out.

Oh really? So the same thing happening to XT was just a coincidence?

What makes you think that XT nodes were the only ones under DDoS at that time?

Ok, so core supporters should be given the benefit of doubt no matter what, but with the other side it's all cloak and daggers?

That's the whole point of this. Divide Bitcoin internally and try to crush it, because the cryptography that it currently uses is not breakable.

Certain people stand to lose a lot if Bitcoin succeeds to become mainstream. This has nothing to do with the 2 MB block size limit. You need to look at the bigger picture. However, this is off-topic here. There are other places where you might find relevant information.

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

[iCEBREAKER]

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Really icebreaker? So you are endorsing DDoS attacks now? So much for consensus.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that the weaker side is the one that has to resort to using force to get their way. Core will fall, you can count on it.

The "weaker side" is the one getting pwnd by DDoS attacks voting.  

It used to be called XT, but they have now rebranded to Classic.  Same shit, different pile.

Stating well-known facts about Honey Badger isn't "endorsing" anything.

But don't let that stand in the way of your quest to make this all about *me* (ie personalize the debate) instead of the real issues at hand.

Core will not "fall."  Classic will be #R3KT like Stannis at Winterfell.  

[chopstick]

iCEBREAKER, the more you post, the more my IQ continues to drop. I have a sinking suspicion others feel the same way.

[Lauda]

Ok, so core supporters should be given the benefit of doubt no matter what, but with the other side it's all cloak and daggers?

I never said that either side was clean. Some cases are very obvious though, such as this one. The tactic is quite simple: Some major player does something related to Classic -> DDoS them -> blame Core. Since when did we start believing such tales when there is zero evidence of something?

[ImI]

iCEBREAKER, the more you post, the more my IQ continues to drop. I have a sinking suspicion others feel the same way.

btw he was member of the hashfast-scam.

[adamstgBit]

is it official blockstream is not supporting roundtable?

its my understanding that f2pool will support the roundtable, if blockstream does to.

[Fatman3001]

Ok, so core supporters should be given the benefit of doubt no matter what, but with the other side it's all cloak and daggers?

I never said that either side was clean. Some cases are very obvious though, such as this one. The tactic is quite simple: Some major player does something related to Classic -> DDoS them -> blame Core.

Obvious to you. To others it's even more obvious that this is a straight out attack from core supporters. Miners and nodes were discouraged by the XT ddos attacks. They work. A blame game would be pointless when the nodes and miners don't dare run the software.

Since when did we start believing such tales when there is zero evidence of something?

?
?
?

Hey! That was my point!

What is this? The Twilight Zone?

[adamstgBit]

is it official blockstream is not supporting roundtable?

its my understanding that f2pool will support the roundtable, if blockstream does to.

can mods rename the thread to reflect this reality?

 

[davedx]

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Really icebreaker? So you are endorsing DDoS attacks now? So much for consensus.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that the weaker side is the one that has to resort to using force to get their way. Core will fall, you can count on it.

The "weaker side" is the one getting pwnd by DDoS attacks voting.  

It used to be called XT, but they have now rebranded to Classic.  Same shit, different pile.

Stating well-known facts about Honey Badger isn't "endorsing" anything.

But don't let that stand in the way of your quest to make this all about *me* (ie personalize the debate) instead of the real issues at hand.

Core will not "fall."  Classic will be #R3KT like Stannis at Winterfell.  

Hahaha that's hilarious! iCEBREAKER, I think *you* are the one who constantly tries to make the discussion about *you*, as every other post by you is a personal attack or attempt to piss people off. Your attention seeking is transparent and pretty fucking pathetic. Get a life

[davedx]

iCEBREAKER, the more you post, the more my IQ continues to drop. I have a sinking suspicion others feel the same way.

btw he was member of the hashfast-scam.

Yes. I should have done that all along instead of getting drawn into this pathetic trolling. 

[KCBitcoin]

It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.

[iCEBREAKER]

@petertoddbtc

@JihanWu False nVersion settings risk accidentally triggering safety warnings, or worse, triggering forks; nVersion is consensus-critical.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/702726905435389952

[ImI]

It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.

wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect.
 

[iCEBREAKER]

It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.

wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect.

Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin.  If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.

Here's a good place to start:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where he thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves.

[sgbett]

Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin.  If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.

[windpath]

It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.

wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect.

Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin.  If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.

Here's a good place to start:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where he thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves.

If the majority of hashpower agreed to do that via a hard fork protocol change then it would happen. The thing is the miners have invested a lot in bitcoin, and by changing the coin distribution they would destroy bitcoins value, soooo, not gonna happen.

Changing the block max size on the other hand, would have no such effect.

[iCEBREAKER]

Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin.  If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.

Here's a good place to start:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where he thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves.

[Fonzie_shark_cliche.jpg]

Who is jumping the shark?  Prof. Sirer, me, or both of us?

Quick, go tell Cornell their CS Dept. has a shark jumper among the faculty!  I'm sure they will care about your opinion.

[sgbett]

Only in your fanciful hyperreality does "miners can't mint 1m coins == miners have little to no power"

[iCEBREAKER]

Only in your fanciful hyperreality does "miners can't mint 1m coins == miners have little to no power"

You are distorting what Prof. Sirer's essay actually says.

Perhaps if you bother to RTFA, its conclusions would seem less like "fanciful hyperreality."

[adamstgBit]

It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.

wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect.

Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin.  If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.

Here's a good place to start:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where he thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves.

If the majority of hashpower agreed to do that via a hard fork protocol change then it would happen. The thing is the miners have invested a lot in bitcoin, and by changing the coin distribution they would destroy bitcoins value, soooo, not gonna happen.

Changing the block max size on the other hand, would have no such effect.

right.

it's a bit of catch 22

miners want to mine coins that everyone wants, everyone wants coins that the most miners are producing, because users want coins with the most secure blockchain.

who ultimately has the power is unclear to say the least....

but devs have no power at all, if a group of devs don't produce the software that users and miners want to use, some other group of devs will...