Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2018, 04:01:11 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: An open letter to the miners  (Read 5926 times)
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2016, 02:17:47 AM
 #1

Dear miners,

I am a bitcoin investor, speculator, end user. I am asking you, no i am begging you, JUST DO IT!

I know you do not want to offend anyone or step on some toes; you want to make sure that when you put the 2MB limit in place it is because we have reached "consensus" on the issue. I BEG YOU, do not delay any longer, assert your power! do not wait for somthing that may never happen, do not let a dev believe they know better than you, or have more power than you, they don't, show them! let them feel the wrath of your hashes, Command their respect!

Put in place the 2MB limit TODAY, without their "approval". Put out some code of your own, gather >51% hashing power, and FORK us to the next level! if this offends the some poeple / core devs and they rage quit, GOOD! we dont want them trying to control bitcoin, it is not for them to control, bitcoin is OURS not theirs! amass 51% and take control!

As an investor / speculator, I promise you, if you can demonstrate that bitcoin's destiny isn't in the hands of any one group, but requires vast amounts of power to sway one way or the other,and that no amount of FUD can stop you/us; I will value bitcoin much more.

Time is now, do not delay, own the day!


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1540137671
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540137671

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540137671
Reply with quote  #2

1540137671
Report to moderator
1540137671
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540137671

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540137671
Reply with quote  #2

1540137671
Report to moderator
1540137671
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540137671

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540137671
Reply with quote  #2

1540137671
Report to moderator
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1186


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2016, 03:32:37 AM
 #2

I would say that doing this "today" would probably be a bit reckless, however provided there is sufficient support/consensus, they could decide today that the maximum block size is going to rise to 2MB in two weeks in order to give others sufficient time to upgrade their software to support the HF

3PjXm2XYDKLV5mN3oiKzNTyVvSkqP3ujeq <-- tipping address Advertise here
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1272


Hello You


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:36:02 AM
 #3

https://slushpool.com/stats/

Slushpool's holding a vote. Most have abstained or not bothered so it's irrelevant but those who have voted are way in the majority for the Classic proposal.

FinalFantasy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:43:08 AM
 #4

Is it crucial if they DONT do it? What would happen ?
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1163



View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:55:18 AM
 #5

Is it crucial if they DONT do it? What would happen ?
It is crucial that they don't do it. Because if they do, they won't be able to spend their coins anywhere, or sell them, since nobody else is running their code. Their coins will be worthless and they'll have wasted their money mining them. It makes no difference whether they have 51% or not. Fortunately, miners are smarter than OP and won't do this.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1186


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2016, 04:03:32 AM
 #6

Because if they do, they won't be able to spend their coins anywhere, or sell them, since nobody else is running their code. Their coins will be worthless and they'll have wasted their money mining them. It makes no difference whether they have 51% or not. Fortunately, miners are smarter than OP and won't do this.
None of this is necessarily true. Part of what gives Bitcoin it's value is it's security, and if a large amount of the hashpower were to suddenly stop securing the Bitcoin network, then some people may wish to join a network that has a higher amount of security (e.g. the network that has 2MB blocks).

Furthermore, the economic majority is in favor of raising the maximum block size, so it would be likely that most Bitcoin related companies would use the 2MB branch of the fork

3PjXm2XYDKLV5mN3oiKzNTyVvSkqP3ujeq <-- tipping address Advertise here
SFR10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1159


SFR DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/2ClWYOh


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2016, 04:50:16 AM
 #7

AFAIK there's an agreement on place for the 2MB upgrade but just without the exact date at the moment. These changes shouldn't be right away as there will be some sort of collateral damage as result so instead it should go through a transitional phase in which will give enough time to everyone to switch. Taking control of 51% of hashing power is not as easy as it looks (easier said than done), and by saying taking control, you mean making in centralized (somehow) on that matter which is the opposite of what BTCitcoin supposed to be.

greenuser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


Marie Curie, 2 x Nobel Prizes Physics & Chemistry


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 05:16:45 AM
 #8

I have 700Gh/s pointed at Slushpool.   They gave me a vote.  I have posted on the mining pool threads as i do not know which way to vote.  Don't understand the risk, don't trust people to give a straight answer.  Will prob go with the flow; and it looks classic at the mo.

I don't think miners share information freely, it is dominated by a few pool owners that (intentionally or not) control debate.  Slush has a thread on this forum but it is moderated by one of his competitors so he don't post.  Don't seem fair to me.  But it is a bit klicky.

What should I vote? I was thinking of starting a voting thread

schlonged
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 05:24:49 AM
 #9

yes

you must become politically active or you will get schlonged!
crazyivan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007


DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 05:30:20 AM
 #10

I thought this issue s been resolved. The only question s when will it get implemented. Why do you raise it again here?

For security, your account has been locked. Email acctcomp15@theymos.e4ward.com
greenuser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


Marie Curie, 2 x Nobel Prizes Physics & Chemistry


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 05:40:25 AM
 #11

yes
you must become politically active or you will get schlonged!
No miner representation.   Cry  I tried to get people interested in a International Bitcoin Miners Union so we could get some conscientious on such issues but it got jumped on. Plus, no one seems interested. See the link in my signature.

(quick joke: Q) What's the difference between a Doctor and God,  A) God doesn't think he's a Doctor Grin)

edit:
What should I vote? I was thinking of starting a voting thread

Looks like someone already tried.  Shame, the thread was locked in no time.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389933.0
A descution and a vote would have helped me understand. I thaught that was what forums were about
Is this forum is a dictatorship?  And closed to a select few?
Looks like we have to do as we are told or fuck off

tobacco123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 06:00:16 AM
 #12

https://slushpool.com/stats/

Slushpool's holding a vote. Most have abstained or not bothered so it's irrelevant but those who have voted are way in the majority for the Classic proposal.

There are 79.56% miners who have not decided which to go for and stick to the default bitcoin core. Is there any way to allow them to mine 50% core and 50% classic?

This will change to % of classic to 79.56%/2 + 16.76% = over 56%!

greenuser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


Marie Curie, 2 x Nobel Prizes Physics & Chemistry


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 06:06:51 AM
 #13

https://slushpool.com/stats/

Slushpool's holding a vote. Most have abstained or not bothered so it's irrelevant but those who have voted are way in the majority for the Classic proposal.

There are 79.56% miners who have not decided which to go for and stick to the default bitcoin core. Is there any way to allow them to mine 50% core and 50% classic?

This will change to % of classic to 79.56%/2 + 16.76% = over 56%!

How can i get this thread unlocked? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389933.0

7788bitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


Presale Starting May 1st


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 06:13:08 AM
 #14

https://slushpool.com/stats/

Slushpool's holding a vote. Most have abstained or not bothered so it's irrelevant but those who have voted are way in the majority for the Classic proposal.

There are 79.56% miners who have not decided which to go for and stick to the default bitcoin core. Is there any way to allow them to mine 50% core and 50% classic?

This will change to % of classic to 79.56%/2 + 16.76% = over 56%!

Maybe there is a way to indicate the miner's wills? Yes/No/Anything. Then the "majority" can be determined by using the number of "Yes" and the number of "No".

At the moment, those who voted for "Anything" are actually stopping us from a clear decision.

     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
█████▀▀  ▀▀█████
█▀▀          ▀▀█
     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
 ▀▀██████████▀▀
     ▀▀██▀▀
INVESTA     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
█████▀▀  ▀▀█████
█▀▀          ▀▀█
     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
 ▀▀██████████▀▀
     ▀▀██▀▀
greenuser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


Marie Curie, 2 x Nobel Prizes Physics & Chemistry


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 06:18:28 AM
 #15

At the moment, those who voted for "Anything" are actually stopping us from a clear decision.

The subjet has bee locked by -ck

Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 07, 2016, 07:37:06 AM
 #16

Is it crucial if they DONT do it? What would happen ?
It is crucial that they don't do it. Because if they do, they won't be able to spend their coins anywhere, or sell them, since nobody else is running their code. Their coins will be worthless and they'll have wasted their money mining them. It makes no difference whether they have 51% or not. Fortunately, miners are smarter than OP and won't do this.

well but the other edge of the sword, is that also us will not be able to do anything since the transaction will not be confirmed anymore and the network will be 100% insecure
Kakmakr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1129

★ ChipMixer | Bitcoin mixing service ★


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 08:05:01 AM
 #17

You have the option of rushing a decision and implementing something because you want to fix one thing and then you break something else. We all know bigger blocks = higher security risk. The other option, like the Core people are doing it now, is to concentrate on a manageable increase in the block size <SegWit> and to test the water, before you just dive in. The Classic approach is, reckless in my opinion and only a desperate attempt at a power grab.

They know the Core team have the best solution, but the Classic people focused only on the Block size to gain more favor with the crowd. Why the sudden stress tests from a unknown entity?    

adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2016, 02:55:11 PM
 #18

I thought this issue s been resolved. The only question s when will it get implemented. Why do you raise it again here?
it has not been resolved at the last round table it come out that only a handful out of 50-70 poeple actually support  the compromise reached at the other roundtable in HK.

You have the option of rushing a decision and implementing something because you want to fix one thing and then you break something else. We all know bigger blocks = higher security risk. The other option, like the Core people are doing it now, is to concentrate on a manageable increase in the block size <SegWit> and to test the water, before you just dive in. The Classic approach is, reckless in my opinion and only a desperate attempt at a power grab.

They know the Core team have the best solution, but the Classic people focused only on the Block size to gain more favor with the crowd. Why the sudden stress tests from a unknown entity?   

thats just plain false.

segwit is infinitely more complex/dangerous than simply raising blocklimit.

brownuser
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 04:28:27 PM
 #19

I am afraid that I dont understand ,fully,the options that slush are offering...and yes ,I have done research  .A  thread such as this :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389933.0

now sadly locked ,would have allowed some focus on the issue .I am not a coder but I am an active BTC user so it could be said it does not concern me .However ,I am concerned by the working of the currency I use .I want to support a DE CENTRALISED system of exchange and all the evidence is that the BTC is becoming more centralised .Why am I being told that this doesnt concern me ?

B-User

PS....yes,CK ,I know I have the same or similar  IP address to Greenuser .I live in the same same building and she is a friend of mine .This DOES NOT make us the same person nor mean we have the same views or goals .I do ,however ,wish to give her some moral support as this is a male dominated environment and I am tired of hearing her complain that she is being belittled by bullies who have the information that she so badly needs to continue in this monetary venture that we call BTC.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2016, 06:22:36 PM
 #20

I am afraid that I dont understand ,fully,the options that slush are offering...and yes ,I have done research  .A  thread such as this :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389933.0

now sadly locked ,would have allowed some focus on the issue .I am not a coder but I am an active BTC user so it could be said it does not concern me .However ,I am concerned by the working of the currency I use .I want to support a DE CENTRALISED system of exchange and all the evidence is that the BTC is becoming more centralised .Why am I being told that this doesnt concern me ?

B-User

PS....yes,CK ,I know I have the same or similar  IP address to Greenuser .I live in the same same building and she is a friend of mine .This DOES NOT make us the same person nor mean we have the same views or goals .I do ,however ,wish to give her some moral support as this is a male dominated environment and I am tired of hearing her complain that she is being belittled by bullies who have the information that she so badly needs to continue in this monetary venture that we call BTC.

i'm not sure i understand everything you're saying here.

but raising blocklimit to 2MB will not have much impact if any on bitcoin's decentralization

bitcoin is a decentralization system, there is no gray area, it might become slightly more expensive to run a node or mine bitcoin in the future as blocklimit is raised again and again but that doesn't make it "more centralized", this BS about bitcoin becoming more centralized is a farce, the fact is mining pools ensure even tiny miner with 52K modem can participate in the network. SPV clients does somthing similar for poeple who want to be there own bank and run a bitcoin wallet on a PC, there is no need to run a full node if you are a simple end user.

furthermore, it's INSANE to ask end users to run a full node, and at the same time ask them to not use the bitcoin network but us Lighting Network, because  " theoretically more elegant scaling solution "....

this is BS, once again I BEG miners to TAKE CONTROL!

Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  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!