CHINA & BLOCKSTREAM ARE TROLLING BITCOIN

[ziiip]

With Chinese pools such as F2Pool, Antpool & BTCC participating in validation-less mining. They are effectively attacking the network by not including tx's in blocks and then delaying relay of these "empty" blocks.
Given that these pools have a super majority of hashing power, they can artificially manipulate the mempool size, thus increasing users fees and making other miners less competitive.
Miners should have incentive to include tx's to increase revenue. This attack vector could give China almost complete control over the "fee market"

This would be unlikely to continue with an increase in blocksize. Furthermore, it would be 100% impossible with an unlimited blocksize. Segwit does not address this issue.

Edit: The pools may not even have a say at all, if the GFW could delay propagation of new empty blocks there would be no way to prevent this other than raising the blocksize.

Edit: People keep saying these "pools" are outside of the GFW . . .proof?

[1715052140]

1715052140

[1715052140]

1715052140

[OROBTC]

...

ziiip

Just today I was reading somewhere (I regret that I do not remember where) that those three (AntPool, F2Pool and BTCC) may be owned in whole or part by the same entity/ies over there.

Maverick bitcointalk member "iamnotback" has been warning now for sometime that the Chinese centralization of BTC mining is a big problem.  Your thread would seem to back up this concern.

Time to spend some BTC on gold?

[franky1]

not really..

what you will see is that when there is an "empty" block. its not due to naferious intensions of leaving a block empty..
instead its due to the fact that normally it takes upto 2 minutes to validate a previous block and then start hashing a new block of unconfirmed data.

some pools know that the risk of orphan is just 2%. so wasting upto 20% of a 10minute slot validating data for a 2% risk. is something that they think is not financial savvi..

however they cannot just avoid validating and then throwing any random transactions into a new block, because those tx's may already be in the one they havnt validated(yet)

so what they do is instead of waiting to know what remains unconfirmed and doing no hashing for upto 2 minutes.. they begin hashing a new block thats empty.. while simultaneously validating a block.. if the block is valid they then add the next run of unconfirmed tx's to their current hash attempts..

the issue is this though..
they get lucky.. they solve a block in under 2 minutes before they had a chance to add new unconfirmed transactions to that block try.
its not intentional ignoring transactions. its instead not hanging around hashing nothing for upto 2 minutes..

as for the GFW.. thats not a big deal.. the pools server(holding the blockchain data) are outside of the firewall so no issues talking to nodes. and its only the ASICS (that dont see the full blockchain) that are inside the firewall..

[ziiip]

Agreed. I personally believe that the Chinese miners are knowingly doing this. If they know about this attack vector, they would surely stop validation-less mining right away. Or immediately vote for a blocksize increase . . .But hey why do that, at least there will eventually be a size increase, but why not milk this cow a little longer?

[ziiip]

not really..

what you will see is that when there is an "empty" block. its not due to naferious intensions of leaving a block empty..
instead its due to the fact that normally it takes upto 2 minutes to validate a previous block and then start hashing a new block of unconfirmed data.

some pools know that the risk of orphan is just 2%. so wasting 20% of a 10minute slot validating data for a 2% risk. is something that they think is not financial savvi..

the issue is this though..
they get lucky.. they solve a block in under 2 minutes before they had a chance to add new unconfirmed transactions to that block try.
its not intentional ignoring transactions. its instead not hanging around hashing nothing for 2 minutes..

as for the GFW.. thats not a big deal.. the pools(holding the blockchain data) are outside of the firewall so no issues talking to nodes. and its only the ASICS (that dont see the full blockchain) that are inside the firewall..

It may not be for nefarious intentions but with such a majority of hashing power between these pools it's something that actually does occur and is completely unfair to miners that are not peering with them directly. Even if you were peering with them directly you would only be relying on trust, that your peer is not withholding a block from you.

Also how do we know the pools(assuming you're referring to the bitcoind instances themselves?) are for certain outside of mainland China?
What about the following stratum servers? You think they may be connecting to bitcoind instances outside of the country?

 f2pool stratum.f2pool.com 42.96.248.230
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China


BTCC stratum.btcchina.com 180.97.161.9
AS4134 China Telecom Backbone
Country of Orgin: China

BW.com stratum.bw.com 120.55.153.228
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China

[QuestionAuthority]

Hum, aren't the devs responsible for allowing that. You mean the devs are killing Bitcoin. LOL

Chinese miners are just doing what all people do by looking out for their own interests.

[franky1]

F2pool utilises alibaba cloud hosting (aliyun.com) for instance

ill give you a hint.. alibaba cloud hosting is not locked inside the firewall

[ziiip]

F2pool utilises alibaba cloud hosting (aliyun.com) for instance

ill give you a hint.. alibaba cloud hosting is not locked inside the firewall

Based on their peers it certainly looks to be in China at least. How do you know it's not fire-walled?
http://bgp.he.net/AS37963#_peers

[ziiip]

F2pool utilises alibaba cloud hosting (aliyun.com) for instance

ill give you a hint.. alibaba cloud hosting is not locked inside the firewall

Based on their peers it certainly appears to be in China. How do you know it's not fire-walled?
http://bgp.he.net/AS37963#_peers

[2double0]

Agreed. I personally believe that the Chinese miners are knowingly doing this. If they know about this attack vector, they would surely stop validation-less mining right away. Or immediately vote for a blocksize increase . . .But hey why do that, at least there will eventually be a size increase, but why not milk this cow a little longer?

They are knowingly doing this because it is halving time, and they don't want to lose on this opportunity they know will take years again to come back.

[ziiip]

Agreed. I personally believe that the Chinese miners are knowingly doing this. If they know about this attack vector, they would surely stop validation-less mining right away. Or immediately vote for a blocksize increase . . .But hey why do that, at least there will eventually be a size increase, but why not milk this cow a little longer?

They are knowingly doing this because it is halving time, and they don't want to lose on this opportunity they know will take years again to come back.

That's not the way forward. They shouldn't be treating the community this way . . .

[ziiip]

F2pool utilises alibaba cloud hosting (aliyun.com) for instance

ill give you a hint.. alibaba cloud hosting is not locked inside the firewall

How do you know that? These pools appear to all be in China according to BGP.

f2pool stratum.f2pool.com 42.96.248.230
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China


BTCC stratum.btcchina.com 180.97.161.9
AS4134 China Telecom Backbone
Country of Orgin: China

BW.com stratum.bw.com 120.55.153.228
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China

[2double0]

Agreed. I personally believe that the Chinese miners are knowingly doing this. If they know about this attack vector, they would surely stop validation-less mining right away. Or immediately vote for a blocksize increase . . .But hey why do that, at least there will eventually be a size increase, but why not milk this cow a little longer?

They are knowingly doing this because it is halving time, and they don't want to lose on this opportunity they know will take years again to come back.

That's not the way forward. They shouldn't be treating the community this way . . .

But they are, and that's the game behind the scenes.
We have all been waiting for this moment, and so they did too. They have the chance to manipulate anything as they control a big % of this cryptocurrency, they can do what they want.

[Lauda]

Someone had a thread about empty blocks that had actual data and statistics, unlike this one. Maybe you could present some nice date when making your case (e.g. empty blocks mined vs. ordinary blocks per pool).

This would be unlikely to continue with an increase in blocksize.

False. This would very much continue.

Furthermore, it would be 100% impossible with an unlimited blocksize.

Of course it would be impossible since the network would effectively be broken.

Segwit does not address this issue.

Segwit was never intended to address 'this issue'.