Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic

[BeadUsher]

Like, what, my word wasn't good enough for you?

Would set a horrible precedent.
Next Lauda'll get all pouty and start demanding I take him at his word.

[1714828255]

1714828255

[1714828255]

1714828255

[1714828255]

1714828255

[1714828255]

1714828255

[1714828255]

1714828255

[1714828255]

1714828255

[giggidy23]

Huh, looks like it's still happening.
Bitcoin Miners to Hardfork According to Circulating Rumors

[hv_]

Well, this is bizarre. Assuming this is true--which is a lot to assume--this would seem to indicate that the miners don't understand the way their power works. Say they switch off to mining Classic_ and trigger the activation; give it a month or whatever, and they start popping out their 2MB blocks, which are then rejected by all non-Classic_ nodes on the network. Unless they convince the rest of the system to switch to an implementation compatible with their consensus rule change, no one else will accept their blocks as valid; all they'll have accomplished is that they've forked themselves onto an altcoin.

Not sure why mining pools would even really care all that much about 2MB... What do they think it would do for them? Make their operating costs a bit higher? If they're hoping to see increased adoption cause a price boost, capacity (especially in small amounts) seems like the wrong approach--it's not like 2MB blocks make Bitcoin easier to use, increase its privacy, increase merchant acceptance, or make it possible to buy milk at the grocery store without waiting 10 minutes for a confirmation

But hopefully this is just some bullshit scare and doesn't have any credibility. I'd like to hope that miners are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them in an absurd attempt to completely sink themselves.

Considering the 1 MB blocks are often full most reasonable folks see the need for a bump to 2 MB and pretty soon. The Chinese miners understand quite well the power they possess, are tired of waiting for larger blocks and seem pissed off. Classic activates 28 days after 750 of the last 1,000 blocks are found by miners running Classic instead of Core. At that point you would have a minority of miners still running Core. We might have two chains existing at the same time for a short period of time but everyone would move to the winning chain. The minority still mining Core would switch or die. It does appear that SegWit would have to be merged into Classic for it to be acceptable to the Chinese coalition. The point is it appears the Chinese may have the power to force a change from Core to Classic. They have been loyal to Core but can only wait so long.

And economics & game theory kicks in again.
Make your bets now!

[mayax]

Huh, looks like it's still happening.
Bitcoin Miners to Hardfork According to Circulating Rumors

the miners and the big exchangers are forming a gang. so, BTC belongs to them. The shit nodes are not an issue. You can set up thousands in matter of days

conclusion: the miners + exchanger's gang will do whatever they want. the most of the BTC users will follow them like amenable sheep

[giggidy23]

the miners and the big exchangers are forming a gang. so, BTC belongs to them.

"Gang" is such a loaded word. The miners are free to cooperate with each other and with exchange owners. No racketeering laws in Bitcoin, that's outmoded statist thinking.
If cooperation serves the miner's rational self-interest (maximizes their monetary profit$), that's what they should do.

[mayax]

the miners and the big exchangers are forming a gang. so, BTC belongs to them.

"Gang" is such a loaded word. The miners are free to cooperate with each other and with exchange owners. No racketeering laws in Bitcoin, that's outmoded statist thinking.
If cooperation serves the miner's rational self-interest (maximizes their monetary profit$), that's what they should do.

cartels(biz gang) means monopoly and price manipulation. this is what is happening. all the BTC trades are manipulated. if you are good with this then it's without ...words

[franky1]

kind of funny..

reddit post a bit of rumour.. linking crapmedia.. where crap media have no source
then 2 days later reddit again enforce the rumour with another crapmedia site that guess what, turns out to be quoting the first reddit..
(known as cirle jerking)

anyway.
here is the initial presumed "spark" that started the rumour was (supposedly) http://archive.is/DoJj7 but no where did it mention "terminator pool"
but everyone on reddit is now talking about it like it is some terminator plan.

anyone have a copy of any actual document wrote by any actual mining pool that is talking about the terminator plan??
even the tweets from the pools are not saying they planned anything.

so any real source?? or just circle jerking

[mayax]

what documents do you need? do you think that you are talking with real corporations? it's mutual agreement between chinesses.

money dictates the way    it's so simple.

[CIYAM]

The big story about a mobile (or cell if you prefer) phone creating an explosive event at a gas/petrol station originated from Indonesia but no actual evidence of any such event was ever found (just circle-jerk reports).

Just like stories about the Aussie con-man being Satoshi the media just fed of its own bullshit and now in every single petrol station in Australia there is a sticker with a mobile phone surrounded by a circle with a slash (i.e. just like a no smoking sign).

Mythbusters put the bullshit idea that a mobile phone could cause such an event to the test and unless you throw the thing hard enough to create a spark then that is simply not possible (and even then almost impossible if your phone has a plastic casing or covering).

Yet - still in every single petrol station in Australia they have that same sticker (ten years after been exposed as complete rubbish).

So this FUD won't stop and the people "raising the flags" will keep on doing so no matter what is actually real or not.

[giggidy23]

the miners and the big exchangers are forming a gang. so, BTC belongs to them.

"Gang" is such a loaded word. The miners are free to cooperate with each other and with exchange owners. No racketeering laws in Bitcoin, that's outmoded statist thinking.
If cooperation serves the miner's rational self-interest (maximizes their monetary profit$), that's what they should do.

cartels(biz gang) means monopoly and price manipulation. this is what is happening. all the BTC trades are manipulated. if you are good with this then it's without ...words

Of course unregulated markets are manipulated, that's why anti-monopoly laws (i.e. intrusive government regulations interfering with free market) were created by adults NannyState in the first place.

The whole point of Bitcoin is to make it impossible for jackbooted statist thugs to interfere with the divine workings of teh Invisible Hand via threats of violence.
Bitcoin is working exactly as it was meant to, which is to say becoming a plaything of the rich expressing the will of the Economic Majority

[Quickseller]

so any real source?? or just circle jerking

here is the link to the original thread proposing that the Chinese miners, except one pool start to support classic by mining classic blocks. The referenced thread proposed that once classic support plus the Chinese pool that is not mining classic blocks reaches 90% that the last chinese pool start to mine classic blocks, activating classic.

It appears that the OP of that thread has merely proposed this plan, but none of the Chinese miner have actually agreed to this plan (at least not publicly) and none of the Chinese miners appear to be actually implementing this plan at this time. The plan appears to be not unlike a BIP being proposed (I think anyone can write/submit a BIP proposal) in a sense that the idea has been proposed and is currently being discussed.

The Chinese miners that have responded to this proposal in english appear to "like" this proposal and have spoken positively about it, however have explicitly said that they have not agreed to this plan and that they are not aware that any of the other Chinese miners agreeing to the plan (yet). All of the Chinese miners that have responded to this proposal have also jabbed at the moderation policy of bitcointalk and r/bitcoin by saying that the chinese forums allow for discussion of scaling proposals without censorship. (I don't think the moderation policy amounts to "censorship" although I do think that the moderation policy of both is harmful to the development of Bitcoin -- some people do however feel that the moderation policy of both bitcointalk and r/bitcoin does amount to censhorship in that any scaling proposal that ultimately goes against the wishes of the core devs would be considered an altcoin -- or more specifically the implementation of such proposal without the blessing of the core devs)

[franky1]

so any real source?? or just circle jerking

here is the link to the original thread proposing that the Chinese miners,

no thats crapmedia i said the real source.. IE if its talking about pools colluding then it has to be a document from the pools

It appears that the OP of that thread has merely proposed this plan, but none of the Chinese miner have actually agreed to this plan

exactly.. its not any news about what pools will do. just some outsider making fake news trying to circle jerk it until he hopes it will come true

so im guessing no pool has invented this "terminator" pool. and thus this whole topic is meaningless

[Quickseller]

so any real source?? or just circle jerking

here is the link to the original thread proposing that the Chinese miners,

no thats crapmedia i said the real source.. IE if its talking about pools colluding then it has to be a document from the pools

It appears that the OP of that thread has merely proposed this plan, but none of the Chinese miner have actually agreed to this plan

exactly.. its not any news about what pools will do. just some outsider making fake news trying to circle jerk it until he hopes it will come true

so im guessing no pool has invented this "terminator" pool. and thus this whole topic is meaningless

The link I provided is the source. Due to somehow people think that the proposal is going to get implemented for  no reason other then it was proposed. The founder of bitmain tweeted a response to the 8btc (the chinese forum for bitcoin) thread.

[AliceGored]

It is. If they keep trusting Core devs to do what they promised, they're gonna lose a shitload of money. And that's why this is happening right now.

Wrong. The people who attended the HK meeting have done nothing that violates their "agreement" yet. It was well known that the people were acting as individuals and could in no way guarantee that the presented HF (not yet) would be merged into Core.

HaoBTC is signaling their displeasure, again, with the way the HK agreement is being unceremoniously turned to confetti.

HaoBTC and BTCC were the main pools to convince the others to attend, and reluctantly sign on to the HK agreement. Thus, they are the ones that look the most like fools for falling prey to this ruse.

Making agreements, shaking hands, smiling, having the agreement met with great fanfare from the press and the wider Bitcoin community... To toss the agreement into the garbage now, several months later, is about the biggest insult possible to eastern business sensibilities, where one's word and honorable dealings are very important.

This is turning out to be a poker game, with Core acting like they've got a royal flush, let's see if they get called.



https://twitter.com/HaoBTC
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-miners-hardfork-according-circulating-rumors/

 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

[Lauda]

This is turning out to be a poker game, with Core acting like they've got a royal flush, let's see if they get called.

Again, another mistake. 'Core' as a group is hard to represent, and does not have anything to do with this. The people who signed the agreement are the ones who are going to lose their reputation/respect if they fail to deliver a HF proposal.

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

As far as scalability is concerned, it almost does nothing to improve it. Moving from a 1 MB block size limit to a 2 MB block size limit would increase the average throughput from 3 TPS to 6 TPS. That's about it. Segwit does so much more and will deliver only slightly less throughput (on average) once adopted.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Stolfi's right about one thing: this Chinese mining cartel is a problem.

[Quickseller]

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

Right now a maximum block size is nowhere near enough to accommodate all of the transactions trying to get confirmed (legitimate transactions or otherwise), you can look at the size of recent blocks to see that recently found blocks are all 950kb+, and you can look at the mempool of any reputable block explorer to see that there are several MB worth of unconfirmed transactions and several BTC worth of transaction fees within these unconfirmed transactions.

If for example, we were to increase the maximum block size to say 10MB, (which I believe to be safe currently), then blocks on average would probably be about 10-11% full or so. If transaction growth were to grow at say 30% per year (which would be huge, and probably higher then what is realistic), then after about 8 years then the maximum block size would need to be increased again when the demand for transactions would create the need for blocks to be about 90% full.

In ~8 years, we could raise the maximum block size to say 50MB to accommodate for future growth of transaction volume. Now with today's network technology, with today's cost of storage, and with today's cost of processing power, 50MB is probably be too large, however over the next 8 years, we will almost certainly see increases in all of the above, and the cost of all of the above is almost certain to decline. Since transaction volume has already grown to be very large, after 8 years, you might want to assume that transaction growth slows to 20% per year (still very large). After ~9 years of growth, the maximum block size will again need to be increased, and again the technology regarding networks, storage and processing will almost certainly have improved and the cost of the above will almost certainly have declined, allowing for an increase of the maximum block size without increasing the cost of running a full node from the time the maximum block size was last increased.

[AliceGored]

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

Well, I'll leave your opener alone... but, the difference would be 100%/1100%/2100% greater potential throughput vs the ~3.7 something global tps we have now.

Just because your personal automobile can't hold 100 passengers, doesn't mean you shouldn't never try fitting a couple more in there with you. 

This is turning out to be a poker game, with Core acting like they've got a royal flush, let's see if they get called.

Again, another mistake. 'Core' as a group is hard to represent, and does not have anything to do with this. The people who signed the agreement are the ones who are going to lose their reputation/respect if they fail to deliver a HF proposal.

I agree that the miners made a mistake. Basically, if Gregory Maxwell wasn't at the agreement, you don't have an agreement. 

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

As far as scalability is concerned, it almost does nothing to improve it. Moving from a 1 MB block size limit to a 2 MB block size limit would increase the average throughput from 3 TPS to 6 TPS. That's about it. Segwit does so much more and will deliver only slightly less throughput (on average) once adopted.

If doubling the throughput of the network does almost nothing for scalability... then segwit does less than almost nothing for scalability with its 3MB per block max increase to data requirements and its 0.8MB gain in effective throughput.

Stolfi's right about one thing: this Chinese mining cartel is a problem.

Check your premises, the chinese miners are really the only ones left to put a check on the real cartel, the information/software cartel that is using artificial production quotas to centrally plan the economy. 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

Well, I'll leave your opener alone...

But I gave that to you.