Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic

[AliceGored]

I would not be surprised if this turns out to be true.
The Chinese operators of these mining pools do not understand the simplest things.
They may be able to buy and/or build more mining units to increase their hashing capacity
and out compete all others, but when it comes to anything else Bitcoin, they are total dumbshits.

If the Chinese Miners want to switch to Classic or anything other, they should be prepared to
take over and be singularly responsible for all future programming for that fork.
It is very likely a decent amount of Devs will walk off if they do this.

If they start setting up and attempt this fork, they better have a better plan then what is proposed.

It is contingent that the Core team stays and works on Classic, even though Classic is controlled
and maintained by totally different Devs. Do the Chinese Miners even understand that simple thing?

1MB4EVA KeccakCoin or Good Ol' BTC with greater throughput... hrm, tough choice.

Your arguing that the fact that they can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?

That is total dumb shit thinking.
If majority of people vote to destroy the moon, then it's a good decision by your reasoning.

Great thinking there. Bright future ahead.  

*You're

I simply posted satoshi's description of Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. You're the one who equated Bitcoin with higher throughput akin to "destroying the moon".

Miners will face the consequence or reward of their decision via the exchange rate. As the price shot up near $40 upon hearing this rumor... the market may disagree with your sentiment.

If you disagree with miner consensus, you will remain completely free to dump your coins or move to an altcoin more in line with your philosophy.  

I didn't equate "higher throughput" to "destroying the moon".

You did it via an (somewhat inept) analogy. I didn't make the analogy, you did.

I provided an example to my prior statement: "Your arguing that the fact that they
can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?"

*You're
It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

So what you are saying I said is pretty out of context. I'm not against "higher throughput", and never said to be.

The miners are trying to achieve higher throughput, so your flailing about over this seems to indicate otherwise.

If the miner's do this, I will and sure others will buy into an altcoin that is in line with the original Bitcoin philosophy.  

And I will buy more BTC as they are solving an important issue that has been repeatedly stalled and blocked by Core technicians. To free minds, and free markets! 

[rizzlarolla]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I disagree. Oh, I get it now, that is why you call myself and the Chinese miners dumb shits.
Your superior to myself and the Chinese miners.

Maybe the miners should stick to mining, is my point.

Phew, why didn't you just say.

[PorkUsher]

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.

They rejected the validity of the agreement outright.

Can't do much worse.

Classic developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on Core.

Try to do better than "my dad's smarter than your dad," or don't bother. I have not seen a single line of your code, so your opinion is a bit suspect.

[AgentofCoin]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I disagree. Oh, I get it now, that is why you call myself and the Chinese miners dumb shits.
Your superior to myself and the Chinese miners.

Maybe the miners should stick to mining, is my point.

Phew, why didn't you just say.

I'm sorry I didn't make it more simple for you sooner.

[Lauda]

They rejected the validity of the agreement outright.

Are you referring to the recent statement by Luke-Jr? Do you know that someone had already broken the agreement (was it F2Pool? I can't remember correctly).

Try to do better than "my dad's smarter than your dad," or don't bother.

False analogy. That's an opinion due to subjective bias which is not the case here. This is an objective observation based on what I've seen so far.

I have not seen a single line of your code, so your opinion is a bit suspect.

So because you haven't seen 'my code', my opinion is invalidated (or 'suspect')? That is horrible logic, as it would invalidate your own opinion and the opinions of "users" who share your 'view' as well.

[AgentofCoin]

I would not be surprised if this turns out to be true.
The Chinese operators of these mining pools do not understand the simplest things.
They may be able to buy and/or build more mining units to increase their hashing capacity
and out compete all others, but when it comes to anything else Bitcoin, they are total dumbshits.

If the Chinese Miners want to switch to Classic or anything other, they should be prepared to
take over and be singularly responsible for all future programming for that fork.
It is very likely a decent amount of Devs will walk off if they do this.

If they start setting up and attempt this fork, they better have a better plan then what is proposed.

It is contingent that the Core team stays and works on Classic, even though Classic is controlled
and maintained by totally different Devs. Do the Chinese Miners even understand that simple thing?

1MB4EVA KeccakCoin or Good Ol' BTC with greater throughput... hrm, tough choice.

Your arguing that the fact that they can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?

That is total dumb shit thinking.
If majority of people vote to destroy the moon, then it's a good decision by your reasoning.

Great thinking there. Bright future ahead.  

*You're

I simply posted satoshi's description of Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. You're the one who equated Bitcoin with higher throughput akin to "destroying the moon".

Miners will face the consequence or reward of their decision via the exchange rate. As the price shot up near $40 upon hearing this rumor... the market may disagree with your sentiment.

If you disagree with miner consensus, you will remain completely free to dump your coins or move to an altcoin more in line with your philosophy.  

I didn't equate "higher throughput" to "destroying the moon".

You did it via an (somewhat inept) analogy. I didn't make the analogy, you did.

I provided an example to my prior statement: "Your arguing that the fact that they
can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?"

*You're
It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

So what you are saying I said is pretty out of context. I'm not against "higher throughput", and never said to be.

The miners are trying to achieve higher throughput, so your flailing about over this seems to indicate otherwise.

If the miner's do this, I will and sure others will buy into an altcoin that is in line with the original Bitcoin philosophy.  

And I will buy more BTC as they are solving an important issue that has been repeatedly stalled and blocked by Core technicians. To free minds, and free markets!  

It was not an analogy with throughput, I was making a different point on voting, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Nothing seems to matter to you other than the markets it seems.

Hopefully Bitcoin has reached to point that it will be able to withstand the assault that is going to come about from this move.
Sometimes I wonder whether people like you are a real person with a true belief or a government agency just trying to weaken Bitcoin.

[pogress]

Maybe the miners should stick to mining, is my point.

Sure, but your missing the fact the miners have right to choose what client and what changes to activate. They can merge the code they like or use any clone of Bitcoin repository or whatever. Most devs are miners as well, or at least were at one point in time. Bitcoin and all voting is based on proof of work, not on github/bitcoin - but miners are free to use and run code from this place if they choose to, but it is not required.

It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

Nice to see someone understand how Bitcoin works.

[AliceGored]

It was not an analogy with throughput, I was making a different point on voting, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Nothing seems to matter to you other than the markets it seems.
Hopefully Bitcoin has reached to point that it will be able to withstand the assault that is going to come about from this move.

Re: Voting... like it or not, this is Bitcoin:


A market is a manifestation of real sentiment that is comprised of people putting their own wealth on the line. Bitcoin's entire incentive structure is based on free markets and rational economic behavior.

Maybe one could create an altcoin with a different mechanism, like "Proof of strong uncontentious consensus among Core developers"?

[AgentofCoin]

Maybe the miners should stick to mining, is my point.

Sure, but your missing the fact the miners have right to choose what client and what changes to activate. They can merge the code they like or use any clone of Bitcoin repository or whatever. Most devs are miners as well, or at least were at one point in time. Bitcoin and all voting is based on proof of work, not on github/bitcoin - but miners are free to use and run code from this place if they choose to, but it is not required.

It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

Nice to see someone understand how Bitcoin works.

I already understand all this.

My point is they think that the Core Devs are currently incorrect. They are rumored of agreeing to a proposal to switch to Classic.
Those are separate devs (from Core) with a fundamentally different ideologically view point on what makes Bitcoin/BTC valuable.

Are you sure the miner's understand that? Their proposal seems to think that core devs just shuffle over to classic.

What I'm saying is: Do the Chinese Miner's fully understand the situation and the potential future outcome?
I am arguing that they do not. I argue they don't know anything about how any of that works.
They only know what they know about mining. Their move to classic could neuter their future profits.

[krumblez]

The discredit and derailing is strong with the OP. gg.

[PorkUsher]

They rejected the validity of the agreement outright.

Are you referring to the recent statement by Luke-Jr? Do you know that someone had already broken the agreement (was it F2Pool? I can't remember correctly).

Yes, Luke-jr. No, I didn't know about F2Pool. Link?
Regardless, the agreement is either valid and binding, or it's not. If it's not, the miners are free to do whatever they wish, and this whole debate is pointless.

Try to do better than "my dad's smarter than your dad," or don't bother.

False analogy. That's an opinion due to subjective bias which is not the case here. This is an objective observation based on what I've seen so far.

If you don't code, your "objective observation" re. coding abilities of others is what's called an "uneducated opinion," and, as such, ain't worth much more than my cat's. My cat don't code.
As far as "bias" goes, your bias on this issue is well-known.

I have not seen a single line of your code, so your opinion is a bit suspect.

So because you haven't seen 'my code', my opinion is invalidated (or 'suspect')? That is horrible logic, as it would invalidate your own opinion and the opinions of "users" who share your 'view' as well.

No, there's nothing wrong with my logic.
I would value an opinion of a surgeon much higher than that of a garbage collector, if the topic is surgery. Vice-versa if the topic is collecting garbage.
But you're telling me that both are just as good?

@AgentofCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1532130.msg15425353#msg15425353

[rizzlarolla]

I already understand all this.
I am arguing that they do not. I argue they don't know anything about how any of that works.

Get a grip boy.

Your argument is pretty thin.

[AgentofCoin]

I already understand all this.
I am arguing that they do not. I argue they don't know anything about how any of that works.

Get a grip boy.

Your argument is pretty thin.

Calling me a boy is very offensive to me.
Are you saying you are superior to me?
Lol!

[AgentofCoin]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
The mountain doesn't have any bandits since it is harder for them to perform their attack.

Do you still build through the plains knowing that?

[rizzlarolla]

These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.

What bandits?
That is how I see Core.

[Lauda]

Yes, Luke-jr. No, I didn't know about F2Pool. Link?

I think they violated it a day later mining a Classic block. I'll update the post if I find the link.

Regardless, the agreement is either valid and binding, or it's not. If it's not, the miners are free to do whatever they wish, and this whole debate is pointless.

It matters. People who attack Luke-jr for 'trying' to create a proposal are heavily biased if it was already broken.

If you don't code, your "objective observation" re. coding abilities of others is what's called an "uneducated opinion," and, as such, ain't worth much more than my cat's. My cat don't code.

So you can draw a conclusion of my 'coding abilities' based on not-seeing any of my code? Interesting story.

As far as "bias" goes, your bias on this issue is well-known.

No it is not. What nonsense are you talking about? I have no connection to any developer regardless of whether Core or Classic/other.

I would value an opinion of a surgeon much higher than that of a garbage collector, if the topic is surgery. Vice-versa if the topic is collecting garbage.

Fine, Core has surgeons and Classic has garbage collectors. I get it.

[PorkUsher]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from which way the railroad goes.

The interests of the miners don't coincide with the interests of the Core devs, just like the interests of Mayor Mccheese don't coincide with those of Hamburglar. They're at odds. Not because of some misunderstanding or stupidity, but because money.

[mayax]

Cross post from /r/bitcoin.

According to the Chinese translation, summary:

Core defaulted on HK consensus and doesn't honor 2M increase.

Chinese miners to unite to implement Classic which supports 2M increase and SegWit.

Urge all miners to unite to support the Terminator Plan - ( i think it implies to terminate Core's 0.13.1 which doesn't honor HK consensus).

This is truly a war by miners against CORE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4qk7et/wow_chinese_miners_revolt_and_announce_terminator/?

It looks like the Chinese mining cartel are now trying pull the strings.  

they can do it and they will do it. money talks !

wtf cares about Core of ShitCore or ShitClassic? it only matters the profit and nothing more. would you care about any Bitcoin shit if would make millions of USD now? NO! You will grab the money without looking back and done.

[pogress]

My point is they think that the Core Devs are currently incorrect.

Everybody has different opinion. Do you even know anybody you can 100% agree on any matter, because I dont.

They are rumored of agreeing to a proposal to switch to Classic.
Those are separate devs (from Core) with a fundamentally different ideologically view point on what makes Bitcoin/BTC valuable.

Are you sure the miner's understand that? Their proposal seems to think that core devs just shuffle over to classic.

What I'm saying is: Do the Chinese Miner's fully understand the situation and the potential future outcome?
I am arguing that they do not. I argue they don't know anything about how any of that works.
They only know what they know about mining. Their move to classic could neuter their future profits.

Classic is not good option for myselves, miners should merge the changes they want but if they choose BIP 109 because their lazy to come up with better hard fork change, be it. Its not the end of Bitcoin, and certainly better than current 1 MB, so no big deal for me. Maybe the few who treated Bitcoin as their own pet project leaves Bitcoin because of their egos, but every dev should be replacable if Bitcoin is meant to be decentralized - and those who understand what Bitcoin is keep using and making Bitcoin better after the change anyway.

[AgentofCoin]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.
Bitcoin is only valuable if it can resist or entirely prevent all possible forms of attacks or exploits.
The recent Ethereum situation is a perfect example. They and their community have chosen the plains, IMO.
There will be many more problems with Ethereum in the future because it was designed the wrong way.

I think there are right ways and wrong ways. Not all roads lead to the same place. Some have dead ends.

Satoshi didn't make Bitcoin to become rich, but to be secure resistant money. We should uphold that.

If you are saying that some are being paid to go through the mountains, why is that a problem if the mountains are secure?
If you want to go through the plains with bandits, which is not secure, but not paid by the Mayor, why is that better?