Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Not seriously worried. Just curious.

There is nothing you could do. Nothing.
But it's also not a pressing problem. Much like sending small sums of money, cheaply and quickly, to unbaked Bolivian pygmies has never really been a problem for me. Not until I learned how good bitcoin is at solving it.

Drugs, capital flight, remittances to/from/between the pygmies.

These are all pressing concerns. This is an important project.

[1714822192]

1714822192

[1714822192]

1714822192

[1714822192]

1714822192

[1714822192]

1714822192

[dwdoc]

It's morning in China. Maybe we'll get a confirmation or denial.

[PorkUsher]

Not seriously worried. Just curious.

There is nothing you could do. Nothing.
But it's also not a pressing problem. Much like sending small sums of money, cheaply and quickly, to unbaked Bolivian pygmies has never really been a problem for me. Not until I learned how good bitcoin is at solving it.

Drugs, capital flight, remittances to/from/between the pygmies.

These are all pressing concerns. This is an important project.

Drugs is a good one.
Remittance is junk, because familia want folding money, not bits. Most pygmies not next to $tarbux, no free WiFi.
Remittance costs on the ground, not in the wire.
Pygmies a non-starter for Bitcoin, because just too expensive https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4qjqcd/costs_me_4_premium_to_pay_with_bitcoin_rather/

But seriously, including DNMs but excluding the other stuff I mentioned (also, don't include online gambling, if you're into that), how many times have you used BTC in, what, you were here for 3-4 years?

[jbreher]

While i am still catching up with the thread, the opportunity for lulz was just too strong. Sue me.

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.

Interestingly, garbage collection is one of the more intricate problems in many computing systems.

XD

[smoothie]

Has this claim been confirmed?

So much back and forth I refuse to get into the tit-for-tat discussions between big blockers and small blockies.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Not seriously worried. Just curious.

There is nothing you could do. Nothing.
But it's also not a pressing problem. Much like sending small sums of money, cheaply and quickly, to unbaked Bolivian pygmies has never really been a problem for me. Not until I learned how good bitcoin is at solving it.

Drugs, capital flight, remittances to/from/between the pygmies.

These are all pressing concerns. This is an important project.

Drugs is a good one.
Remittance is junk, because familia want folding money, not bits. Most pygmies not next to $tarbux, no free WiFi.
Remittance costs on the ground, not in the wire.
Pygmies a non-starter for Bitcoin, because just too expensive https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4qjqcd/costs_me_4_premium_to_pay_with_bitcoin_rather/

But seriously, including DNMs but excluding the other stuff I mentioned (also, don't include online gambling, if you're into that), how many times have you used BTC in, what, you were here for 3-4 years?

The last honest transaction I made was to Wikileaks. That was before they started to accept credit cards again. You?

[jbreher]

If someone cannot afford 2 year old computer and normal 5Mbps connection, why should he have right to run Bitcoin full node - and why someone needs to run the full node on 10+ year old computer is out of my mind.

So you're telling me that if I don't upgrade my hardware every 2 years that I should have no right to run a full wallet?

No - it is not that you don't have a _right_ to, it is that it is perfectly reasonable that someone that does not upgrade HW every so often does not have the _ability_ to run a full node.

Incidentally, the price I paid for the machine that runs several full nodes at the same time cost less than $400. Several years ago.

IOW qwitcherbitchen.

First proposal was 20MB, core didn't like it, then got down to 8MB, core still didn't like it, then went to 2MB and core still don't want it. People have been extremely patient but when things only go one side with censorship on top at some point people can't take it anymore.

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship?  

Oh stop it. We've been over this. Repeatedly.

First, current integrated Core release does not fix O(n^2) either.
Second, while Classic (as but one example - indeed the one explicitly named in this apparent miner manifesto) does not resolve the O(n^2) problem, it does render it a non-issue.
Third, aberrant blocks would not 'break Bitcoin', as any sane validator would stop validating a block that took more time than the mining interval to hash.

edit: added 'while'

[jbreher]

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

You could fork to a different Proof-Of-Whatever. That'd be other than dumping.

I'd cast my lot with the mass of hashpower that dwarfs every other application of computing power ever put to single task by all of humanity.

[giggidy23]

Interestingly, garbage collection is one of the more intricate problems in many computing systems.
XD

I remember something about zombies, orphans, children, orphan zombie children... I had to kill, but couldn't kill zombies...
*nix is creepy and depressing

@BlindMayorBitcorn: About 15 times. In my life (excluding stuff that I mentioned).

[groll]

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. 

Chinese miners are the vast majority of bitcoin producers in the world. If they boycott and will stop mining it will be chaos to bigtime investors. But this may bring good news to average users like me. This will imply and increase on monetary value and many of us will rejoice. Hope they will start to wage rally and start the boycott to create a sudden increase on  bitcoins price. But hope they will stop soon so we can purchase more bitcoins.

[iCEBREAKER]

I hope that it is real, but I'll wait for more evidence.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/with_replies

Hope in one hand, shit in the other.  See which one fills up first.

Enjoy your hopeless situation, HopeFat!   

[MeteoImpact]

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.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

You could fork to a different Proof-Of-Whatever. That'd be other than dumping.

I seem to remember Luke Jr. made a comment a while back about Proof-Of-Whatever algo change just in case of situations...
I wonder about this sort of thing. (I can't explain why.)

[iCEBREAKER]

Gavin used limitations to resolve the O(n^2) validation time problem. Namely limiting maximum signature operations to 1.2 GB per block. As a benefit it would not be possible to O(n^2) attack even current 1 MB blocksize anymore with up to 10 minutes CPU validation in some cases - even segwit dont solve this possible O(n^2) attack on 1 MB blocksize. So the breaking of Bitcoin due to O(n^2) is not censorship, but FUD because your avare of this Gavin solution to my knowledge.

Gavin's sigop limitations didn't "resolve the O(n^2) validation time problem" they merely avoid it via a particularly ugly, non-future-proof kludge.

Segwit solves the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem by enabling Schnorr (and resultant tree) signatures.

*takes off pedant hat*

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

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.

[jbreher]

Segwit solves the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem by enabling Schnorr (and resultant tree) signatures.

*takes off pedant hat*

Good. Now there's room for a different hat on your head.

SegWit doesn't solve the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem through Schnorr sigs either. Some future feature that is post- SegWit may. Or may not.

^


Pedant, my ass.

[iCEBREAKER]

Segwit solves the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem by enabling Schnorr (and resultant tree) signatures.

*takes off pedant hat*

Good. Now there's room for a different hat on your head.

SegWit doesn't solve the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem through Schnorr sigs either. Some future feature that is post- SegWit may. Or may not.

^


Pedant, my ass.

SegWit is necessary, but not sufficient, for the log scaling validation time sigops enabled by Schnorr.

May we agree I look really good in this pedant hat?   

[jbreher]

Segwit solves the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem by enabling Schnorr (and resultant tree) signatures.

*takes off pedant hat*

Good. Now there's room for a different hat on your head.

SegWit doesn't solve the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem through Schnorr sigs either. Some future feature that is post- SegWit may. Or may not.

^


Pedant, my ass.

SegWit is necessary, but not sufficient, for the log scaling validation time sigops enabled by Schnorr.

May we agree I look really good in this pedant hat?   

Better than the comical ... the conical ... that other one you were wearing for a half hour.

[AliceGored]

...
May we agree I look really good in this pedant hat?  

Yes, we can, as I’m sure Democritus could attest.  

An aside: I keep nervously hitting refresh on https://twitter.com/Excellion, it's showing nothing new... same for anyone else?

[Quickseller]

The proposal was made by a random person and has no weight (at the moment).

Just because that person does not currently have any influence does not mean that his idea is not good. If the landlord (OP) of the 8btc thread (or someone else) can make strong enough points then others will support the bifurcation (Hard Fork). It seems that Jihan Wu (Bitmain) somewhat supports the proposal as does one of the admins of 8btc.

Unfortunately, it looks like that BTCC and HaoBTC might not support the bifurcation proposial, and either of these pools would be able to effectively veto the proposal. That is not to say however that they both will not jump onboard once, even one of the major chinese pools officially start mining classic blocks.

This is way too risky for a change that only ups the throughput from ~3 TPS to 6 TPS.

The demand for throughput necessary currently is not sufficient for more then 6 TPS today. In what I believe will be a very short amount of time, when the cost of transmitting 32MB worth of data in under a second (a 4MB block to each of 8 peers) and storing 4MB worth of additional data is sufficiently cheap then a bifurcation proposal to increase the max block size to 4MB can be implemented, and this process repeated over time.

Note that with google fiber, a residential customer can achieve up to 1,000 Mbps for only $70 per month, and can achieve up to 18 Mbps for $50 per month with AT&T uverse, as well as the fact that the US is considered behind the curve in terms of high speed internet throughout the world.

This is all just FUD unless and until we see numbers of Classic nodes increasing dramatically.

Node count is practically worthless, although some people do use their node to express their opinion on a particular proposal; however node counts can easily be faked. For most of the bifurcation proposals, it is the miners' hashrate/hashpower/blocks found that determine if a bifurcation will activate or not. It is ultimately the economy that decides if a Hard Fork is accepted or not and many large economic players in the bitcoin world support larger blocks.

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.

Again, nodes do not matter. If I wanted to, then I could change the settings on my full node to reject blocks that do not send at least 1 BTC to my address via the coinbase transaction, however the fact that my node is rejecting every newly found block would not affect the rest of 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.

Again, see above. There are several major economic players who support larger blocks, it would probably be accurate to say that the economic majority supports larger blocks. It appears that there is less support for larger blocks then there really is (from those whose opinions matter) because those who control the moderation policy are strongly against larger blocks, and have set in place a moderation policy that makes it appear that more people (whose opinions matter) support smaller blocks.

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?

The operating costs associated with producing up to 2MB block is realistically not going to be noticeably higher then the operating costs associated with producing what is essentially always .997MB blocks. The mining pools are hoping to receive increased transaction fee revenue from larger blocks.

The people who attended the HK meeting [...] 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.

The blockstream core devs did not sign the agreement as individuals, they signed the agreement as "Bitcoin Core Contributor". I think they were certainly implying that the bifurcation would be merged into core.

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 think your bias is fairly clear by your below statement.

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