Are Chinese miners fucking stupid?

[RawDog]

How can they continue to allow Core to build a system that will shift fees away from miners and into the pockets of private companies like Blockstream?  Talk about voting for your own death.

Hey miners, switch to BU now!

Just because nullc has a big fluffy beard which you all admire, do you have to follow him to the edge of the Earth?

[1714041187]

1714041187

[1714041187]

1714041187

[Yakamoto]

How can they continue to allow Core to build a system that will shift fees away from miners and into the pockets of private companies like Blockstream?  Talk about voting for your own death.

Hey miners, switch to BU now!

Just because nullc has a big fluffy beard which you all admire, do you have to follow him to the edge of the Earth?

Could be an inside deal with a larger cut coming to miners via blockstream or whatever they're trying to push now versus the competition that they experience right now, to a certain extent.

If they never switch to larger block sizes then fees will go up more and more, and that can translate to more ""sustained"" income for miners through various deals.

I'm not them though, and I think it's pretty f-cking bad.

[franky1]

BTCC is funded by Barry silbert of DCG
Blockstream is funded by Barry silbert of DCG

DGC and blockstream are involved in the bankers hyper ledger

they get enough FIAT, they dont care much for bitcoin.

why do you think  BTCC is offering free fee's for services (until regulators got involved) bcause bitcoin fee's are meaningless to them

[HabBear]

Are they not building the system for themselves to profit from?

How does having miners switch to BU change the impact of Core?

[franky1]

put it this way..

if fee's were $1 a tx..
bitcoin users will hate using bitcoin, but it would only earn bitcoin pools ~$2k-$2.5k

pools still do not see that tx fee's are an income. they just see it as a bonus... in short, they dont care much
their income is still the blockreward which gets them $10k+

those blindly adoring the idea of sidechains(altcoins) and offchain(corporate permissioned services) dont care about
bitcoin fee's
they only care about making money offering these side services by charging less than a bitcoin tx fee (under $1). in fact the higher the onchain fee, the more income these future hub managers can get by offering a slight discount.

those blindly adoring the idea of sidechains(altcoins) and offchain(corporate permissioned services) dont care about
onchain capacity
they only care about making money offering these side services by offering more 'payments' to get repeat income. infact the lower the onchain capacity. the more income these future hub managers can get by locking people in for longer.

core are drumming up the false proposition that LN node users can make money acting as LN hop managers. but the reality is users will
avoid the hop concept to avoid paying for each hop. and instead go for the HUB concept to save on fee's. and guess who gets to be the HUB..


if you ever see someone talk about "conservative" (the new 2016-2017 core promotional buzzword) )they are not talking about protecting or strengthening bitcoin. they are talking about
conning to serve private representatives...
anyone living in england knows how "conservatives" run things. selling out our countries assets to the highest bidder to let it be run by private companies

as for anyone that wants independent control but fears using BU. then change the settings of your favourite brand and release it as another diverse release that can in the future allow you to change the blocksize buffer without needing devs to spoon feed you settings they desire

[European Central Bank]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/

yep. bu is sure looking like the future according to this.

or something.

[KennyR]

Typically miners could have been paid good, so to make the fee as required for the companies put forth by the Op. This might also be the cause based upon the past inspection made by People's bank of China to have control on the transaction.

[franky1]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/

yep. bu is sure looking like the future according to this.

or something.

1. this proves that consensus and orphans work
2. this proves that altcoins are not created
3. this proves that all the doomsdays are wrong.

people need to realise that within 3 seconds the block got rejected. orphaned off.. thrown away, put in the trash, not used,  gone

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 from  peer=729
2017-01-29 06:59:15 received block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 peer=729
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

meaning consensus works. bitcoin is still in one piece.

the network will only validate and accept blocks over 1mb when there is a majority.
so this is actually a positive by squashing all the fake doomsdays of altcoins and splits by BU.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

the real funny part is, although bitcoins built in mechanism from 2009 works as it should..
the core blockstream fans fear consensus, soo much they actually manually and automatically banned nodes AFTER bitcoins built in code done what it should, thus now core are the risk of causing an intentional bilateral split.. by avoiding the natural orphan mechanism by ignoring nodes instead of just rejecting blocks.

here is what would happen is they didnt ban nodes and someone passed them the same block

2017-01-29 07:02:10 receive version message: /BitcoinUnlimited:0.12.1(EB16; AD4)/: version 80002, blocks=450529, peer=737
2017-01-29 07:02:10 received: headers (82 bytes) peer=737
2017-01-29 07:02:10 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 is marked invalid

meaning its already been marked as dead, so dont handle it. IN THE SAME SECOND
thus no need to block nodes. as bitcoins consensus already pushed it to the side as a non issue within the same second

ha ha ha. im laughing

ofcourse gmaxwell instead of highlighting that consensus worked and issue resolved in 3 seconds where that block is automaticaly flagged as invalid if picked up again by another node..is do nothing more within a second.. (meaning he didnt highlight what consensus does). but instead orgasmed at the opportunity that his auto ban settings in core intentionally banned the nodes.. thus making a bilateral split possible due to core ignorance and use of an auto node ban feature.
(desperation i smell in gmaxwells pants)

Every Bitcoin Core node happily banned the BU peers that gave them this invalid block,

he kind of back tracked after to half explain consensus, where he said (not verbatim) 'an SPV would see the block until a new block officially pushes it away'.
although spv clients also rejected it in SECONDS using consensus without having to ban nodes. but maxwell didnt highlight the no need to ban peers aspect..

SPV wallet user who were connected to BU nodes may have seen a false confirmations for 24 minutes until 450530 was mined which decisively overtook the invalid 450529. Fortunately, in this case it doesn't appear that SPV miners exacerbated the invalid block fork though several did follow it briefly.

gmaxwell is desparate to cause an altcoin. he is even celebrating it

You missed a great opportunity for alliteration: Bugged block brings blanket BU bans.

desperate man, afraid of consensus that much he is willing to bilateral split the network.. as shown by earlier evidence of even wanting to bilateral split the network just to force segwit in

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

[kiklo]

Chinese Miners can't even meet the 10 minute Blockspeed.  

Observe the blockchain  https://blockchain.info/
1 hour 18 minutes since the last block meaning no transactions received even 1 confirmation let along the 3 needed to complete a transfer of BTC.
450661    1 hour 18 minutes    1708    19,052.31 BTC    ViaBTC    742.18


 

[franky1]

Chinese Miners can't even meet the 10 minute Blockspeed.  

the rule is not 10 minutes!!!

its a hopeful 2016 blocks in 2 weeks

which could be a few blocks as quick as 2 minutes and a few blocks as slow as over an hour.. its just luck..
as long as it all adds up to an average of 2016 blocks a fortnight.

which then for those who hate maths.. means AVERAGE of MAYBE 10 minutes a block
not hard rule of 10 minutes a block

the hard rule is the 2016 block a fortnight target. the 10 minute thing is just layman unofficial conversation piece

[kiklo]

Chinese Miners can't even meet the 10 minute Blockspeed.  

the rule is not 10 minutes!!!

its a hopeful 2016 blocks in 2 weeks

which could be a few blocks as quick as 2 minutes and a few blocks as slow as over an hour.. its just luck..
as long as it all adds up to an average of 2016 blocks a fortnight.

which then for those who hate maths.. means AVERAGE of MAYBE 10 minutes a block
not hard rule of 10 minutes a block

the hard rule is the 2016 block a fortnight target. the 10 minute thing is just layman unofficial conversation piece

Shows BTC Core is failing at improving Design, and the Chinese Miners are failing at keeping an semi-average block time.

Many Alts switched to a Difficulty readjustment after every Block to Prevent this kind of irregularity in BlockSpeed Timing.

BTC leaves theirs at 2 weeks and it causes these gaping holes in transactions times,
they need to fix this , if they ever want to be taken seriously.


 

FYI:
BTC better learn from what happened to ixcoin, when their large PoW miners dropped off it was only finding a block every few days.

[Kakmakr]

What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a  hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.

Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees? 

Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >

[kiklo]

What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a  hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.

Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?  

Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >

Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.


 

[Kakmakr]

What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a  hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.

Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?  

Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >

Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.


 

What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.

I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.

Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^

[jacaf01]

I don't think they are stupid, they will reach a good deal for themselves and get the SeqWit pass but if no suitable deal is reached, SegWit won't not be passed. Miners are very powerful in the space and nobody can take their interest for granted.

[kiklo]

What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a  hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.

Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?  

Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >

Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.


 

What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.

I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.

Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^

Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.   

A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing.

 

[deisik]

Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.   

A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing

Does Bitcoin exist for miners' sake?

And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies



And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin

[Kakmakr]

What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a  hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.

Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?  

Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >

Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.


 

What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.

I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.

Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^

Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.   

A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing.

 

I have a pretty good understanding of what is being attempted with the LN, but I think the miners are just as uncertain about the outcome of this, as many of us. Has anyone projected the possible impact of this based on tx growth that would be made possible and what income will be generated from hosting a hub?

Xapo is also making use of the same principle, the only difference being that their off-chain tx's are not part of the Bitcoin protocol.

A block size increase has it's own risks, but I guess that is what Satoshi anticipated. < small natural increases >

[kiklo]

What am I missing here? Apart from the Block reward and the miners fees, a additional income stream are added for the miners, if they host a hub a  hub manager will receive income from that, and this income might even be more than the income that was lost from reduced on-chain transactions.

Why would a miner not accept a change in the protocol that could possibly increase his income from fees?  

Have you done calculations that compare Miners Fees VS Hub hosting fees? < or potential fees >

Hub Hosting Fees will cause the Miners to lose onchain Fees to any LN hub they don't host.
LN is a scam. Might as well just use a Bank.


 

What is stopping anyone from hosting a hub? If the miners are not hosting hubs and losing income, then they should just blame themselves, not the people hosting the hubs. I think some people are making this more of a issue than what it is supposed to be.

I am not a strong supporter of SegWit or the LN network, but I can see the value and the solutions it might bring to some issues we have now.

Until I see a direct impact analysis that compare the "possible" loss in miners fees, compared to the financial gains that can be achieved via Hub hosting, I cannot make a clear decision. Some has obviously made these calculations and they have shown their support for this. ^hmmmmm^

Hmm,
If you don't understand LN will cost the Miner fees, you really have not looked at it.
I suggest you research it so you know what you are talking about next time.
You should get a clue , that is why the Chinese Miners have been blocking it.    

A blocksize increase would fix the transaction issues without involving the shenanigans of LN offchain processing.

 

I have a pretty good understanding of what is being attempted with the LN, but I think the miners are just as uncertain about the outcome of this, as many of us. Has anyone projected the possible impact of this based on tx growth that would be made possible and what income will be generated from hosting a hub?

Xapo is also making use of the same principle, the only difference being that their off-chain tx's are not part of the Bitcoin protocol.

A block size increase has it's own risks, but I guess that is what Satoshi anticipated. < small natural increases >

LOL, the miners that are refusing to allow segwit seem certain to me, they are blocking it because they are not stupid and know it will cost them transactions fees, if those transaction fees go offline into LN, the miners won't receive the fees from the Trillions of transfers that can take place offchain.  Sorry, you are confused by it , but seriously dude, it is a no brainer.

Satoshi did not anticipate shit, he thought PCs would be doing the PoW work not ASICS.


 

[e-coinomist]

Does Bitcoin exist for miners' sake?

And if these miners are not quite happy with these developments (which make Bitcoin better overall), they can leave and their place will be taken by more flexible ones. But instead of leaving, they are putting grit in the machine and trying to curb or restrain Bitcoin. Though their actions are quite understandable (very much like those of Luddites) and aimed at preserving their short-term profits, they are inevitably set to lose in the end. Either they will kicked out from Bitcoin mining or Bitcoin itself will lose being replaced by other more advanced currencies



And then miners will still have to leave on their own after having shot themselves in the foot and killed Bitcoin

Those luddites yielding handheld tools to disrupt a more advanced tool, just crazyness. Bitcoin initially existed for miner's sake who have been ... you and us, well just everybody who wanted to mine. This concept got lost, marginalized by industrial mining operations.
Neither BU nor Core will bring back mining into everybody's household. Now watch this mess of centralisation.
We need just that signal, any signal at all, of Bitcoin still beeing able to change. Adapt, improve. There is the reason why I support Segwit. Not for Segwit's sake, just for the signaling that progress is still imaginable.