kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 16, 2015, 05:43:01 AM |
|
Sounds like a drug dealer ... come on ... you can change your mind later ... just try it ... it wont do anything ... Um, if it does nothing, why bother?
|
|
|
|
jtoomim
|
|
August 16, 2015, 06:40:37 AM Last edit: August 16, 2015, 07:03:48 AM by jtoomim |
|
Toomim Bros operates two p2pool nodes. We are planning on switching one of those nodes to use Bitcoin XT soon, and leave the other one on Bitcoin Core. That way, our customers can choose whichever node they want in order to make their own vote for how Bitcoin should be run. I'll let you know when we make those changes. Everyone is welcome to use these nodes, though you won't have great mining efficiency unless you're inside our datacenter.
We also will probably be changing our IP address for these nodes soon. I'll publish details about the new IP and which node will be using XT once we're ready to make the changes.
So far, Bitcoin Core (and consequently all Bitcoin protocol) development has progressed on a consensus model. All of the main developers have to agree to a change in order for it to take effect. For any important change, there will always be some people who are unhappy about it, so consensus only works for making important changes in oligarchies, and even in oligarchies, it doesn't work well. We at Toomim Bros think that decisions about how Bitcoin should operate ought to be democratized. As such, we support the existence of Bitcoin XT and think that all miners should have the option to choose which version they wish to support and use.
Toomim Bros also thinks that 1 MB is way too small, and that the network can and should support larger blocks. We think that one goal for Bitcoin should be minimizing the real cost per transaction. Currently, that cost is supported primarily by the block subsidy, and runs at about 65 kWh per transaction. (300 MW mining network, 1.27 transactions per second.) That's about $4 per transaction. Increasing the transaction volume would not directly require any significant increase in the mining network power consumption, so it would reduce the real cost per transaction. Our facility spends about 80x as much on electricity as it does on internet connectivity. We do not think large blocks will present a large burden on smaller bitcoin miners like us.
As such, we will be putting the miners owned by Toomim Bros (the company) and the Toomim brothers (the individuals) on XT soon.
Edit: We're running XT on our p2pool node 74.82.233.205:9334, and Core on our p2pool node 74.82.233.205:9332.
|
Hosting bitcoin miners for $65 to $80/kW/month on clean, cheap hydro power. http://Toom.im
|
|
|
yslyung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1002
Mine Mine Mine
|
|
August 16, 2015, 06:52:28 AM |
|
XT or Core ... whichever works best i go.
ah ha & a BLOCK !
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
August 16, 2015, 01:04:39 PM |
|
Sounds like a drug dealer ... come on ... you can change your mind later ... just try it ... it wont do anything ... Um, if it does nothing, why bother? Drug dealer? Really? right now it's 0 risk and a way to support a block size increase. And that's essentially what it is. A vote with hash power.
|
|
|
|
TheRealSteve
|
|
August 16, 2015, 01:17:09 PM |
|
Just keep in mind that the default code base and the released binaries of XT include more than just the block size changes. 'Voting for' XT is a vote in favor of all changes, not just the block size ones.
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
August 16, 2015, 01:24:00 PM |
|
Just keep in mind that the default code base and the released binaries of XT include more than just the block size changes. 'Voting for' XT is a vote in favor of all changes, not just the block size ones.
True, here's Mike's list: Bigger blocks Double spend relaying Better DoS attack defences BIP 65 / getutxos support DNS seed list refresh https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/_YeEuaUu3Xk
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 16, 2015, 01:42:25 PM |
|
Just keep in mind that the default code base and the released binaries of XT include more than just the block size changes. 'Voting for' XT is a vote in favor of all changes, not just the block size ones.
... and just using it is a vote in favour of it ... Which is why I made the drug dealer reference. It's not just "try it to see that it's OK" since there is nothing to see, it's: "try it and thus you may not realise it but you are voting for it" Trying it is voting to use it. So people should decide that before trying it - since you won't see anything by trying it.
|
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
August 16, 2015, 02:37:15 PM |
|
It's not up yet, still core. I'll post here when it's up and running...
|
|
|
|
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1024
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
|
August 16, 2015, 03:22:32 PM |
|
So the Mac binary for XT is pretty poorly put together... it's not even an app, it's just a compiled tarball with some executables in it. I might have to rectify that. Of course, I'll have to get by the configure file claiming I don't have BDB, even though I do - and it's in the standard location - and can compile Core without issue.
Compilation from source on Ubuntu went flawlessly.
I will probably test this out on my node... but won't get to it today.
|
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2264
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
August 16, 2015, 03:53:42 PM |
|
Just keep in mind that the default code base and the released binaries of XT include more than just the block size changes. 'Voting for' XT is a vote in favor of all changes, not just the block size ones.
He also released a fork of core with just the big blocks patched. that's the version I'll be running.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
TheRealSteve
|
|
August 16, 2015, 04:38:12 PM |
|
He also released a fork of core with just the big blocks patched. that's the version I'll be running.
Sort of. There is a code base with only the big block bits, with some caveats: [...] the program you get by compiling that branch calls itself Bitcoin Core, even though it isn't. Distributing a program that uses the brand name of that project whilst including changes the developers disagree with seems kind of like a dick move to me; and if Bitcoin Core was a trademark it'd also cause legal issues. So that's why Bitcoin XT has a separate brand. Now, that problem can be easily resolved by inventing yet another new name, adapting the XT rebranding patch, and then setting up that new alternative brand with its own website, etc. But it turns out to be a lot of work to do that, especially if you want builds for every platform, gitian reproducibility, code signing etc. I don't have the energy to do it all twice over. If someone else wants to though, go for it.
[- Mike Hearn]
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2264
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
August 16, 2015, 06:24:55 PM |
|
He also released a fork of core with just the big blocks patched. that's the version I'll be running.
Sort of. There is a code base with only the big block bits, with some caveats: [...] the program you get by compiling that branch calls itself Bitcoin Core, even though it isn't. Distributing a program that uses the brand name of that project whilst including changes the developers disagree with seems kind of like a dick move to me; and if Bitcoin Core was a trademark it'd also cause legal issues. So that's why Bitcoin XT has a separate brand. Now, that problem can be easily resolved by inventing yet another new name, adapting the XT rebranding patch, and then setting up that new alternative brand with its own website, etc. But it turns out to be a lot of work to do that, especially if you want builds for every platform, gitian reproducibility, code signing etc. I don't have the energy to do it all twice over. If someone else wants to though, go for it.
[- Mike Hearn] Hmm. Wonder what's involved in the rebranding. I'd probably be willing to share but I hadn't thought of the rebranding and it would be Linux only (probably).
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
p3yot33at3r
|
|
August 16, 2015, 11:28:06 PM |
|
YaY! Another 2 blocks within 24 hours........
|
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2264
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
August 16, 2015, 11:48:03 PM |
|
YaY! Another 2 blocks within 24 hours........ Dang. Curse League of Legends.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:24:38 AM |
|
It's fixed, thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2264
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:24:05 AM |
|
Under controlled conditions, no league of legend ping time problems. Must have been Comcast being crappy.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
vulgartrendkill
|
|
August 17, 2015, 09:00:38 AM |
|
my payouts were a solid .03 to .086 per block, now dropped to .006? exactly same hashrate. Colour me confused....
|
|
|
|
yslyung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1002
Mine Mine Mine
|
|
August 17, 2015, 10:37:41 AM |
|
my payouts were a solid .03 to .086 per block, now dropped to .006? exactly same hashrate. Colour me confused....
did you stop hashing or continuously ?
|
|
|
|
|