[4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool

[-ck]

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

[pekatete]

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Probably not. It is what it is, that which WE are voting on with OUR hash.
There are, I'd imagine, multiple threads discussing THAT distinction where you'd no doubt be on-topic.

[-ck]

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Probably not. It is what it is, that which WE are voting on with OUR hash.
There are, I'd imagine, multiple threads discussing THAT distinction where you'd no doubt be on-topic.

With all due respect, I think making it clear that it's XT you're mining for by selecting the alternative ports IS on topic for miners who mine on this pool.

EDIT: Respect withdrawn based on your obviously inflammatory response ignoring what the implications of said vote are. It is NOT just a vote for bigger blocks. I'll let others judge for themselves.

[pekatete]

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Probably not. It is what it is, that which WE are voting on with OUR hash.
There are, I'd imagine, multiple threads discussing THAT distinction where you'd no doubt be on-topic.

With all due respect, I think making it clear that it's XT you're mining for by selecting the alternative ports IS on topic for miners who mine on this pool.

It is what it is, and very clearly stated, and I quote: Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize..
The XT part is what is totally off-topic since it is neither mentioned in the post nor been raised as an issue to slush by any of my fellow pool users. So there, find the thread discussing the merits and demerits of XT, block sizes et al and continue that discussion there.

[chiguireitor]

It could be that if enough miners connect to port 3301 they alter the version number (without using XT) on the block itself that gets relayed, expressing support for the BIP but not using the flawed XT implementation?

Just shooting an arrow on the dark here....

[TheRealSteve]

It could be that if enough miners connect to port 3301 they alter the version number (without using XT) on the block itself that gets relayed, expressing support for the BIP but not using the flawed XT implementation?

And with that, it's obvious that the pool operators should indeed be more specific in what exactly is on the back-end of the 3301 port.  There's at least 3 readily accessible possibilities;
1. Bitcoin-XT, which has the block vote but also already contains the additional other changes.
2. Big-block only, which has the block vote and all code to handle big blocks, but does not contain the additional other changes.
3. Not-XT, which only pretends to be XT and sets the version number (thus voting), but does not actually have the code to handle big blocks (or any of the parts that take votes into account)

While all 3 constitute a 'vote for' big blocks, the devil is in the details.  I highly doubt it's the third option as that would basically be double-crossing those who explicitly chose to mine at that port expecting either the first or second option, but that still leaves those two.  Can't hurt to clarify the particulars

[pekatete]

Its a means to an end and not the end itself (and we're not at the end either). If and when we get to THAT end, then I agree, it would be nice (just nice) to know what means a pool deploys. As it stands, it is neither here nor there (akin to dilligently applying a razor to a hair-strand!).

It is a simple vote (by hash) of whether we'd like to get to a certain end-point (not a vote on the means to get to that endpoint).

[TheRealSteve]

I think it's great that they offer the choice at all, let people decide.  The thing some people are pointing out is that there are changes in the XT client that are completely separate from the block size voting and apply immediately.  Presenting the choice as being purely about the block size and something that only applies to the future and only if certain thresholds are met is painting an incomplete picture.  That's not a matter of splitting hairs, but one of informed choice.  It's also only a single comment/post to clarify

[pekatete]

The razor and hair-strand comment was not directed towards your comment, was just included in a response to your comment.
Saying that, I think you hit it on the head there, aka there are changes in the XT client that are completely separate from the block size, which (no surprise here) is exactly my thinking. The hash vote is for block size not the XT client (or the other means to achieving a larger block size). That there are implications to that should be the subject of another thread, of which I am sure there are plenty .... but thanks for clarifying anyway.

[Gyrsur]

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?

[TheRealSteve]

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?

Yes.  For future reference, see: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
They're tracking both coinbase sigScript (including BIP100) type 'votes' as well as BIP101 (Bitcoin-XT) votes and include pool attribution.

[Gyrsur]

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?

Yes.  For future reference, see: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
They're tracking both coinbase sigScript (including BIP100) type 'votes' as well as BIP101 (Bitcoin-XT) votes and include pool attribution.

thank you for the link. what are this 8MB votes from some chinese miner pools?

[Lucko]

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?

Yes.  For future reference, see: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
They're tracking both coinbase sigScript (including BIP100) type 'votes' as well as BIP101 (Bitcoin-XT) votes and include pool attribution.

thank you for the link. what are this 8MB votes from some chinese miner pools?

Voting with coinbase(not exchange)... Saying we would like to see 8MB blocks. But they are not doing it with XT but QT... For now they are waiting for devs to do something...

[TheRealSteve]

thank you for the link. what are this 8MB votes from some chinese miner pools?

Wrong thread for that.  Summary below, but if you have follow-up questions on a specific portion, try to find an appropriate thread.
Back when the block size discussion was starting to heat up, a proposal was made for 20MB blocks, something that Chinese pools felt would affect them negatively too much.  Parallel to the Chinese pools' concerns, the proposal was already reduced to 8MB.  Several Chinese pools felt that was acceptable, made an official statement (English) to that effect, and some started signing their coinbase scriptSig (already used by many to mark pool attribution) using BIP100 style block voting ("/BVsizeinbytes/"), though others just put in "8M/" or even just threw in "8M" somewhere (e.g. BW's "BW Support 8M").  They have more recently stated that while they support larger blocks, they have no desire to support Bitcoin-XT. Whether that's borne out of concerns of the other modifications or just a preference to keep a centralized codebase, who knows.

[eleuthria]

Seems like an alternative set of URLs is the only way to realistically implement a voting system. If they made it account based (for example) then there would be overhead forwarding mining traffic to the appropriate stratum server.

It would actually be trivial to implement it via an account flag.  The only thing changing if you want to vote for XT is a version number on the block header.

And with that, it's obvious that the pool operators should indeed be more specific in what exactly is on the back-end of the 3301 port.  There's at least 3 readily accessible possibilities;
1. Bitcoin-XT, which has the block vote but also already contains the additional other changes.
2. Big-block only, which has the block vote and all code to handle big blocks, but does not contain the additional other changes.
3. Not-XT, which only pretends to be XT and sets the version number (thus voting), but does not actually have the code to handle big blocks (or any of the parts that take votes into account)

#1 and #2 are the same.  Bitcoin-XT is a CLIENT for a BIP101 Hardfork.  All the bullshit people keep raising over blacklisting and IP tracking is CLIENT SIDE denial of service measures.  They are not protocol level changes.  They could be implemented in a Bitcoin Core client and probably have been by people already that have been trying to do blockchain analysis and de-anonymization analysis.

[Lucko]

Seems like an alternative set of URLs is the only way to realistically implement a voting system. If they made it account based (for example) then there would be overhead forwarding mining traffic to the appropriate stratum server.

It would actually be trivial to implement it via an account flag.  The only thing changing if you want to vote for XT is a version number on the block header.

That would be a lot better... It took me 20+ minutes. I'm sure that someone will not take the time to do it... So yes if it is easy please add it... I came hire to ask if it would be posible to add a marker to workers so you can be sure on what core is it. QT or XT. But that is better...

[pekatete]

Seems like an alternative set of URLs is the only way to realistically implement a voting system. If they made it account based (for example) then there would be overhead forwarding mining traffic to the appropriate stratum server.

It would actually be trivial to implement it via an account flag.  The only thing changing if you want to vote for XT is a version number on the block header.

That would be a lot better... It took me 20+ minutes. I'm sure that someone will not take the time to do it... So yes if it is easy please add it... I came hire to ask if it would be posible to add a marker to workers so you can be sure on what core is it. QT or XT. But that is better...

Slush don't live here anymore! Make your request via their facebook page and it will be more likely to get a response. Even better, put that request in the developement corner centre (its more likely to get their attention faster if it is voted up!).

PS. I recomend the last option ...

[Lucko]

Seems like an alternative set of URLs is the only way to realistically implement a voting system. If they made it account based (for example) then there would be overhead forwarding mining traffic to the appropriate stratum server.

It would actually be trivial to implement it via an account flag.  The only thing changing if you want to vote for XT is a version number on the block header.

That would be a lot better... It took me 20+ minutes. I'm sure that someone will not take the time to do it... So yes if it is easy please add it... I came hire to ask if it would be posible to add a marker to workers so you can be sure on what core is it. QT or XT. But that is better...

Slush don't live here anymore! Make your request via their facebook page and it will be more likely to get a response. Even better, put that request in the developement corner centre (its more likely to get their attention faster if it is voted up!).

PS. I recomend the last option ...

Thanks but I don't use FB and the last time I used this pool was when it was 1.0. I must say I like this 2.0 staff. Need to figure out how things are now hire... But I must say I'm it is nice to return...

[VeritasSapere]

I suggest that everyone should read Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

[chek2fire]

I dont want to be part in this BitcoinXT nonsense and after 3 years i have drop machine from this pool. All the people that didnt support the fork of Bitcoin and the destruction of this cryptocurrency revolution must stop mining in slush pool asap