Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 06:35:05 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3160 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.1%)
Total Voters: 3924

Pages: « 1 ... 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 [1056] 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3924746 times)
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 12:38:09 PM
 #21101

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 Smiley

1480703705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703705
Reply with quote  #2

1480703705
Report to moderator
1480703705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703705
Reply with quote  #2

1480703705
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480703705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703705
Reply with quote  #2

1480703705
Report to moderator
1480703705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703705
Reply with quote  #2

1480703705
Report to moderator
1480703705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703705
Reply with quote  #2

1480703705
Report to moderator
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 12:46:55 PM
 #21102

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 01:07:30 PM
 #21103

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 Smiley

pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 01:53:13 PM
 #21104

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


#BEL+++++


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 02:00:48 PM
 #21105

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

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 02:04:56 PM
 #21106

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


#BEL+++++


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 02:09:07 PM
 #21107

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 02:32:50 PM
 #21108

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 02:38:31 PM
 #21109

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 04:22:44 PM
 #21110

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.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
 #21111

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 05:30:55 PM
 #21112

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 05:39:06 PM
 #21113

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 10:31:13 PM
 #21114

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 10:27:02 AM
 #21115

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

larry12
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 222


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 01:30:28 PM
 #21116

me too, half of my hash is there, i dont wanna give a chance to XT so my miners are not there right now, bad move Slush....

#Bitcoin The future is here.
KNK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 02:09:15 PM
 #21117

Can you both read?
By default your hashrate is a vote for Core/QT not XT.
If you want to support XT, you need to change your miners to different port.

BTC tips: 1KNK1akhpethhtcyhKTF2d3PWTQDUWUzHE
VeritasSapere
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:53:00 PM
 #21118

Can you both read?
By default your hashrate is a vote for Core/QT not XT.
If you want to support XT, you need to change your miners to different port.
Indeed Slush just gives us the choice, that is a good thing. Also hard forks like this are sometimes necessary for Bitcoin to remain free and decentralized, so it is good that Slush supports it. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against the power that a core development team could hold. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:58:15 PM
 #21119

Can you both read?
By default your hashrate is a vote for Core/QT not XT.
If you want to support XT, you need to change your miners to different port.
Indeed Slush just gives us the choice, that is a good thing. Also hard forks like this are sometimes necessary for Bitcoin to remain free and decentralized, so it is good that Slush supports it. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against the power that a core development team could hold. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

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

and to be against the power of the core developer team the solution is to give the power to only one developer Tongue Ok.. yeah..  Huh

pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 05:09:58 PM
 #21120

and to be against the power of the core developer team the solution is to give the power to only one developer Tongue Ok.. yeah..  Huh

One can be right amongst a crowd, let alone a "team" of five, but that is besides the point (and the choice offered by slush). That debate, though, belongs to another thread.

The vote offered by slush is an inspired one on many levels, given that there are options available to the one peddled by the "majority core dev team" (and known to the entire bitcoin world). By the looks of it, more hashes than not seem to agree with the "minority of 2" in the bitcoin core developement "team" (pool rate is now past 17PH and growing ..... not to mention improving luck!).

Pages: « 1 ... 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 [1056] 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!