Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2017, 10:10:04 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3187 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 408 (10.3%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 366 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3959

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 1106 ... 1120 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [150+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 4269465 times)
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 04:22:44 PM
 #21101

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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508753404
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508753404

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508753404
Reply with quote  #2

1508753404
Report to moderator
1508753404
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508753404

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508753404
Reply with quote  #2

1508753404
Report to moderator
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
 #21102

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
 #21103

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: 770



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 05:39:06 PM
 #21104

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
 #21105

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: 1400


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 10:27:02 AM
 #21106

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
 #21107

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: 671


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 02:09:15 PM
 #21108

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
 #21109

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: 1400


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:58:15 PM
 #21110

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
 #21111

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!).

chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:12:51 PM
 #21112

One to rule them all. this is not bitcoin. You just describe something else. If you dont like how bitcoin works why you dont create an altcoin with your rules and isntead of that you try to capture and hijack bitcoin?

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 11:46:38 PM
 #21113

There are only 3 "XT blocks" in the last 500 - all 3 slush - and only slush.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1

Edit: well actually it is 2 (as I first posted) the 3rd one is just outside 500 Smiley

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
VeritasSapere
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
August 22, 2015, 03:16:12 AM
 #21114

One to rule them all. this is not bitcoin. You just describe something else. If you dont like how bitcoin works why you dont create an altcoin with your rules and isntead of that you try to capture and hijack bitcoin?
That is how Bitcoin works, actually being intrinsically against a hard fork is more like trying to capture and hijack Bitcoin. Furthermore increasing the block size is more in line with the origonal vision of Satoshi Nakamoto so it would be more accurate to say that the Core developers should create an alt coin instead. The ability to hard fork ensures that the development can ultimately be decided on by the users and the miners of Bitcoin.

I support BIP101 because I think that bigger blocks are better then being “forced” to rely on third party payment processors, which is what not increasing the block size would lead to.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. It would be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it would be more important to increase mass adoption before developing a fee market, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option, even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would necessary provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain. So think carefully and please be rational and use reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2015, 05:11:02 AM
 #21115

There are only 3 "XT blocks" in the last 500 - all 3 slush - and only slush.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1

Edit: well actually it is 2 (as I first posted) the 3rd one is just outside 500 Smiley
Moot point (and offtopic).
There are many more (bigger) 8MB blocks, and not many from slush, actually none from slush. (now go spam somewhere else!)

Jake36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331


View Profile
August 22, 2015, 05:46:36 AM
 #21116

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!).

Is there a break down some place on the pool as to where that increased hash is pointing to?  Like 10PH voting yes, 7PH voting no?
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2015, 05:49:23 AM
 #21117

Is there a break down some place on the pool as to where that increased hash is pointing to?  Like 10PH voting yes, 7PH voting no?

Not that I am aware of, but it could be there.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 22, 2015, 07:55:10 AM
 #21118

There are only 3 "XT blocks" in the last 500 - all 3 slush - and only slush.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1

Edit: well actually it is 2 (as I first posted) the 3rd one is just outside 500 Smiley
Moot point (and offtopic).
There are many more (bigger) 8MB blocks, and not many from slush, actually none from slush. (now go spam somewhere else!)
Sigh - so you don't even understand what that means?

Slush is the only pool voting for XT.

The format the other pools are using for the blocksize is the BIP100 format.

BIP100 gives block size control to miners and pools by vote - changeable as votes change over time - go read up about BIP100.

XT - BIP101 - gives block size control to Hearne and Gavin - not to the pools and miners.

So basically you are voting to give control to those two, rather than the bitcoin network.

Oh well.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2015, 08:24:26 AM
 #21119

There are only 3 "XT blocks" in the last 500 - all 3 slush - and only slush.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1

Edit: well actually it is 2 (as I first posted) the 3rd one is just outside 500 Smiley
Moot point (and offtopic).
There are many more (bigger) 8MB blocks, and not many from slush, actually none from slush. (now go spam somewhere else!)
<nonsense_snip> ...</nonsense_snip>
XT - BIP101 - gives block size control to Hearne and Gavin - not to the pools and miners.
So basically you are voting to give control to those two, rather than the bitcoin network.

Oh well.

Nope. You are wrong again and you've taken the opportunity to spam even more.
So, I'll draw a clean line and stop feeding this troll.

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 22, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
 #21120

Is there a break down some place on the pool as to where that increased hash is pointing to?  Like 10PH voting yes, 7PH voting no?
Nope.  You could make an extremely rough estimate.  Block 370434 was their first BIP101 block.  Including that block they have since mined 31 blocks.  3 of which were BIP101.  That's 9.68%.  9.68% of the 15.93Ph/s currently shown on the site ~= 1.54Ph/s.  Statistically  (given the sample set) that's an optimistic estimate - could be lower, could be higher.

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 1106 ... 1120 »
  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!