[40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool

[chek2fire]

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?

[1475272681]

1475272681

[1475272681]

1475272681

[1475272681]

1475272681

[1475272681]

1475272681

[1475272681]

1475272681

[1475272681]

1475272681

[kano]

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

[VeritasSapere]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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.

[pekatete]

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

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]

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.

[larry12]

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.

to read what?
i dont like XT idea, slush's pool support it so goodbye slush.....

[KNK]

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.

to read what?
i dont like XT idea, slush's pool support it so goodbye slush.....

He does not support it! He gives us the choice to (NOT) support it which is completely different ... Stay on the old port and vote against XT what more simple?!

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.

If you don't own/control your private key - you don't own your Bitcoins. You need your own full node or you need to trust someone's else full node, while Bitcoin's whole idea (under the word decentralised) is Trust no one

[RealMalatesta]

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

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.

Would you care to elaborate? I think it is an interesting question and do not see this as trolling.

[pekatete]

Would you care to elaborate? I think it is an interesting question and do not see this as trolling.

The vote on slush is, and I quote: Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.
So clearly (and if you cared to have read the last couple of pages here), it is not about XT, BIP100, BIP101 or whatever. Just bigger block size, which can be achieved any of different ways, including XT.

And no, not all other pools mine bigger (than standard 1MB) blocks, though some (mainly Chinese) pools mine 8MB blocks. The troll would have you believe otherwise.

Additionally (and as far as I am aware), only slush has ACTUALLY offered the choice to users to vote for bigger blocks.

That much the troll knows, though he keeps trying to whip up some kind of negativity towards slush by attributing patently false aims to slush in a veiled attempt to get miners to elope to his his own pool.

[KNK]

Additionally (and as far as I am aware), only slush has ACTUALLY offered the choice to users to vote for bigger blocks.

Exactly and that's the important thing - even if you disagree with BIP101 or larger blocks (BIP100), you have the choice and a way to have your voice heard. Ignoring the BIPs and leaving your users the only choice to leave if they disagree with you is not the right thing to do IMHO

And no, not all other pools mine bigger (than standard 1MB) blocks, though some (mainly Chinese) pools mine 8MB blocks.

Small correction. No pool is mining larger blocks yet as they will be rejected anyway, but they do vote for larger blocks via BIP100, while Slush provides the choice for BIP101 - both are ways to vote for larger blocks, but with different strategies (one time fixed increase or every two years doubling) and both with their own disadvantages

[pekatete]

No pool is mining larger blocks yet as they will be rejected anyway, but they do vote for larger blocks via BIP100, while Slush provides the choice for BIP101 - both are ways to vote for larger blocks, but with different strategies (one time fixed increase or every two years doubling) and both with their own disadvantages

I see one vote as a vote of the actual miners and the other as a vote of the pool operators (though the lines can be blurred).
Still, an overwhelming majority of pool operators (99.99%) do not give that very simple option to vote to their users, and for me (with the hindsight of slush's brilliance), that is not a vote at all, simply the wishes of pool operators (if a clear distinction can be made from the miners).

[jonnybravo0311]

Would you care to elaborate? I think it is an interesting question and do not see this as trolling.

The vote on slush is, and I quote: Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.

Wrong.

The vote is "do you support XT or Core".  Other pools (AntPool, BW Pool, etc) are putting things in their coinbase sig (like "8MB") to show they support larger block sizes (BIP100).  They have NOT altered their core clients to XT, which alters the block version number (core is "3", XT is "536870919").  If, come January of 2016, enough blocks are found using XT, a hard fork will occur.

Using XT means more than just "I support larger block sizes".  It also means you support everything else that comes with XT.  Things like:

• Longest chain no longer wins, chain validity is determined using checkpoints periodically added by the XT devs to the code
• Tor nodes are deprioritised from connection as an anti-DOS measure
• Permitted Tor exit nodes are, at present, hard coded into the XT client
• Altered methods of tracking potential double spend transactions

[pekatete]

Would you care to elaborate? I think it is an interesting question and do not see this as trolling.

The vote on slush is, and I quote: Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.

Wrong.

The vote is "do you support XT or Core".

YOU are wrong as the vote (which I quoted) clearly says otherwise. Other pools do not offer the vote, they just vote using (amongst others) others' hash.

That XT offers a larger blocksize (as opposed to core) is sufficient for the vote to be about blocksize, notwithstanding (and irrelevant to the fact) that it'd also result in a hardfork. In any case, there is a vote so may the one who garners the highest blocks (at the core specified time) win. If it is XT, then we get the bigger blocksize that has been voted for.

[jonnybravo0311]

I am absolutely not wrong here.  XT is the only client that implements BIP101.  It changes the block version as I described.  Therefore, Slush has XT running on one port, and Core running on the other.

If you use the port that is running XT, you not only vote to support BIP101, but you also vote to support the other things that I listed.

There's a very distinct difference between saying "I want larger block sizes" and "I'm using XT".

[pekatete]

Those so called distinct differences are what belong to (and should have) another thread.
Bottom line is, the vote is for larger blocksizes as I have repeatedly quoted (however much you may scream to the contrary). It is secondary that slush is actually both running XT (which offers larger blocksizes as opposed to core) and core, the important point being there is an option to easily "vote" either way. (I wonder, does the pool you mine at offer even a choice to vote for 100?)

[VeritasSapere]

I am absolutely not wrong here.  XT is the only client that implements BIP101.  It changes the block version as I described.  Therefore, Slush has XT running on one port, and Core running on the other.

If you use the port that is running XT, you not only vote to support BIP101, but you also vote to support the other things that I listed.

There's a very distinct difference between saying "I want larger block sizes" and "I'm using XT".

Actually there is an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size, or you could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore if you use the port that is listed it is essentially just a vote to support BIP101 and not the other features that are within XT.