Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB

[wizkid057]

any likelyhood that eligius will offer an XT-based pool in the near future? I considered moving to slush but dislike the need to make an account. mining with the payout address on eligius is a much smarter method

XT is not bitcoin and Eligius will not be supporting it.

[1714485004]

1714485004

[1714485004]

1714485004

[1714485004]

1714485004

[p3yot33at3r]

XT is not bitcoin and Eligius will not be supporting it.

+1

Nice to hear.

[mavericklm]

XT is an control tool over bitcoin and miners
it's exactly what is wrong in the world!

[btcash]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

[Luke-Jr]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

[mavericklm]

where do i see my nmc balance? i have All time total payout: 15.31978878 BTC so there should be some nmc in there too

10x!

[zoro1]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

unfortunatelly, miners think they rule bitcoin because they protect it and confirm its transactions!

[not.you]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though.  Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists.  And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on. 

[Biomech]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

actually...

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Given that at the moment, Bitcoin is centralized between a few large pools, then the syndicate indicated by a pool has a rather large vote in whether or not to accept a hard fork.

The question as stated is a false dichotomy, but your answer is a red herring

[Luke-Jr]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though.  Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists.  And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on. 

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.
It is literally no different than if they start mining Freicoin instead.

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.

[Luke-Jr]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though.  Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists.  And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on. 

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.
It is literally no different than if they start mining Freicoin instead.

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.
But that isn't relevant to the point: there is nothing positive miners can do to support a hardfork.

[Luke-Jr]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though.  Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists.  And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on. 

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.

[kano]

I don't think posting almost the same thing 3 times in a row will convince anyone ...

[zoro1]

I don't think posting almost the same thing 3 times in a row will convince anyone ...

heheheh
i wonder what went wrong

[Biomech]

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though.  Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists.  And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on. 

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.

True enough. It's a rather complex subject with no simple answers. I personally think that larger blocks are both desirable and necessary, but the XT proposal was poorly thought out and the attempt to force the issue rather than taking the time to properly implement it just makes Gavin and Mike look like idiots. Neither of them really are, but they come across that way with this. Throwing a tantrum might be effective, but it's certainly not the way to conduct important business.

[not.you]

I personally think that larger blocks are both desirable and necessary,

I was initially inclined to agree with this but after reading more on the issue I think I agree with those who say that block propagation speed is one of, if not the most important factor in keeping bitcoin decentralized.  And with the internet infrastructure such as it is right now, smaller blocks are better.  There are already problems with block propagation at 1mb, moving up to something like 8 would be a huge push in the direction of centralization.  And centralization of either full nodes or mining are both potentially large problems, both of which would potentially happen with larger blocks.  When large blocks can propagate quickly then a switch to larger blocks would be more timely.

[ProfMac]

I personally think that larger blocks are both desirable and necessary,

I was initially inclined to agree with this but after reading more on the issue I think I agree with those who say that block propagation speed is one of, if not the most important factor in keeping bitcoin decentralized.  And with the internet infrastructure such as it is right now, smaller blocks are better.  There are already problems with block propagation at 1mb, moving up to something like 8 would be a huge push in the direction of centralization.  And centralization of either full nodes or mining are both potentially large problems, both of which would potentially happen with larger blocks.  When large blocks can propagate quickly then a switch to larger blocks would be more timely.

I assume this has been discussed a lot, but this is one of the only threads that I follow.  I think the original vision is that the fees have to rise to pay the costs of running the network.  Making structural changes, such as bigger blocks, so that no transactions are delayed or left out sabotages that transition.

One alternative is to trust the original design, and to let market forces push the transaction fees up for people who want faster block inclusion.

If there is a link to the blocksize discussion somewhere, I am willing to read it before I post more. :-)

[not.you]

I may be wrong but my impression is that most of the conversation is happening on reddit.  I have seen a couple threads here about it but not with very in-depth conversation.  I have an app on my phone that aggregates news stories and blog posts about bitcoin and I read those things all the time so that is mostly what has informed my opinion on the issue. 

In more relevent news, the Eligius website is a bit laggy tonight.

[Biomech]

I may be wrong but my impression is that most of the conversation is happening on reddit.  I have seen a couple threads here about it but not with very in-depth conversation.  I have an app on my phone that aggregates news stories and blog posts about bitcoin and I read those things all the time so that is mostly what has informed my opinion on the issue. 

In more relevent news, the Eligius website is a bit laggy tonight.

so's the freakin' blockchain. 20 minute plus blocks again

Reddit is a forum I simply can't stand, but it does seem to be where most of the technical discussion is going on.

[RoadTrain]

The pool has been pretty unlucky recently. I wonder if it's a simple statistical fluctuation.