Eligius pool is back under the new name Ocean

[alani123]

On the BIP101 saga... It seems like the talks of the fork "failing" were a bit early? Ocean pool continues to point hash to an altered version of bitcoin: https://bip110.ocean.xyz/

The hashrare is miniscule compared to the whole network and it will probably take ages to produce even a single block. But now there's also talk that there will be a "fix": https://twitterwebviewer.com/?tweet=2086747561734656143

What does this mean? It might mean that Luke & Co. Might be planning additional changes to their network and client to alter POW rules so their forked chain can be a bit more sustainable instead of having to mine until a difficulty change.

This raises even more questions though. What was the plan? Was it a genuine expectation to expect the mining network to support this fork although indications showed overwhelmingly otherwise until the very last minute?

I'm just thinking we maybe should attribute these actions to Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence type of situation. It's very likely that the parties involved had very unrealistic expectations and didn't act according to realistic signs.

For instance, even if a fork was to be successful, bitcoin is an economic tool and from my understanding nobody involved contacted exchanges to cooperate about the potential new fork. And also, there was no work for a difficulty hike that the hash supporting the chain would face? Why not bake in an adjustment from the first block of the fork? They can't have been expecting 100% of hash to get behind them...

Well good luck to these peeps in whatever they do but it seems too chaotic anyway. Don't know what else to say.

[philipma1957]

On the BIP101 saga... It seems like the talks of the fork "failing" were a bit early? Ocean pool continues to point hash to an altered version of bitcoin: https://bip110.ocean.xyz/

The hashrare is miniscule compared to the whole network and it will probably take ages to produce even a single block. But now there's also talk that there will be a "fix": https://twitterwebviewer.com/?tweet=2086747561734656143

What does this mean? It might mean that Luke & Co. Might be planning additional changes to their network and client to alter POW rules so their forked chain can be a bit more sustainable instead of having to mine until a difficulty change.

This raises even more questions though. What was the plan? Was it a genuine expectation to expect the mining network to support this fork although indications showed overwhelmingly otherwise until the very last minute?

I'm just thinking we maybe should attribute these actions to Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence type of situation. It's very likely that the parties involved had very unrealistic expectations and didn't act according to realistic signs.

For instance, even if a fork was to be successful, bitcoin is an economic tool and from my understanding nobody involved contacted exchanges to cooperate about the potential new fork. And also, there was no work for a difficulty hike that the hash supporting the chain would face? Why not bake in an adjustment from the first block of the fork? They can't have been expecting 100% of hash to get behind them...

Well good luck to these peeps in whatever they do but it seems too chaotic anyway. Don't know what else to say.

No you are wrong in my opinion he has seen the flaw in blocks fading into nothing too quickly (ie 1/2ings every 4 years vs 6)

he knows that 'normal' btc will be in serious trouble without a rewards fix (somewhat like the one I mention here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570168.msg67007671#msg67007671)

so he will attempt a rewards fix for his version of btc.

under the disguise of fixing his difficulty issue with the fork.

down the road in say 2040 his coin will be set for tiny rewards because of a copy of my idea. (or one like it)

while "normal" btc staggers a long under the weight of disagreements .

mining will slowly but surely bleed from btc normal to btc Luke.


my guess is he planned for that.

'Hey Luke if you copy my idea for reward stabilization I want a fair payment'

[FP91G]

OCEAN Hashrate Collapses by More Than 96%
The backlash appears to have coincided with a dramatic decline in OCEAN's reported hashrate.
The sharp decline highlights the risks of pool-controlled mining templates. Individual miners may own their hardware, but pools often determine which transactions their machines include and which chain they support.
link

Miners will quickly vote with their profits, and fanatics will lose money.

[alani123]

OCEAN Hashrate Collapses by More Than 96%
The backlash appears to have coincided with a dramatic decline in OCEAN's reported hashrate.
The sharp decline highlights the risks of pool-controlled mining templates. Individual miners may own their hardware, but pools often determine which transactions their machines include and which chain they support.
link

Miners will quickly vote with their profits, and fanatics will lose money.

That source is literally lying by omission. Pre-fork hashrare was directed at the normal chain and post-fork the pool retains most of its hashrare on normal bitcoin. 1 point something EH/s remains on the fork chain though. You can't call that a 96% drop when comparing apples to oranges. Disorganised chaotic mess but let's just be fair.

Also philipma1957, you're giving LDjr too much credit if you're trying to say he's planning for 15 years ahead after what happened.

[vapourminer]

OCEAN Hashrate Collapses by More Than 96%

link

^

Blockstream CEO Adam Back sharply criticized the incident, describing the move as unacceptable and demanding that the resulting financial losses be deducted directly from OCEAN co-founder Luke Dashjr's salary.

lol

[FP91G]

Many miners I speak with know nothing about the BIP101 saga or the reason for the ongoing conflict between Bitcoin developers. Miners have a completely different goal: to keep their hardware running and profitable. But if profits fall due to a pool's fault, and the pool doesn't compensate for the losses, the miner will never return to that pool.

[gmaxwell]

https://x.com/MarkArtymko/status/2087195673259065796

Pretty good response, ... except for the whole fact that it appears Luke-jr and mechanic deluded the whole company into thinking BIP110 was very popular, when there is no remotely credible metric where you could say it was anything but a small minority.

I wonder if luke-jr ever reported to the rest of the company management the sockpuppetry we caught mechanic engaging in, it would be pretty wild if they were astroturfing the company to manipulate it too.

[alani123]

https://x.com/MarkArtymko/status/2087195673259065796

Pretty good response, ... except for the whole fact that it appears Luke-jr and mechanic deluded the whole company into thinking BIP110 was very popular, when there is no remotely credible metric where you could say it was anything but a small minority.

I wonder if luke-jr ever reported to the rest of the company management the sockpuppetry we caught mechanic engaging in, it would be pretty wild if they were astroturfing the company to manipulate it too.

That ended up being more expensive than all fees OCEAN has collected in its history (probably)

[stompix]

BIP110 supporters: Bitcoin has been taken over by the pools: the plebs don't matter
Ocean casually redirecting people's hashrate against their will in the background 

So, at this point, since lukecoin has hit it's 3rd block, are they still staying with Bitcoin as I see they have mined at least two blocks lately?

This is so damn funny

That ended up being more expensive than all fees OCEAN has collected in its history (probably)

They will only reimburse 4% of the miners, 0.3BTC.
With 2% fee per block, that is 0.06BTC in fees.
And since they didn't mine with their equipment by themselves on the fork for 7-8 hours, it was miners, so they didn't lose anything other than the pool fee and "plebs" money.

But anyhow, keep the popcorn going ocean!