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!

[DaveF]

Anyone want to take bets on Ocean switching to blake2b with the knots fork or keeping with SHA?

Because I am not tech enough to dig into it is datum even possible with blake2b? I think it should be but since I don't know squat about it could there be something buried in the algo that would make them have to tweak dataum to work? Not that I care that much, more of a general thought.

-Dave

[stompix]

Anyone want to take bets on Ocean switching to blake2b with the knots fork or keeping with SHA?

Don't see why, probably it will be something like this
-Ocean.xyz keep being a sha256 pool on Bitcoin
-Plebspool.xyz starts mining on Blake2b or whatever algo they choose on knotscoin/lukecoin

There are still BIP110 supporters with sha256 Asics that would point their hahsrate towards the main chain, one reason being money and second reason which I can think of is that every block they hit chips away a bit of the capacity of the main network with their half blocks be it even 0.5% it will probably still be a victory for them.
I don't see them throwing their gear in the trash, twitter fanatism ussualy stops at the keyboard before reaching the end of the wallet.

They have 7exahash pointed on bip110, 18 on Bitcoin. probably much of it is rented but there must be some owned gear there.

PS
I wish they would come up with a name faster: bipcoin, 110coin, lukecoin, Bitcoinbip,  Bitcoin Purosangue, something!

[jimbocuzzi]

Seems like the pool lost half to a third of its hashrate that never came back after the whatever it was happened.

[alani123]

I don't understand why there's still 1 whole exahash mining on the BIP110 endpoint when even Luke abandoned the plan to fork bitcoin  and pretending they're the dominant chain and instead goes for forking to an altcoin with an entirely different algo. Some people are really eager to waste hash power on a network that is destined to be useless and mines a single block every few handfuls of hours.

[athanred]

I don't understand why there's still 1 whole exahash mining on the BIP110 endpoint

Because when miners have some hardware, then they have to mine something. If the new algorithm won't be successful, then it may be needed to switch to the old algorithm, and maybe adjust the difficulty.

Some fork, following BIP-110 rules, was already made:

Bitcoin Purity: https://mempool.bitcoinpurity.org/
BIP-110: https://mempool.guide/

And now, there are at least two chains with BIP-110 rules.

forking to an altcoin with an entirely different algo

What if that chain will be less successful, than the original BIP-110? Or what if Bitcoin Purity will have higher value, than "Bitcoin Blake"? It is P2P world: Luke can be a leader for some people, but if he will release something, that will be buggy, and will halt again, just like BIP-110 halted, or will not meet users' needs for whatever reason, then other people could switch to a different chain. Basically, the position of "BIP-110 leader" is not granted automatically: you need to have a successful chain, to be a good leader, otherwise people will follow someone else, because another chain can deliver faster a working product.

Some people are really eager to waste hash power on a network that is destined to be useless and mines a single block every few handfuls of hours.

When your coins are hard to made, then they are more resistant to the spam, and they are usually worth more. If BIP-110 original chain will be successfully unlocked, for example by using fractional confirmations, and weak blocks, then it can be more successful than the competition, just because of following the original rules.