Bitcoin Forum
September 30, 2022, 10:59:39 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 »
  Print  
Author Topic: F2Pool「魚池」🐟  (Read 169202 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
adaseb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 1511



View Profile
January 13, 2016, 04:56:21 AM
 #361

lo there... i saw a few days that coins per THs dropped from 516 to 464... is there a reason?

The difficulty went up, it also going to go lower in about 10 minutes or so.

.BEST..CHANGE.███████████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████████
..BUY/ SELL CRYPTO..
1664578779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664578779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664578779
Reply with quote  #2

1664578779
Report to moderator
1664578779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664578779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664578779
Reply with quote  #2

1664578779
Report to moderator
1664578779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664578779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664578779
Reply with quote  #2

1664578779
Report to moderator
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1664578779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664578779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664578779
Reply with quote  #2

1664578779
Report to moderator
d57heinz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1450
Merit: 1011


Bitcoin Talks Bullshit Walks


View Profile
January 15, 2016, 01:42:39 PM
Last edit: January 15, 2016, 02:23:16 PM by d57heinz
 #362

Hmmmm

Wonder why it is that you all decided to turn down the hashes???  https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/coinbase/btcusd

Greed is a nasty force in btc Grin   http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/15/mike-hearn-resigns-and-leaves-bitcoin-permanently/


Ill leave this for you to dwell on.

If this is a good enough reason to not mine china pools i dont know what is

Thanks to f2pool chart.. Gives a good look at how centralized it really is..
Code:
[b]Bitcoin Litecoin
Country/Province Hashrate% Country/Province Hashrate%
China 88.73% China 95.35%[/b]
Anhui 21.02% Sichuan 41.30%
Henan 10.33% Anhui 20.43%
Hebei 9.63% Heilongjiang 9.52%
Heilongjiang 8.22% Liaoning 5.46%
Sichuan 7.68% Jiangsu 3.28%
Liaoning 5.58% Henan 3.09%
United States 5.08% South Korea 1.98%
Shandong 3.65% Shanxi 1.94%
Jiangsu 3.55% Fujian 1.59%
Guangdong 2.73% United States 1.44%
Shanxi 2.03% Shandong 1.44%
Beijing 1.71% Hebei 1.31%
Jilin 1.66% Shaanxi 0.77%
Tianjin 1.23% Jiangxi 0.75%
Russia 1.18% Shanghai 0.68%
Venezuela 1.02% Guangdong 0.62%
Guizhou 0.91% Beijing 0.61%
Hubei 0.76% Nei Mongol 0.46%
Hunan 0.70% Zhejiang 0.45%
South Korea 0.70% Hunan 0.37%
Shanghai 0.58% Russia 0.33%
Jiangxi 0.55% Hubei 0.21%
Taiwan 0.52% Yunnan 0.21%
Romania 0.47% Malaysia 0.17%
Zhejiang 0.46% Ningxia 0.14%
Shaanxi 0.45% Guangxi 0.13%
Malaysia 0.42% Netherlands 0.12%
Fujian 0.40% Poland 0.11%
Iceland 0.40% Taiwan 0.11%
Ukraine 0.34% Lithuania 0.11%
Canada 0.24%
Vietnam 0.20%
Yunnan 0.18%
Guangxi 0.16%
Netherlands 0.11%
Bulgaria 0.10%
2016-01-15T12:00:00Z – 2016-01-15T14:00:00Z 2016-01-15T12:00:00Z – 2016-01-15T14:00:00Z

what confidence will users have when most of mining is done in a country not known for its freedoms..  And damn look at ltc.. If its not almost entirely controlled by chinese.. How sad.. Just shows what money and greed can do to a person.. Got to have it all ehhh.  Well the more and more i think about it maybe we need to start looking here instead of another monetary system..

https://www.thevenusproject.com/

As in nature, all is ebb and tide, all is wave motion, so it seems that in all branches of industry, alternating currents - electric wave motion - will have the sway. ~Nikola Tesla~
macbook-air (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 324
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
January 15, 2016, 02:19:28 PM
 #363

Hmmmm

Wonder why it is that you all decided to turn down the hashes???  https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/coinbase/btcusd

Greed is a nasty force in btc Grin   http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/15/mike-hearn-resigns-and-leaves-bitcoin-permanently/


Ill leave this for you to dwell on.

If this is a good enough reason to not mine china pools i dont know what is

Sorry we do not accept the criticize. We are not blocking anyone from any other countries from adding hashrate to the network. Since Mike Hearn has “sold all his bitcoins”, I welcome him to set up his own huge mining farms in his own country using the money from these sold coins.

d57heinz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1450
Merit: 1011


Bitcoin Talks Bullshit Walks


View Profile
January 15, 2016, 02:24:31 PM
Last edit: January 15, 2016, 03:01:27 PM by d57heinz
 #364

Hmmmm

Wonder why it is that you all decided to turn down the hashes???  https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/coinbase/btcusd

Greed is a nasty force in btc Grin   http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/15/mike-hearn-resigns-and-leaves-bitcoin-permanently/


Ill leave this for you to dwell on.

If this is a good enough reason to not mine china pools i dont know what is

Sorry we do not accept the criticize. We are not blocking anyone from any other countries from adding hashrate to the network. Since Mike Hearn has “sold all his bitcoins”, I welcome him to set up his own huge mining farms in his own country using the money from these sold coins.

You dont have to.. but when your the only ones holding btc what will they be worth to you???  And more important what will they be worth to the rest of the world???

Best Regards
d57heinz

Mike hearns official statement

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.cxygsg9eg

"Even if a new team was built to replace Bitcoin Core, the problem of mining power being concentrated behind the Great Firewall would remain. Bitcoin has no future whilst it’s controlled by fewer than 10 people. And there’s no solution in sight for this problem: nobody even has any suggestions. For a community that has always worried about the block chain being taken over by an oppressive government, it is a rich irony."

As in nature, all is ebb and tide, all is wave motion, so it seems that in all branches of industry, alternating currents - electric wave motion - will have the sway. ~Nikola Tesla~
macbook-air (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 324
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2016, 11:42:49 AM
Last edit: January 16, 2016, 12:03:28 PM by macbook-air
 #365

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3934
Merit: 1625


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 12:23:45 PM
 #366

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Pool: https://kano.is - lowest fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
p3yot33at3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 16, 2016, 12:37:25 PM
 #367

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Ditto - the way it's worded makes it sound like some kind of aggressive Bitcoin takeover bid......or is it?  Huh
macbook-air (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 324
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2016, 12:37:40 PM
 #368

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end.

CodeShark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 01:52:50 PM
 #369

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end.

In Hong Kong you were directly introduced to some of the world's foremost experts and most knowledgeable people in this technology - and these experts were asked to make a decision. The overwhelming majority of them did make a decision (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/). Then some other people who lack the knowledge, experience, and credentials decided to fork the github repo, do a rebrand, and try to sell it as a competitor.

Don't fall for this trap...the debate is over.
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1256
Merit: 1026


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2016, 01:58:00 PM
 #370

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Thank you for taking action.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
January 16, 2016, 02:13:26 PM
 #371

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.

Classic is doing everything it can to please you and minimize your risk with it's hard fork to 2MB.  and they have Gavin and Jeff onboard.  SW & RBF will facilitate LN payment channels that compete with your tx fees that you will come to rely on as block reward diminishes.  you will feel this pain come July with the halving.  SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3934
Merit: 1625


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 02:21:39 PM
 #372

Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you.

Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish.

If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate.

Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end.
You've still not answered the question.
Pretty simple question actually.

This easier to understand?
"Are you trying to control bitcoin and force your decisions on everyone else, or are you using the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules?"

--

Going to 2MB seems rather pointless with a hard fork since, if it is necessary, then we'll need another one again not far down the road.
I would have thought someone was gonna be smart, and pick a more useful number, or code a miner voting method to adjust it so as to avoid simply putting the issue off to the near future yet again ...

However, my pool will gain from this change.
My pool can process block changes faster than any non SPV pool.
My pool averages much larger block sizes than any other pools (other than CKPool solo)
This change will simply mean we'll make larger blocks and get more txn fees.
It will also mean you will get more orphans.

Pool: https://kano.is - lowest fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1256
Merit: 1026


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2016, 02:48:05 PM
 #373

Again, thank you for making a choice to support larger blocks, don't be bullied and manipulated.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 03:17:03 PM
 #374

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. 

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1256
Merit: 1026


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2016, 03:35:56 PM
 #375

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. 

Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 04:09:34 PM
 #376

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.  

Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise.

It has not because people have largely misunderstood it and promoted false information around it.

Creating urgency under the pretense of a "crisis" is NOT an amicable compromise, especially with the way the Core developers are being alineated from the process.

A soft fork rollout of segwit can happen much faster than a hard fork and provide immediate increase in the throughput provided major wallet providers get on board.

It is absolutely necessary that miners reconsider their position since clearly there has been a lack of communication as to the benefits of seg wit and its minimal downside vs. the socio-economic mess that would ensue following a precipitated hard fork.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1256
Merit: 1026


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2016, 04:26:33 PM
 #377

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.  

Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise.

It has not because people have largely misunderstood it and promoted false information around it.

Creating urgency under the pretense of a "crisis" is NOT an amicable compromise, especially with the way the Core developers are being alineated from the process.

A soft fork rollout of segwit can happen much faster than a hard fork and provide immediate increase in the throughput provided major wallet providers get on board.

It is absolutely necessary that miners reconsider their position since clearly there has been a lack of communication as to the benefits of seg wit and its minimal downside vs. the socio-economic mess that would ensue following a precipitated hard fork.



Core alienated themselves from the process by refusing to compromise, segwit while awesome is a highly complex change requiring not only nodes, but every service and software that parses the blockchain to upgrade their proprietary software... It may not be as fast to roll out as you predict...
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 04:35:26 PM
 #378

Core alienated themselves from the process by refusing to compromise, segwit while awesome is a highly complex change requiring not only nodes, but every service and software that parses the blockchain to upgrade their proprietary software... It may not be as fast to roll out as you predict...

Sound engineering is not made under populist pressure. There urgency of the situation is fabricated and there are no compromise to be made except maybe to indicate an intent to hard fork down the road.

The SegWit testnet is live meaning everyone can start learning and getting their platform to support it once it's ready for release.

Bitcoin Classic proposes to hard fork the network in a mere 3 months with a FOUR WEEKS grace periods for nodes.

This is plainly irresponsible and there certainly are NO justification to force through such a precipitated roll out.

We risk losing a significant fraction of the network nodes which will cause great damage to the decentralization of Bitcoin.

Moreover such consensus change should not happen without 95% miner support. Otherwise it should be considered an attack by the majority miners and an abuse of their position.

If, the network is to go through a hard fork then please have it happen in an orderly fashion so as to not cast Bitcoin in a bad light once again.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
January 16, 2016, 04:58:52 PM
 #379

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. 

please point out the technical error.
BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 859
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 16, 2016, 05:18:46 PM
Last edit: January 16, 2016, 05:35:06 PM by BldSwtTrs
 #380

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.  
If Core folks agree that a contentious hard fork might be bad for Bitcoin, then why not comply to the will of the ecosystem and tell every body to stop using Core and switch to Classic without making Core run alongside Classic.

It would be classy, responsible and coherent. What a beautiful precedent this would become!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!