Bitcoin Forum
October 31, 2024, 12:08:00 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [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 169413 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.
macbook-air (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 324
Merit: 260


View Profile WWW
January 17, 2016, 04:02:57 PM
 #401

We are increasing the Namecoin payout to BTC × 8 to celebrate Laba Festival. You must fill the Namecoin payout address to receive the NMCs. You give up the bonus coins of the day if you do not fill your payout address before midnight UTC.

canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 12:25:17 AM
 #402

...
While not directed at me, I'll reply anyway...

Your choice of words, Kano, is inappropriate for what they are announcing.

Particularly the words "control" and "force" are completely out of place.

It's more an announcement of "support" for a "community" "choice".

If F2Pool could "control" or "force" the bitcoin community to do anything I think we'd have much bigger problems. Further I'd argue that you specifically chose those words to exploit a cultural and language difference, and it is both manipulative and slimy...
1) Go fuck yourself Smiley

2) I already stated that he needed to get someone with better English to clarify his meaning.

3) He didn't bother to.

4) As I stated above, F2Pool has already done this to an altcoin - force a change without getting agreement.

This is a dumb argument - one which you know much better than making. I know that you're fully aware that miners don't control consensus rules on their own. If they did a fork on their own the rest of the community would reject their blocks.

danielW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277
Merit: 257


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 06:13:05 AM
 #403

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.

To put the debate to an end we need to support the core roadmap. It is more then good enough. Otherwise there will be a year of fighting, division and chaos with the attempted non-consensus hard-fork.

Community needs to unite behind the scaling roadmap to put this mess to an end.

The more support Gavin gets the more fuel is added to the fire. The price has been reflecting that. Each time he comes out with one of his 'announcements' division occurs and price crashes.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2016, 01:33:28 PM
 #404

Can we get this translated into Chinese for the benefit of f2pool, before they do something foolish and regrettable?

https://t.co/3IY2PKIjsX

The Scaling Announcement Bitcoin Core Should Have Made

By the Bitcoin Core Developers (a complete list of signers can be found below)

We’re here to talk about scaling and the roadmap we’ve set for Bitcoin Core.

As with any roadmap, we’ve heard your feedback and we want to continue to hear it, so please keep it coming.

We’ve had extensive conversations with all of you — from the miners to the wallets and exchanges to everyday community members — and want to make it clear that we’ve listened to everything you have to say with regards to the growth of the bitcoin blockchain and evolution of Bitcoin core.

We feel we have a fair grasp of what your needs are and are well-equipped to examine them against the constraints of the Bitcoin network and the software that powers it, and determine how best we can make everyone happy and ensure that the system is fully operational and is able to scale.

Part of this work means looking at a variety of increases to the Bitcoin block size and doing extensive analysis and testing to determine the effects that each of these increases would have.

As many of you may be aware, we have to be aware of two facts:

    Increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain is critical. Bitcoin needs to grow and support more and more users, and each of these users needs to have access to relatively low transaction fees.
    Block size increases should not be taken lightly and it is imperative they be carefully tested beforehand. Block size increases impact many aspects of the Bitcoin network and do have the potential to reduce decentralization and network stability.

It is clear that both of these are largely in conflict with one another, and so they will have to be weighed against one another and a compromise will need to be reached.

Just because we have the need to support certain levels of usage, doesn’t mean we should dare to compromise either the stability of the system or the level of decentralization that makes Bitcoin so unique and powerful. And just because we have a fear of the effects of block size increases does not mean that we should fail to subject such increases to real world tests and do everything we can to increase the system-wide capacity.

Bitcoin will scale, but it will require a combination of efforts and it will be a gradual process. So we need to come together and agree on the tradeoffs we’re making and we need to be patient.

Last, we need to be civil and respectful of one another and make sure we all come together to push Bitcoin forward.

We’ve done some extensive real world testing on many global test beds, including Princeton University’s Planet Lab, the largest in the world. From this we’ve concluded that 8MB blocks are simply too large to be considered safe for the network at this point in time, considering the current global bandwidth levels.

So while many of us may want to shoot for the stars, we must agree that it is more important to ensure that the network remains healthy and strong.

At the same time, it is important that we push for an increase that is as big as we can safely handle, and we believe that Adam Back’s 2–4–8 proposal that scales the block size to 4MB after 2 years and then to 8MB after 4 years is the plan of action that is the most ambitious while still being safe.

In addition, it seems we can do even better in terms of performance by sticking with 2–4–8 but allowing non-fully-validating nodes to ignore approximately half of this data. This would be a big improvement that would alleviate the pressure that we’ll be putting nodes by scaling the block size. The improvement is being called Segregated Witness and involves separating signatures out from the main block and putting them into a Merkle tree that only fully-validating nodes have to see.

We want to roll this plan out slowly and carefully, and we believe the best course of action is to first roll out Segregated Witness so we can get a quick win on an approximately 2x data capacity increase. This would involve removing signatures from the main portion of blocks, which would double the number of transactions that can be fit into the current 1MB limit (this means the effective limit would be 2MB).

Next, we plan on shifting gears to prepare for the hard fork that would put Adam Back’s 2–4–8 proposal into place alongside Segregated Witness, where the limits would be scaled to account for the optimizations made by Segregated Witness (the limits would be approximate limits that would continue to include signature data).

Beyond this, in order to prepare for the two bumps over the next 4 years and ensure that orphan rates don’t increase, we’re working on integrating efficient relay techniques like the relay network and IBLT, so that most block data is disseminated throughout the network even before a block is found.

Further, we’ll be working hard on preparing for the hard fork that will need to come with the second increase. We’ve bought a bit of time considering that the cleverness of Segregated Witness will allow us to do the first doubling with just a soft fork, which will reduce risk in the short run. And of course, this hard fork should not be taken lightly as hard forks in general do pose a significant risk of network fracturing, which could result in a significant monetary loss for stakeholders.

In summary, this roadmap is meant to do the best possible job to address the growth needs felt by all Bitcoin stakeholders, while ensuring the stability and decentralization of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

We want to stress that Bitcoin Core is comprised of a group of volunteers that don’t always agree themselves and many discussions amongst us and Bitcoin stakeholders were required to get us all on the same page.

We have thought long and hard about this proposal and think it is the best of both worlds. But we still want to hear from you about this roadmap and get your input. We are committed to continuing to engaged fully and publicly with the wider community.

The future of Bitcoin is about all of us and we need to work together to push it forward.

Thank you,

The Bitcoin Core Developers


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
ComboAlex
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 01:52:07 PM
 #405

Hi guys, I have question about this pool, I have a problem to open a page to this this pool seems like the ping to this pool is loosing some times does it going to effect my miners if i connect to this pool ?

Sorry for my English.
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 02:01:36 PM
 #406

Can we get this translated into Chinese for the benefit of f2pool, before they do something foolish and regrettable?

https://t.co/3IY2PKIjsX

The Scaling Announcement Bitcoin Core Should Have Made

<snip>

The problem with this is that the Core Devs don't actually support Adam Back's 2-4-8. Hell, not even all Blockstream employees support it. That entire part of the announcement that should have been is vapor-ware.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 06:08:58 PM
 #407

Can we get this translated into Chinese for the benefit of f2pool, before they do something foolish and regrettable?

https://t.co/3IY2PKIjsX

The Scaling Announcement Bitcoin Core Should Have Made

By the Bitcoin Core Developers (a complete list of signers can be found below)

We’re here to talk about scaling and the roadmap we’ve set for Bitcoin Core.

As with any roadmap, we’ve heard your feedback and we want to continue to hear it, so please keep it coming.

We’ve had extensive conversations with all of you — from the miners to the wallets and exchanges to everyday community members — and want to make it clear that we’ve listened to everything you have to say with regards to the growth of the bitcoin blockchain and evolution of Bitcoin core.

We feel we have a fair grasp of what your needs are and are well-equipped to examine them against the constraints of the Bitcoin network and the software that powers it, and determine how best we can make everyone happy and ensure that the system is fully operational and is able to scale.

Part of this work means looking at a variety of increases to the Bitcoin block size and doing extensive analysis and testing to determine the effects that each of these increases would have.

As many of you may be aware, we have to be aware of two facts:

    Increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain is critical. Bitcoin needs to grow and support more and more users, and each of these users needs to have access to relatively low transaction fees.
    Block size increases should not be taken lightly and it is imperative they be carefully tested beforehand. Block size increases impact many aspects of the Bitcoin network and do have the potential to reduce decentralization and network stability.

It is clear that both of these are largely in conflict with one another, and so they will have to be weighed against one another and a compromise will need to be reached.

Just because we have the need to support certain levels of usage, doesn’t mean we should dare to compromise either the stability of the system or the level of decentralization that makes Bitcoin so unique and powerful. And just because we have a fear of the effects of block size increases does not mean that we should fail to subject such increases to real world tests and do everything we can to increase the system-wide capacity.

Bitcoin will scale, but it will require a combination of efforts and it will be a gradual process. So we need to come together and agree on the tradeoffs we’re making and we need to be patient.

Last, we need to be civil and respectful of one another and make sure we all come together to push Bitcoin forward.

We’ve done some extensive real world testing on many global test beds, including Princeton University’s Planet Lab, the largest in the world. From this we’ve concluded that 8MB blocks are simply too large to be considered safe for the network at this point in time, considering the current global bandwidth levels.

So while many of us may want to shoot for the stars, we must agree that it is more important to ensure that the network remains healthy and strong.

At the same time, it is important that we push for an increase that is as big as we can safely handle, and we believe that Adam Back’s 2–4–8 proposal that scales the block size to 4MB after 2 years and then to 8MB after 4 years is the plan of action that is the most ambitious while still being safe.

In addition, it seems we can do even better in terms of performance by sticking with 2–4–8 but allowing non-fully-validating nodes to ignore approximately half of this data. This would be a big improvement that would alleviate the pressure that we’ll be putting nodes by scaling the block size. The improvement is being called Segregated Witness and involves separating signatures out from the main block and putting them into a Merkle tree that only fully-validating nodes have to see.

We want to roll this plan out slowly and carefully, and we believe the best course of action is to first roll out Segregated Witness so we can get a quick win on an approximately 2x data capacity increase. This would involve removing signatures from the main portion of blocks, which would double the number of transactions that can be fit into the current 1MB limit (this means the effective limit would be 2MB).

Next, we plan on shifting gears to prepare for the hard fork that would put Adam Back’s 2–4–8 proposal into place alongside Segregated Witness, where the limits would be scaled to account for the optimizations made by Segregated Witness (the limits would be approximate limits that would continue to include signature data).

Beyond this, in order to prepare for the two bumps over the next 4 years and ensure that orphan rates don’t increase, we’re working on integrating efficient relay techniques like the relay network and IBLT, so that most block data is disseminated throughout the network even before a block is found.

Further, we’ll be working hard on preparing for the hard fork that will need to come with the second increase. We’ve bought a bit of time considering that the cleverness of Segregated Witness will allow us to do the first doubling with just a soft fork, which will reduce risk in the short run. And of course, this hard fork should not be taken lightly as hard forks in general do pose a significant risk of network fracturing, which could result in a significant monetary loss for stakeholders.

In summary, this roadmap is meant to do the best possible job to address the growth needs felt by all Bitcoin stakeholders, while ensuring the stability and decentralization of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

We want to stress that Bitcoin Core is comprised of a group of volunteers that don’t always agree themselves and many discussions amongst us and Bitcoin stakeholders were required to get us all on the same page.

We have thought long and hard about this proposal and think it is the best of both worlds. But we still want to hear from you about this roadmap and get your input. We are committed to continuing to engaged fully and publicly with the wider community.

The future of Bitcoin is about all of us and we need to work together to push it forward.

Thank you,

The Bitcoin Core Developers

read the link.

this is from Ryan Shea, not the core devs.
gizmoh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 06:16:53 PM
 #408

Can we get this translated into Chinese for the benefit of f2pool, before they do something foolish and regrettable?

https://t.co/3IY2PKIjsX

The Scaling Announcement Bitcoin Core Should Have Made

By the Bitcoin Core Developers (a complete list of signers can be found below)




Where is the complete list of signers ? Cant find it "below" in the link...

Edit : seems that this is not what core is planning at all. It is what core should have decided.. (as by the title)

How Ripple Rips you: "The founders of Ripple Labs created 100 billion XRP at Ripple's inception. No more can be created according to the rules of the Ripple protocol. Of the 100 billion created, 20 billion XRP were retained by the creators, seeders, venture capital companies and other founders. The remaining 80 billion were given to Ripple Labs. Ripple Labs intends to distribute and sell 55 of that 80 billion XRP to users and strategic partners. Ripple Labs also had a giveaway of under 200 million XRP (0.002% of all XRP) via World Community Grid that was later discontinued.[29] Ripple Labs will retain the remaining 25 billion"
macbook-air (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 324
Merit: 260


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
 #409

Hi guys, I have question about this pool, I have a problem to open a page to this this pool seems like the ping to this pool is loosing some times does it going to effect my miners if i connect to this pool ?

Sorry for my English.

web and stratum are on different systems. unless you experience frequent reconnect or high rejects, it should not affect your mining revenue.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
January 19, 2016, 09:21:09 PM
 #410

wow, core dev really does care about you.  or do they?:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6
minerpools
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


View Profile WWW
January 19, 2016, 09:23:14 PM
 #411

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Keccak?

this is the worst idea I've seen for BTC, switching algo as if it were some altcoin....

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
January 19, 2016, 09:29:00 PM
 #412

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Keccak?

this is the worst idea I've seen for BTC, switching algo as if it were some altcoin....

it disenfranchises miners who've invested millions/billions in SHA256 hardware.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 19, 2016, 10:05:39 PM
 #413

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Keccak?

this is the worst idea I've seen for BTC, switching algo as if it were some altcoin....

it disenfranchises miners who've invested millions/billions in SHA256 hardware.

You don't get to have it both ways.


Miners who choose to support a contentious hard fork are voluntarily disenfranchising themselves; that status is obviously entailed by voluntary defection from the socioeconomic majority.


If their attack on Bitcoin becomes an actual threat (rather than a laughingstock like XT and Unlimited) to our coins, we may switch Core's proof of work in order to avoid a fork war and thereby prevent catastrophic consensus failure.

Should the giant Toominista mines become worthless ToominCoin dumps, they will have nothing to blame except their own brinksmanship.

I welcome a switch to Keccak (or CrypoNight).  It would decentralized mining and improve Bitcoin's antifragility.

f2pool, KnC, and Bitfury should seriously reconsider their determination to become de facto altcoin miners.

They need to understand the way Bitcoin's electronic intrusion countermeasures work - the harder you attack Bitcoin, the harder Bitcoin attacks you.

And you still haven't told us why it took you so long to get bored painting vanity bikesheds at your rump forum.

But it's nice you've come crawling back, with your curly tail tucked between your stumpy widdle pug legs.  Welcome home dear old Doctor Frappe!


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 PM
 #414

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Keccak?

this is the worst idea I've seen for BTC, switching algo as if it were some altcoin....

it disenfranchises miners who've invested millions/billions in SHA256 hardware.

The only time it would be acceptable would be a situation where some country or entity committed a sustained 51% attack. Right now, it's just Luke trolling. Yes, he's serious. No, he doesn't have any traction whatsoever.

minerpools
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


View Profile WWW
January 19, 2016, 10:52:23 PM
 #415

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Keccak?

this is the worst idea I've seen for BTC, switching algo as if it were some altcoin....

it disenfranchises miners who've invested millions/billions in SHA256 hardware.

The only time it would be acceptable would be a situation where some country or entity committed a sustained 51% attack. Right now, it's just Luke trolling. Yes, he's serious. No, he doesn't have any traction whatsoever.

Seems some people have tons of unused GPUS.

canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 19, 2016, 10:54:57 PM
 #416

Let's not hijack this thread and turn it into a big blocks/small blocks debate. F2Pool has said what they are intending to do, I'd suggest asking them questions but let's not debate each other here.

machinationus
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100



View Profile
January 23, 2016, 11:53:38 PM
 #417

stratum+tcp://stratum-us.f2pool.com:3333

wieme
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 51
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 28, 2016, 10:04:10 PM
 #418

stratum+tcp://stratum-us.f2pool.com:3333

Hi,

We really want an eu-pool!
I don't wanna mine in the US but China has a ping > 300ms.

Cheerz,
Wieme
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
January 30, 2016, 04:17:58 PM
 #419

Peter Todd: SW is not safe as a softfork:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43bgrs/peter_todd_sw_is_not_safe_as_a_softfork/
macbook-air (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 324
Merit: 260


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2016, 03:44:53 AM
 #420

We are increasing our Huntercoin payout to BTC × 10 + LTC × 1.

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!