Trying to figure out where you might want to edit this phrase - given some recent news, there is more than one answer.
freudian slip maybeGold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
freudian slip maybe
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
Maybe this needs to go out:
PSA: With multiple different implementations of Bitcoin full node software the safest one to run for anyone not sure what to do is Bitcoin Unlimited.
PSA: With multiple different implementations of Bitcoin full node software the safest one to run for anyone not sure what to do is Bitcoin Unlimited.
We should try to keep track of committed hash rate. Assuming KnC support (they supported XT), then at least 36% of the hash rate is already committed.
It would be great to publicly track and publish the commitment to the 2MB fork on /r/btc as it grows to 51%. If we can claim that >51% of the hash rate is committed to a 2MB fork and to using Bitcoin Classic, it both changes the discussion and paints this as a win.
Core would also be backed into a corner, they could either cave and fork to 2MB as well, which abandons their scaling roadmap commitment and every prior claim they have made. Or they could refuse to change the cap and lose every single miner. Once miners switch to Bitcoin Classic it is very unlikely they would switch back because the developers on Bitcoin Classic are committed to real scaling solutions (IBLT, etc) that benefit miners by reducing propagation delays.
I'll try to post updates on the hash rate commitment as I come across it. If anyone finds a new committed miner feel free to either post here or PM me and I'll add it to a running list.
The current support is 31.5% composed of:
- Bitmain/Antpool - 26% (4 day average at blockchain.info)
- BW.COM - 5% (4 day average at blockchain.info)
- HAOBTC.com - 1.5% (claimed 13K Th/s of current estimated 900K Th/s)
- Genesis Mining - ?
- Marshall Long - ?
Miners could prefer to run Bitcoin Classic in order to stay sync'ed on implementation and scaling improvements, while BU could be used by users to indicate their preferences. It also keeps with Gavin's stated preference of seeing multiple implementation. Bitcoin Classic could become the main core of BU, with BU simply offering user exposed preferences on top.
Last edited:
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
StarMaged uncensoring Erik Voorhees post makes me think of Space Odyssey 2001 for some reason:
"Sorry Theymos, I can't let you do that."
"Sorry Theymos, I can't let you do that."
that thread is on fire. /u/evorhees is mad.
[doublepost=1452656393][/doublepost]now that gmax is gone, i predict that Luke-Jr won't last long as his replacement.
[doublepost=1452656393][/doublepost]now that gmax is gone, i predict that Luke-Jr won't last long as his replacement.
This is so bizarre.
What are the odds that Theymos is doing this intentionally to decentralize communication and development?
What are the odds that Theymos is doing this intentionally to decentralize communication and development?
@Peter R
there's a good chance he's been compromised.
remember when he had to cough up BCT forum transcripts a few years ago to the authorities? he then started archiving everything on the site probably to be able to produce any info the authorities ever asked for in the future. who knows what else he's required to do.
there's a good chance he's been compromised.
remember when he had to cough up BCT forum transcripts a few years ago to the authorities? he then started archiving everything on the site probably to be able to produce any info the authorities ever asked for in the future. who knows what else he's required to do.
I guess people are quoting twitter and reddit, but those embeds are not showing up.
Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
Nice to see the momentum toward agreement on an immediate bump to 2MB. Getting a critical mass to agree that the block size limit should be at least 2MB right now, an incredibly modest raise, seems like it should be a much easier sale than getting them to agree to some comprehensive scheme purporting to define what the block size limit should be now and forever (especially when those schemes handicap themselves with self-imposed supermajority requirements).
"But a one-time bump to 2MB just kicks the can down the road for six months or a year."
Yes, but that's all we need to do right now because Core is standing on that can!
"Kicking the can" now demonstrates that it can be kicked without "catastrophic consensus failure" and fundamentally discredits the idea that we need the Core Committee of Central Planners to dictate the block size limit (or any other aspect of Bitcoin's protocol) from on high. It will be a major blow to the "psychological barrier." It seems like the obvious play to me.
"But a one-time bump to 2MB just kicks the can down the road for six months or a year."
Yes, but that's all we need to do right now because Core is standing on that can!
"Kicking the can" now demonstrates that it can be kicked without "catastrophic consensus failure" and fundamentally discredits the idea that we need the Core Committee of Central Planners to dictate the block size limit (or any other aspect of Bitcoin's protocol) from on high. It will be a major blow to the "psychological barrier." It seems like the obvious play to me.
Something else on the bitcoinclassic website that is important.
We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.
It is a fork of 0.11.2, not of 0.12
This might mean they are quietly blocking all of the latest core "improvements" blockstream has been planning to force the market to adopt (RBF etc.)
Will be interesting to see if bitcoin classic continues to follow and merge core changes in, or if it goes in its own direction. Frankly at the point nothing would make me happier than to see maxwell and team screaming into the wind as they keep rolling out "official" changes to core that are needed by LN but no one adopts or runs.
We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.
It is a fork of 0.11.2, not of 0.12
This might mean they are quietly blocking all of the latest core "improvements" blockstream has been planning to force the market to adopt (RBF etc.)
Will be interesting to see if bitcoin classic continues to follow and merge core changes in, or if it goes in its own direction. Frankly at the point nothing would make me happier than to see maxwell and team screaming into the wind as they keep rolling out "official" changes to core that are needed by LN but no one adopts or runs.
...and StarMaged, and LukeJr, and a whole bunch of other people too? I still don't really understand how it happened, but it's quite a handful of people that support the censorship and belief that XT, BU, Classic are altcoins. I don't get it.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
@chriswilmer
It has always been about control of the reference client. The people who are "insiders" with the current devs, who manage the majority client, are willing, reluctantly perhaps, to sacrifice their own standards against censorship for a greater goal. The goal is preservation of perceived influence they have as insiders, and awareness that they, and the devs they support, can be marginalized at a stroke if the ecosystem forks away to another client.
This is why a hard-fork is claimed to be a great risk, and that tortuous changes like soft-fork SegWit, or soft-fork anything is a better option. Otherwise there is a reset and different implementations are in a race from the same start-line. Anything that risks a hard-fork is an alt-coin in this mind-set. There is growing inertia with node owners every time a release is done, more are left behind on the older versions. The reason is that the Bitcoin reference client works "well enough" (apart from the pesky block limit) so many node owners are not that bothered about new releases, especially if they come with a bitter taste like opt-in RBF. It becomes just a chore to adopt new upgrades. Perhaps this is already a layer of ossification forming. Soft-forks keep those old node owners on-side, making up the numbers and counting against any new clients which appear.
It has always been about control of the reference client. The people who are "insiders" with the current devs, who manage the majority client, are willing, reluctantly perhaps, to sacrifice their own standards against censorship for a greater goal. The goal is preservation of perceived influence they have as insiders, and awareness that they, and the devs they support, can be marginalized at a stroke if the ecosystem forks away to another client.
This is why a hard-fork is claimed to be a great risk, and that tortuous changes like soft-fork SegWit, or soft-fork anything is a better option. Otherwise there is a reset and different implementations are in a race from the same start-line. Anything that risks a hard-fork is an alt-coin in this mind-set. There is growing inertia with node owners every time a release is done, more are left behind on the older versions. The reason is that the Bitcoin reference client works "well enough" (apart from the pesky block limit) so many node owners are not that bothered about new releases, especially if they come with a bitter taste like opt-in RBF. It becomes just a chore to adopt new upgrades. Perhaps this is already a layer of ossification forming. Soft-forks keep those old node owners on-side, making up the numbers and counting against any new clients which appear.
Last edited:
And which type of miner would be interested in making the large block? The one that previously made an investment decision, has built the factory, ordered latest generation equipment, installed it and has it running. Because that is the one who will profit on a bitcoin price appreciation. Mining is a speculative investment on bitcoin price. It is like holding a long option. After the first successful largeblock, price will rise to da moon.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Unbelievable efforts by u/ydtm.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40qvwd/bitcoin_classic_hard_fork_causes_chaos_on/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40qvwd/bitcoin_classic_hard_fork_causes_chaos_on/
@frankenmint goes totally off the rails with paranoia. In his delusional mind there really can be only one guy behind it all:
[doublepost=1452687097][/doublepost]
Imo, the small, miner who's looking to take market share away from the large miner in a highly competitive market is the one who will push the envelope in the bigger block front. They can differentiate themselves by claiming they are going after fees instead of just blocks in a bid for the future. "This will help decentralize Bitcoin." They are willing to take the risk on orphans.
But it matters not: we're probably both right. This is the beauty of a fixed supply currency. It incentivizes everybody.
[doublepost=1452687097][/doublepost]
Here's the great thing about your comment; I disagree with you. Not that it matters.
Imo, the small, miner who's looking to take market share away from the large miner in a highly competitive market is the one who will push the envelope in the bigger block front. They can differentiate themselves by claiming they are going after fees instead of just blocks in a bid for the future. "This will help decentralize Bitcoin." They are willing to take the risk on orphans.
But it matters not: we're probably both right. This is the beauty of a fixed supply currency. It incentivizes everybody.
Last edited:
Why is brg444 et al complaining about the security of Classic at 2MB when they just recommended SW at 4MB?
All, @cypherdoc
Just a quick clarification on SegWit and block size.
Based on current transaction type distribution in an average mined block, SegWit will give you a 1.6/1.7 MB block "size" if and only if 100% of the network upgraded (x4 gain reacheable only for 3-3 multisig txs).
Just take into consideration a likely / optimistic scenario:
- SegWit deployed on May 2016
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017.
Just a quick clarification on SegWit and block size.
Based on current transaction type distribution in an average mined block, SegWit will give you a 1.6/1.7 MB block "size" if and only if 100% of the network upgraded (x4 gain reacheable only for 3-3 multisig txs).
Just take into consideration a likely / optimistic scenario:
- SegWit deployed on May 2016
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017.
Last edited: