Blockstream sees the writing on the way, Thanks guys!
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@cypherdoc This is a more compelling quote from LukeJr trying to remove miners from Bitcoin by making their investment in mining obsolet..
That's what he is saying on the surface but in reality he's intending classic to become an altcoin unsupported by the existing infrastructure.
@Peter R The "Best" scenario should have more than three implementations in it.
The drums are becoming deafening, but this time it is a strange sound. It contains the beat of joy too and celebration.
La finale has begun.
La finale has begun.
Ok, call me paranoid, and yes it is indeed nice to see >70% of hashrate supporting 2MB and a switch away from Core now, but until we have >1MB blocks on the networks, I will not declare victory.
There's nothing preventing BS, banks, A. Hill or whoever to pay miners resp. pool operators even more to keep Core in control. A couple $10M should suffice. Nothing for those institutions (except BS itself).
This might just be a threat game.
There's nothing preventing BS, banks, A. Hill or whoever to pay miners resp. pool operators even more to keep Core in control. A couple $10M should suffice. Nothing for those institutions (except BS itself).
This might just be a threat game.
I keep seeing this idea thrown around that by nodes adopting Classic that somehow we're losing the developers who are presently contributing to Core (or at least losing the good ones).
It won't play out like that at all. There aren't really "development teams"--open source development is way more fluid than that. Developers will contribute to one or more implementation and then the best ideas will be pulled into all of the clients.
Furthermore, I highly doubt Core is going to die. I suspect they will finally start to cooperate when the reality sets in that if they don't then Blockstream will lose all of its node share.
Personally, I see 'the developers' as a very fluid and loosely-defined group that will contribute to all implementations. The reason I'd like to see many implementations is:
1. To avoid stalemates / capture like we saw with Core.
2. To allow each implementation to focus on one group of customers instead of trying to be all things to all people.
It won't play out like that at all. There aren't really "development teams"--open source development is way more fluid than that. Developers will contribute to one or more implementation and then the best ideas will be pulled into all of the clients.
Furthermore, I highly doubt Core is going to die. I suspect they will finally start to cooperate when the reality sets in that if they don't then Blockstream will lose all of its node share.
Personally, I see 'the developers' as a very fluid and loosely-defined group that will contribute to all implementations. The reason I'd like to see many implementations is:
1. To avoid stalemates / capture like we saw with Core.
2. To allow each implementation to focus on one group of customers instead of trying to be all things to all people.
Last edited:
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
The worst scenario is that the RN is taken over by some never-say-die 1MBers.
Jonathan Toomin is on the case already suggesting to Matt that it be taken over by a dev team headed by Jeff Garzik. This is great. Whatever happens, the RN block limit needs to be increased while this service is still needed by miners. Ideally, RN gets turned off when blocktorrent or thin blocks is released.
Similarly, the overhang of XT nodes should be compatible with Classic to maximize the counts, and if that means Classic has to use the same block version then this is strategically best. Every resource needs to be marshalled to get the first 1.1MB block with 6 confirmations.
Like @awemany says, there should be no early victory declarations.
This was my concern a few posts back and why I did not like the 75% hurdle BC implemented. 75% means just one or two of the Chinese pools can block the fork.
This fork should not be viewed as a full consensus upgrade that tries to keep everyone aligned. It is an economic fork where different participants will choose their side and one fork will win.
The threshold should be set at 51%, and people can decide which branch to follow. Given the majority support that exists today, that would force hesitant pools to follow the majority.
@rocks
that could possibly be a good point. furthermore, 51% majority hashrate means it could pose a credible threat to the 49% Core chain in the form of an attack. i wouldn't want to be on that chain in that environment.
@solex
i noticed the big push to push user agent limits in BU. that's great but i'm wondering if BU needs to highlight to downloader's of it's code the importance of opening up port 8333 on their routers. currently, i bet there's alot of core nodes out there that don't do this and thus don't show up on Bitnodes. for BU, this is of paramount importance in order to signal to miners what the true network blocksize limit is.
[doublepost=1452968728][/doublepost]@sickpig
what is Adam going on about a 2MB soft fork here? isn't it just SW contortions?:
that could possibly be a good point. furthermore, 51% majority hashrate means it could pose a credible threat to the 49% Core chain in the form of an attack. i wouldn't want to be on that chain in that environment.
@solex
i noticed the big push to push user agent limits in BU. that's great but i'm wondering if BU needs to highlight to downloader's of it's code the importance of opening up port 8333 on their routers. currently, i bet there's alot of core nodes out there that don't do this and thus don't show up on Bitnodes. for BU, this is of paramount importance in order to signal to miners what the true network blocksize limit is.
[doublepost=1452968728][/doublepost]@sickpig
what is Adam going on about a 2MB soft fork here? isn't it just SW contortions?:
@rocks XT set a threshold at 75% I know it's conservative and only disingenuous arguments could call it a controversial majority. 51% is a lot more of a controversial majority by comparison.
75% buy in in hashing power is not reflected or diminished by the handful of mini blockests (they have a voice with influence only and count for significantly less than 1%)
75% diminishes the influence of their call and renders all previous opposition to 75% obsolete. It shows how idiotic they were calling a 75% majority of support a controversial attack.
We need to move on without them and by default XT nodes activate BIB 101 (be it now on their heads if the fork above 2MB) ;-)
75% buy in in hashing power is not reflected or diminished by the handful of mini blockests (they have a voice with influence only and count for significantly less than 1%)
75% diminishes the influence of their call and renders all previous opposition to 75% obsolete. It shows how idiotic they were calling a 75% majority of support a controversial attack.
We need to move on without them and by default XT nodes activate BIB 101 (be it now on their heads if the fork above 2MB) ;-)
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@cypherdoc you really have your finger on the pulse!
Here is a thread I started on BCT last year making exactly the same point. Unfortunately, you-know-who poured iced water on the idea.
An easy way to double or triple the 6000 Bitcoin active full nodes count?
I have the intention of submitting a BUIP for exactly this purpose, and will do so soon.
@solex
"it might well be that furthering the misconception that one has to setup port forwarding to matter at all would just reduce the userbase further."-gmax
now i realize why i've been so happy the last few weeks :/
man, someone asked on reddit the other day about a way to kill off gmax altogether, once and for all. not literally, but figuratively. is there?
[doublepost=1452970591][/doublepost]sorry we had to beat up Adam here:
"it might well be that furthering the misconception that one has to setup port forwarding to matter at all would just reduce the userbase further."-gmax
now i realize why i've been so happy the last few weeks :/
man, someone asked on reddit the other day about a way to kill off gmax altogether, once and for all. not literally, but figuratively. is there?
[doublepost=1452970591][/doublepost]sorry we had to beat up Adam here:
is that the sound of brg444's teeth gnashing?:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13576358#msg13576358
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13576358#msg13576358
2MB it is:
mlong Click to open in archives" class="timestamp ts_tip ts_tip_top ts_tip_float ts_tip_multiline ts_tip_delay_300">12:29 PM OK let it be known. We are going for 2MB now. This is what everyone unanimously agrees on. Some favor 2-4. Some hate it. But everyone likes 2.
Click to open in archives" class="timestamp ts_tip ts_tip_top ts_tip_float ts_tip_multiline ts_tip_delay_300">12:29
PR’s are being drafted for it now
mlong Click to open in archives" class="timestamp ts_tip ts_tip_top ts_tip_float ts_tip_multiline ts_tip_delay_300">12:29 PM OK let it be known. We are going for 2MB now. This is what everyone unanimously agrees on. Some favor 2-4. Some hate it. But everyone likes 2.
Click to open in archives" class="timestamp ts_tip ts_tip_top ts_tip_float ts_tip_multiline ts_tip_delay_300">12:29
PR’s are being drafted for it now
