Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[YarkoL]

@freetrader
Keeping the marriage/divorce metaphor, perhaps the estranged couple might find a common ground in their shared distaste of chinese food!

 

[cypherdoc]

geez, life used to be so simple when we just had BCT

 

[Melbustus]

This makes me sick. We're shooting ourselves in the foot, if not the head. What the F*** is wrong with Core/1MBers??!!

 

[Norway]

Last saturday, I was very depressed and worried for bitcoin for the first time in my two years with bitcoin. Today, I watch the underdog winning and bitcoin proving it's honeybadger resilience.

Bitcoin makes me bipolar. But what a ride!!!

 

[cypherdoc]

@Norway

damn right! what a ride!!

 

[freetrader]

@cypherdoc:

Is F2Pool saying that they can run Classic and still meet the round-table 'agreement' since it's compatible with Core for the "foreseeable future"?

Haha, if that's the case, it would certainly give Blockstream/Core a taste of their own semantic-trickery medicine.

I read it as saying it forces them to run a modified version of Core that will vote for BIP109, but not actually fork (i.e. remain Core-compatible even when the vote "locks" at 75%).

After the grace period starts ticking they will presumably upgrade to proper Classic when they see fit.

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader frigging hope so that would make the price go up. and give a clear message Bitcoin is free form contracts locking in developers with corporate business plan's and miners.

 

[Richy_T]

I think the dynamics of a full-fork favors keeping the same POW. Consider that if you fork with a new POW, existing SHA256 miners have little choice but to continue supporting the original Bitcoin.

If, however, you switch with the same POW, perhaps with, say, 5% mining support (note, this can be much lower than with a hard-fork as no one is being forced to fork), you now have a fairly secure Bitcoin-B which can, if it's successful, draw mining power away from Bitcoin-A and leave it to wither on the vine with its artificial scarcity, shitty hacks and half-baked parasite code.

Though I actually think it's probably worth doing both. Why not have a Bitcoin-C while we're about it?

 

[albin]

The macbook-air account stated that they aren't actually running Classic, but they're running a Core 0.12 with RBF disabled that produces blocks flagging the Classic version.

 

[rocks]

I read it as saying it forces them to run a modified version of Core that will vote for BIP109, but not actually fork (i.e. remain Core-compatible even when the vote "locks" at 75%).

After the grace period starts ticking they will presumably upgrade to proper Classic when they see fit.

I've learned to not read into anything they are saying. Trying to take these statement at face value or read between the lines has proved useless so far.

The only thing worth watching now is the flow of blocks and what versions are tagged. If after the 3 week period we start to see a decent number of Classic blocks, and by decent I mean an amount that is non-trivial and continuously builds, then we should be fine. But if another month goes by with no blocks and continued flip flopping, I expect we will see numerous new branches start to emerge...

On node counts, core is now down to 76% another all time low. Considering the vast majority of core nodes are older nodes the node vote is overwhelmingly in favor of larger blocks.

 

[sgbett]

I don't know if this is just wishful thinking but I get the impression the Chinese miners have totally played this whole thing. What I mean by that is that they have made all the right noises that they are listening and playing along (playing the fool almost), so that everyone else shows their hand.

Its an excellent strategy and looks to have worked perfectly. They know they have all the cards, and they have just been giving people enough rope to hang themselves. What better way to discover the truth about various parties is there, than meeting with them, going along with everything they say so that they open right up and thus finding out *everything* about them.

They have done it with XT, Classic and noe Core/Blockstream. Now they have all the info, now they can decide.

Like I said though. Maybe wishful thinking

 

[agilewalker]

Here is the link to a log of WeChat group of Chinese miners: http://minerinworld.antminer.link. Lots of interesting and painful things to read. (Warning: It's a large single page with huge wall of text. Prepare for lots of scrolling and FUD from Blockstream's employee .)
[doublepost=1456366519,1456365699][/doublepost]This WeChat group is perhaps the best way to directly communicate with major Chinese miners and pool owners. It's sad to see not more Big Block supporters' presence there.

 

[freetrader]

Thanks @agilewalker, I see the mysterious "Litecoin miner" [1] 三金 San Jin (English nick: Han Solo / Han Soro) who recently signed the HK roundtable makes an appearance in that chat.

It would be interesting to find out what he says. Sadly I never brushed up enough on Chinese.

[1]:


---

Cheerful fellow by accounts (these quotes are related to the scaling debate):

三金 Han Soro:2016-01-15 22:17:52:If the program is to deprive the rights of miners in China, bitcoin will die,[Grin]

三金 Han Soro:2016-01-19 00:13:16:I think ways to modify the mining is very immoral behavior, not because China mining resources than any country on to modify the rules of the game. This is a consensus of the community, strongly condemn the behavior of international friends[Grin]

[ed: Google translates the 00:13:16 in a way that may be a little more understandable:
"I think the way to modify the mining, is immoral behavior, not because of China's mining machine operators more power than any other country on the modified rules of the game, which is a community consensus, severely condemned the behavior of international friends" ]

三金 Han Soro:2016-01-19 04:19:57莱比特矿池 江卓尔 [ThumbsUp]支持
[ed: from Google translation deciphering: Litecoin Mining Pool, Jiang Zhuo Er (thumbs up) stand by ]

[ed: Jiang Zhuo Er is named as author of the Chinese article on the HK meeting: http://www.8btc.com/consensus_of_expand_blocksize . It sounds like he is introducing him as standing by to the others, which would make 江卓尔 Jiang Zhuo Er affilitated to a Litecoin mining pool as well - a brief search yields that the likely pool is LTC1BTC.com , e.g. through his member profile at https://www.bikeji.com/member/697 ]

The Litecoin presence sure was strong in that crowd [ed: probably to be expected though in a chat group of Chinese miners]

I find it astonishing that someone who is by accounts a Litecoin miner would predict (for it was surely not a threat, right?) the death of Bitcoin if the Bitcoin scaling program were to deprive the rights of Chinese miners.

And that someone nominally affiliated with a Litecoin mining pool would write the Chinese narrative article on 8btc.com about this purportedly Bitcoin-related meeting.

 

[rocks]

I don't know if this is just wishful thinking but I get the impression the Chinese miners have totally played this whole thing. What I mean by that is that they have made all the right noises that they are listening and playing along (playing the fool almost), so that everyone else shows their hand.

Its an excellent strategy and looks to have worked perfectly. They know they have all the cards, and they have just been giving people enough rope to hang themselves. What better way to discover the truth about various parties is there, than meeting with them, going along with everything they say so that they open right up and thus finding out *everything* about them.

They have done it with XT, Classic and noe Core/Blockstream. Now they have all the info, now they can decide.

Like I said though. Maybe wishful thinking

What cards were they shown with Classic? Classic is a simple and straightforward offering, it puts the 2MB upgrade to a block vote. There are no cards to discover. Maybe with Blockstream to get them to commit to their "final offer".

They only thing they have done is to demonstrate that they are unreliable and that their words mean nothing. That is not exactly a positive development for them.

And yes they may "know" that they have all the cards and are acting as such, but in reality they do not hold all of the cards. Users do. And more users are getting ticked off every day. Users have options and the final say, and if this keeps up it will be time in a few weeks to remind them as such.

 

[lunar]

If Core were really acting for the good of the network and it's users, they should have backup plan code published and ready to upgrade in the event of a 2MB hard fork. Any action other than this shows extreme negligence and is thoroughly irresponsible for a team governing 6.5Billion of users funds.

All other arguments aside. They are designing code that governs the protocol in all it's possible states. As a 2MB block limit is a possible future state. Responsible code should be ready for it.

This is like the being the CIO and failing to run backups.

 

[agilewalker]

Thanks @agilewalker, I see the mysterious "Litecoin miner" [1] 三金 San Jin (English nick: Han Solo / Han Soro) who recently signed the HK roundtable makes an appearance in that chat.

It would be interesting to find out what he says. Sadly I never brushed up enough on Chinese.

[1]:


---

Cheerful fellow by accounts (these quotes are related to the scaling debate):

三金 Han Soro:2016-01-15 22:17:52:If the program is to deprive the rights of miners in China, bitcoin will die,[Grin]

三金 Han Soro:2016-01-19 00:13:16:I think ways to modify the mining is very immoral behavior, not because China mining resources than any country on to modify the rules of the game. This is a consensus of the community, strongly condemn the behavior of international friends[Grin]

[ed: Google translates the 00:13:16 in a way that may be a little more understandable:
"I think the way to modify the mining, is immoral behavior, not because of China's mining machine operators more power than any other country on the modified rules of the game, which is a community consensus, severely condemned the behavior of international friends" ]

三金 Han Soro:2016-01-19 04:19:57莱比特矿池 江卓尔 [ThumbsUp]支持
[ed: from Google translation deciphering: Litecoin Mining Pool, Jiang Zhuo Er (thumbs up) stand by ]

[ed: Jiang Zhuo Er is named as author of the Chinese article on the HK meeting: http://www.8btc.com/consensus_of_expand_blocksize . It sounds like he is introducing him as standing by to the others, which would make 江卓尔 Jiang Zhuo Er affilitated to a Litecoin mining pool as well - a brief search yields that the likely pool is LTC1BTC.com , e.g. through his member profile at https://www.bikeji.com/member/697 ]

The Litecoin presence sure was strong in that crowd [ed: probably to be expected though in a chat group of Chinese miners]

I find it astonishing that someone who is by accounts a Litecoin miner would predict (for it was surely not a threat, right?) the death of Bitcoin if the Bitcoin scaling program were to deprive the rights of Chinese miners.

And that someone nominally affiliated with a Litecoin mining pool would write the Chinese narrative article on 8btc.com about this purportedly Bitcoin-related meeting.

One more interesting tidbit, 江卓尔(Jiang Zhuo Er) is a Big Block supporter. Follow this link: https://www.bikeji.com/t/3149. He even has 2.3PH/s Bitcoin mining capacity and willing to point them to a pool supporting 2MB blocks.

 

[lunar]

 

[cypherdoc]

One more interesting tidbit, 江卓尔(Jiang Zhuo Er) is a Big Block supporter. Follow this link: https://www.bikeji.com/t/3149. He even has 2.3PH/s Bitcoin mining capacity and willing to point them to a pool supporting 2MB blocks.

You should post @Peter R's chart there
[doublepost=1456374232][/doublepost]Look who retweeted:

 

[freetrader]

One more interesting tidbit, 江卓尔(Jiang Zhuo Er) is a Big Block supporter. Follow this link: https://www.bikeji.com/t/3149. He even has 2.3PH/s Bitcoin mining capacity and willing to point them to a pool supporting 2MB blocks.

@agilewalker: well then, perhaps F2Pool will gain some increased hashing power soon!

P.S. thanks for the link. Need much more time to digest, but great that it presents a careful examination of the small-block claims.

 

[cypherdoc]

No