Quote from: kano on January 17, 2016, 01:18:22 AM

Quote from: kano on January 16, 2016, 02:21:39 PM

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 12:37:40 PM

Quote from: kano on January 16, 2016, 12:23:45 PM

Quote from: macbook-air on January 16, 2016, 11:42:49 AM

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.

Since this thread is about F2Pool and not about people's opinions of bitcoin dev politics ...
(I'd not be surprised if someone didn't delete all the past 2 pages Tongue

)

I'll repost the question that is directed at F2Pool

Again:
"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?"

Edit: and the reason why this is also a valid question is that F2Pool has already once in the past done a 51% control change on an alt-coin ...

After reading this post..

"Posted by Ma_Ya
I too would like to respond briefly to both of your questions.
(1) In theory they should be able to easily deal with sizes as large as 100MB. Blocks of this size could be transmitted in minutes with even a standard home connection and this time is significantly reduced for miners who maintain specialized high-speed connections. Ultimately there is no firewall blocking transmission between pools in China and in any case the sum of Chinas hashing power is already over 51%.
(2) If you understood the principles of mining and what I said before, you wouldnt ask this question. First of all, Chinas mining pools are not in any rush to broadcast the nonce of a successfully mined block to nodes across the globe. It only needs to be received by several of the larger pools in China. This is because once it is received by several large pools in China, youve already reached more than half [of available hashing power], which is the same as achieving global consensus. When you look at it like this, Chinese miners should actually want there to be interference from the GFW to hinder Western pools. Also, you mentioned setting up a node outside of China and reconstituting [blocks] there, but in reality you wouldnt save much time that way. Think about it: what is the big difference between transmitting 1MB or 2MB and a few KB? It's probably around nothing more than one second. 10 minutes and 1 second - thats a factor of 600:1 which is trivial when you take into account the randomness of mining itself. Furthermore your proposition is only advantageous for Western pools and provides no benefit to Chinese pools."

Kano i'm not sure they are worried at all about getting the blocks out to us.. Like i said it will be advantageous for larger blocks as they can be working on new ones long before we will even see it. let alone the time it will take us to verify and pass along. I realise that your pool is setup as optimal as one can get it but its not large enough to rail back to back blocks like the chinese farms can. So what happens when they start their own fork again because we cant process the new blocks fast enough. It will be like they are the only ones hashing as we will all be working on old blocks then the diff will start doing some funny things! as well as the time to find blocks will go crazy as well..

i too am worried they are trying to take it over. larger blocks will only help to facilitate this.. Just for the record im for increasing the block size and seeing bitcoin grow.. just i think there is some technological hurdles that have to be addressed prior to increase of siZe

here is the article

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41dizq/the_rbtc_china_dispatch_episode_3_block_size/

Best regards
d57heinz