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 ...

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...