Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.
Hi Eric,
What do you think about the Classic implementation? What does chinese miners think about it?
Many Chinese Bitcoiners - not only miners, but also exchanges and wallet services, originally supported Classic for its support of 2MB block size, but after meeting Jeff Garzik in Beijing, many backtracked because they didn't believe that the team behind is capable or there is a roadmap.
Hi Eric,
I recognize that a conservative approach is important and from your viewpoint, neither Classic nor Core is respecting this need. That being said, sometimes it helps frame and shape a discussion if you can elaborate as to what is meant by a conservative approach. Specifically, it seems like there may be, generally speaking, miner consensus for a block size increase sooner rather than later and with a hard fork. It seems additionally, that this method may be more acceptable due to the unknown effects of segwit. Is this a correct assessment? Assuming that is so, is your concern then specifically relating to the activation mechanism? What do you mean by a conservative approach?
I think you are asking the right questions; questions that many members also share and wonder about. It is difficult to tell who is telling the truth, there version of the truth, and what interests that viewpoint represents. As miners have their own interests, I think it is imperative, if not a necessity, for miners to have developers representing their interest. It would be very sensible to partner with either known western developers or for the creation of your own team.
Additionally, I think it can help examine the bitcoin project when you look at it as an outsider or if you look at it from the view of a university group student project. Some people, in such a project, may have the goal of getting things done as soon as possible to go home and watch tv, others just want to impress the pretty object of their affection in the group(a cute girl/guy/dog/cat), and others may want a solid grade, and some will accept nothing but the best grade. Sometimes you have groups split up to handle different portions of the project and maybe the work is not up to your own personal standards but could be satisfactory to other members of the group. These projects require the ability to collaborate, to work together, to negotiate, and to most importantly, compromise to create a finished project. I think when choosing who you want to work with and whether the project will ultimately be successful, I think you need people who are will to compromise. Otherwise the project turns into US politics where nothing ever happens because no one will work with each other.
If you were to form a mining developer team, do you have an idea as to what your goals would be? It seems like you there had been miner suggestion of a third alternative, neither classic nor core, but intead mining code with 95% consensus HF for a 2mb increase, remove RBF, and segwit testing possibly a year down the road?
Thank you for your time concerning this matter.
-Tomothy