Quote from: kano on December 09, 2016, 10:37:53 PM

Quote from: kano on December 09, 2016, 09:15:32 PM

Quote from: n200UG on December 09, 2016, 09:12:26 PM

Quote from: zOU on December 09, 2016, 07:36:16 PM

Quote from: xxxgeniy on December 09, 2016, 07:35:18 PM

Block! by dance191 )

woohoo !

Why is our block size so small 188k ?

I guess there were less txns available (less than) 6s after the previous block.
I'm running -ck's recent changes that should always fill the block if possible (though it's now twice as long to do block changes with 0.13.0)

Oh, yeah also, that restart about 11 hours ago was about pointing ckpool at (what is now) a faster bitcoind.
So it didn't pick up the payout transactions.
Sorry about that - they'll be in the next block.

I stopped renting hash mainly from what I learned here coupled with my own "bad luck"
It isn't as though I consistently rented a large amount, but for the times I rented it was either long term small amounts, IE a couple of weeks at a time, or 1 - 2 PH on the solo pool for a day or two and unfortunately never solved a block. It seemed like others were having good success, especially when people were putting money in a pot, kind of liek the one Phil ran. Obviously more hash was less variance. I dropped ____hash first, but within a month or so I dropped Mrr as well. I will say Mrr is a better service imo. Regardless, it isn't going to hurt my feelings a bit to block all rental hash for a long term test.

In that same breath I still mine here and plan to continue mining here because no matter what I believe Kano and CK make great decisions, think about the larger picture, and in general continue to runt he best pools available. People who have left or people who join for a few days or weeks and complain about payouts still haven't picked up a good understanding of the landscape. Even during this pools worst months it still is better in the long run than any other pools. Coupled with the political decisions I cannot see a better place to be.

Speaking of political decisions I saw a tweet stating segwit support was stuck at 2x% and is not gaining. To which I say good for today and I am sincerely not looking for a debate regarding segwit. I am fairly well-versed with it and have been following the details on and off for several months, at least since the original IRC chats were posted. It is an interesting patch which is more complicated than what is required.
My simple preference would be for the network to be setup to accept any size block with the pool operators determining what size they use. Pool operators = miners. The sooner everyone understands the pool operators = miners and therefore are the voices which should be heard in this debate the sooner decisions are made and we can move on.

I am not saying that this method would be the most simple thing int he world to introduce but the few people I have spoken with who understand way more than I regarding changing the block size tell me it would not be difficult at all to code, the difficulties would be with the people running full nodes. To which I say then allow the people willing to run full nodes with ALL blocks to do so, and the people who cannot or do not wish to do so use an SPV type version for those blocks over X size.
Obviously that would also require a flag so people can decide if they wish to trust those "SPV" nodes, but it isn't as if we do not already live with so many pools doing some type of SPV mining and there is not a herd of core programmers jumping on that situation. My understanding is it isn't even viewed as an issue by most of them, or they are scared of the people running those "biggest" pools.

One thing in bitcoin, alt coins, or sincerely life in general is so many people are COMPLETELY naive regarding how these issues are impacting them today, have been affecting them, and how it will cause problems in the future. Further people do not think their voice matters. When some see the blockchain mampool full and cannot get a transaction to go through for a decent amount they get pissed off, but not much more. From day one if a bitcoin transaction is important to me I don't quibble about the fee. I make damn sure and throw a couple of bucks at it. No, I shouldn't have to do so, and no, that is not going to help the problem but it accomplishes what I need which is to make sure that purchase goes through. I also talk with people and do other things in an attempt to promote a solution.

I am not interested in ever seeing a hardfork of the type we have been hearing of, but dammit why haven't we seen something simple yet elegant in place which gives miners (pool operators) more control in the form of these types of decisions?
I think the answer is because that would mean less control for Blockstream, and less income potential for the lightning network. I feel like miners are intentionally being held back. Now again, many are not seeing the impact of those programming choices today because we are indeed seeing the transaction fees in our payouts. How easily and quickly this can change. By quickly I do not mean in one day, I mean over the course of the next few months to a year or more.

Bitcoin cannot turn into an ALT coin. I do not mean classic, unlimited or any other name such as that as I think alternative clients are fantastic and welcome more. Obviously I am happy with the way this pool is being run. I welcome competition in our bitcoin clients. Come on in, the water is warm. This does not mean I am in support of them, but it is nice to think there are people recognizing the core programmers may be promoting decisions which are not in the interest of miners. However, those people may not be doing what is best for us either. Be wary of everyone touting a new client. Obviously people, well, are people, and selfish. Bitcoin is designed to handle selfishness and as miners we are supposed to be, it is what keeps us honest. It is when that carrot on the end of the stick is ever so slowly taken away that the real issues will arise.

I feel like the core programming team / Blockstream have become similar to the US Congress. There is so much back door and fat baked into the block size issue they feel any change must do more than solve the current issue while maintaining the original, intended reward structure.

To me this is simple and I do not mean to oversimplify but it does seem extremely simple. Do not support over-complicated bloat which seems to attack every software project early in life. I for one do not want to see yet another version of bitcoin and another proposed block size solution except one which gives the decision to the right people, the pool operators and by proxy the miners.

... and Kano if you catch someone block withholding we should make a big deal about it. It is one thing if it is a regular miner here who rents a bit of hash and that rental causes the issue but it is a completely different thing if it is a company and we had a similar situation to what happened at Slush. Those guys were big enough to know better, and I fully believed they did know through their experience with the pool they had issues with and were caught before moving to slush. If you find someone like that we should tar and feather them with an example made for everyone to see. You support harming a pool (other miners) or you support harming our network the least of which should occur is a social exorcism including some form of bounty to do whatever can legally be done to make sure those responsible are not only DOXXed but never mine where good people mine again.

In our Bitcoin world the only thing lower than block withholding (stealing) is making changes to the bitcoin core code which are not for the betterment of the community but the betterment of a few. I have zero doubts both are happening, but I hope only the latter is happening to us and I am confident the former will be corrected if it is occurring.

Thanks