Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 06, 2017, 09:02:58 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on April 06, 2017, 08:53:16 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 06, 2017, 08:02:11 PM

Core won't even compromise to 2mb/segwit, which
probably could get consensus.

Erm, I thought the great reveal of the last couple of days was Segwit nullifying Bitmain's advantage. I don't know how recently this advantage was discovered and put into action but that explains plenty of recent attitudes.

no great reveal...just more propaganda.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 06, 2017, 08:03:41 PM

Some facts:
1. Jihan supported SegWit in the HK agreement, it was Greg that broke it.
2. Now Jihan is supporting Ext Blocks, which is incompatible with ASICBoost, the 'exploit' he was accused of using.
3. Core devs have zero proof Jihan is using ASICBoost in production. (Is the any evidence of ANYONE using ASICBOOST?)
4. Facts indicate Jihan/AntPool isn't using ASICBoost at all: (If the shuffling of transactions is required for ASICBOOST to work, I dont see any evidence that AntPool uses it)
5. In recent blocks, about 14% of AntPool's income come from fees.
6. Greg's math is wrong, again. Bitmain: Regarding Recent Allegations and Smear Campaigns

Some clarification on those "facts":

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
Those anchor txs should not effect the way ASICBoost works, the way new Coinbase refs do.

3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.

4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.

5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.

6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he
is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations.
In time, all will be revealed. This is a new development and nicely explains many
previously unknown factors. If motive needed to be determined, this would be a
reasonable assumption to investigate further, and so the community will.

Your adherents to your viewpoints in light of new information still being gathered, is telling.