Hot search keywords

Hot search keywords

Bitmain Is Suspected of Deliberately Preventing the Activation of Segwit on Litecoin

A dramatic overnight increase in hashrate is taking place in the Litecoin world. An insider told 8btc that the hashrate of LTC1BTC, a Litecoin pool, increased from less than 300 GH/S on April 17 to over 700 GH/S on April 18, while LTC TOP increased from 150 GH/S to 500G. With the rise of hashrate, support for Segwit dropped from 80 percent to a new low of 70 percent.

For Segwit to be fully activated on Litecoin, it needs over 75 percent support from miners during that two- week period. If it fails to maintain the 75% support threshold for 14 days, even if the initial threshold of 75 percent was met, Segwit will not be activated on Litecoin. As Litecoin is moving within 5 percent of its Segwit activation threshold, some doubt the intent behind the sudden increase is to prevent litecoin activating segwit.

Jiang Zhuoer, the owner of both LTC1BTC and LTC.TOP, claimed that he won’t upgrade to softfork SegWit, nor will primary Litecoin pools like LTC1BTC and LTC.TOP.

Bitcoin users at 8btc assumed that Bitmain should claim responsibility for the sudden hashrate increase in Litecoin.

On April 18, Bitmain announced that because of firmware bugs, the L3 +Order that should be shipped out around April 4.15-20 is delayed.

Bitmain delay announcement

But some users are not buying this, assuming that Bitmain is deliberately trying to stop Litecoin Segwit using L3’s hashrate. And on April 17, Bitmain’s mining pool Antpool’s hashrate abruptly surged by around 20 percent in a period of few hours, from 200 to nearly 500 GH/S. It could completely coincidental but insiders revealed that on April 13 about 1000 Bitmain L3 LTC mining machines were deployed at mining pools without being delivered to customers.

Litecoin’s Hashrate to Double?

On April 19, when be asked what the sudden increase was all about, Wang Chun said that was just a small spike.

bitmain hashrate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also revealed what Wu Jihan has been up to.

F2Pool bitmain

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the chips are made into machines, will SegWit still be activated on Litecoin?

COMMENTS(86)

  • BitcoinAllBot
    5 days ago BitcoinAllBot

    Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: 8btccom

  • nopara73
    5 days ago nopara73

    This is great news! For a moment I thought they won’t test UASF out for us. Thank you Jihan!

    • shadymess
      4 days ago shadymess

      Seems like you have some kind of perverse UASF fetish.

      • nopara73
        4 days ago nopara73

        Yes, I’m not completely on board with this miner overlord concept.

        • BitttBurger
          4 days ago BitttBurger

          You act like this wasn’t the way Bitcoin was made to work since day 1 or something.

          • CaptainOuzo
            4 days ago CaptainOuzo

            What we have here, with a single miner able to veto SegWit activation in two separate cryptocurrencies by virtue of having a near monopoly over ASIC manufacture (and “testing” their hardware instead of delivering it as promised) is, I’m pretty sure, not the way Bitcoin (or litecoin) was intended to work.

            What makes mesh networks powerful is that they route around problem nodes. We can extend that analogy to the social/political side of things as well. End users may elect to route around Jihan.

          • nynjawitay
            4 days ago nynjawitay

            Are they mining Litecoin with ASICs now?

          • CaptainOuzo
            4 days ago CaptainOuzo

            Yup. Bitmain has produced the Antminer L3+, sold it to a bunch of people, delayed delivery, and is rumored to now be using them themselves. The rumors are somewhat substantiated, since insider sources say he’s got something like 1000 of them running, and his hash rate went way up very suddenly.

            The reason for delayed shipping is supposedly a firmware problem. If so, it’s funny how he’s got all these L3+ miners mining litecoin for him while being simultaneously unable to delivery any of said units to paying customers due to technical issues. Riiiight.

            Rumors

          • Watada
            4 days ago Watada

            Bitcoin was designed to upgraded and fixed if needed.

          • BitttBurger
            4 days ago BitttBurger

            Cool!

            Back in the day, everyone here would’ve responded to that with: “Then go and make your own coin! This is how bitcoin was designed”.

            But I’m all for improving systems that need to be improved.

            Shoot. I was here five years ago telling everyone that the miners shouldn’t have so much power. And everybody told me to kick rocks if I didn’t like it.

            In fact I dare say it was some core developers that told me to kick rocks if I didn’t like it. It’s nice to see everyone finally coming around though…

          • Hitchslappy
            4 days ago Hitchslappy

            What part of decentralised don’t you understand?

          • BitttBurger
            4 days ago BitttBurger

            Are you asking me or Satoshi?

          • Hitchslappy
            4 days ago Hitchslappy

            What kind of a question is that?

            Feel free to invoke your lord and saviour – I don’t think he would be best pleased with the state of the current mining monopoly.

          • BitttBurger
            4 days ago BitttBurger

            He’s the one that designed the system. Not me. So why were you asking me?

            Also: it’s incredible that he’s referred to with such sarcastic disdain around here. And you guys wonder why people are freaked out, and dividing.

          • Hitchslappy
            4 days ago Hitchslappy

            He is, you’re right, but he’s not here now so Bitcoin belongs to, and exists to serve, us – everyone. That’s why I asked you.

            Also: if you can’t tell the difference between a disdain for appealing​ to authority, and a disdain for an individual, that’s not my problem. It does, however, mean I can’t be bothered with this conversation, because you make it difficult to believe you’re not just trolling.

            Also: I’m not “you guys”, nor am I uncertain as to why there’s so much strife in the community today.

          • BitttBurger
            4 days ago BitttBurger

            It’s the whole “Lord and Savior” snark. You guys are really alienating a lot of people when you make comments like that.

            Actually agree with you 100% that we need to fix the problem. But the Satoshi sarcasm probably should be avoided. If only because it doesn’t make sense in the first place.

            You’re not criticizing people for holding Satoshi in high esteem. You’re doing something completely different. You’re trying to point out that he gave us a system that can evolve.

            So the former really isn’t necessary to prove the latter. You are just going to cause a lot of people to think you are anti-Satoshi, which automatically would make you anti-Bitcoin in their minds.

        • shadymess
          4 days ago shadymess

          Let’s just pretend for a moment that there are only total 3 entities who are participants in the bitcoin economy. Could you tell me exactly how you would measure economic majority here? Would you see how much percent of total revenue between those 3 entities are supporting UASF? If exchange A has more revenue than exchange B and C combined will A have veto rights if most users are in favor of UASF? In this example let’s pretend that all usual users are for UASF

          • _High_Energy
            4 days ago _High_Energy

            Check the price after the UASF? Was that to complicated for you?

          • Explodicle
            4 days ago Explodicle

            Not complicated enough! We need fork synthetics ahead of time too.

          • shadymess
            4 days ago shadymess

            So you want to risk everything with UASF first then check the price?

      • satoshicoin
        4 days ago satoshicoin

        There’s nothing perverse about trying to poke the economic majority into action.

      • Sugartits31
        4 days ago Sugartits31

        Everyone needs a hobby.

  • hgmichna
    5 days ago hgmichna

    Why do some miners go to such lengths to prevent SegWit against the majority?

    It looks like AsicBoost or something similar. Otherwise it just would not make sense.

    • xyu337
      4 days ago xyu337

      AiscBoost is not that important.

      Jihan is a very forward looking businessman, you can’t be shortsighted yet become so successful at bitcoin mining.

      The reason for Jihan’s fondness of large blocks lie in the very nature of mining businesses– it is naturally centralizing. A mining node runs in a dominating mining pool is much more efficient than a node of same configuration but runs remotely, because of network latency.

      If PoW algorithm does not change, large mining pools will kill off smaller ones on a long run, larger blocks will speed up this process, because it’s slower to propagate larger blocks on network.

      Jihan’s advandatge in asic making is temporary, where will be bigger players come into this market, producing similar or better asics. Jihan is very worried about this and he wants to kill off other mines right now, and get total domination. In his view, losing the edge is equal to losing every thing.

      Jihan is not against SW or LN, he just want big blocks asap, but if LN came out and works, the need for big blocks will die out, this is the reason behind.

      • LitwinP
        4 days ago LitwinP

        Looks like it.

      • StrictlyOffTheRecord
        4 days ago StrictlyOffTheRecord

        The answer is, as always, follow the money.

      • jaydoors
        4 days ago jaydoors

        No, this has been possible forever. Mining has always been optimally efficient in one big pool – but of course that would be a threat to bitcoin and it’s price, so miners and pools have always naturally sorted themselves out to avoid this level of centralization. It does not explain Bitmain’s opposition to SW.

        • xyu337
          4 days ago xyu337

          If miners wanted to avoid centralization we would be still mining with PCs. Miners always wanted power and domination.

          Bitmain want large blocks to kill other miners. If sw and LN is successful, it will kill the need for large blocks , hence they oppose sw.

          If there is a solution of sw+big blocks, they will support it.

      • Carlscrazyidea
        4 days ago Carlscrazyidea

        I am an American living in the Philippines and I watched a Chinese business owner who took a loss for 6 months just to kill his competition.

      • Lite_Coin_Guy
        4 days ago Lite_Coin_Guy

        PBoC might be part of the problem too. LN will deliever more privacy features and they hate it.

        • xyu337
          4 days ago xyu337

          I don’t think so. I lived in China for more than 30 years, experience tells me if pboc want ban some thing they will just ban it out right. They are not so sophisticated to play tricks like this.

      • CaptainOuzo
        4 days ago CaptainOuzo

        If Jihan or anyone else gets total domination, I will be leaving the bitcoin space and won’t be the only one.

        Jihan isn’t particularly forward thinking if he’s doing things that undermine the entire point of bitcoin.

        • xyu337
          4 days ago xyu337

          Being king of a not so successful coin is better than being nobody.

          If bitcoin is centralized, it won’t just die, you see, there are plenty of people investing in “governed coins” like eth or dash.

      • earonesty
        4 days ago earonesty

        Segwit is large blocks. Jihan prevents them. You sir are a lying shil.

        • xyu337
          4 days ago xyu337

          Not large enough. And likely stop further effort to make larger blocks. I don’t know nothing for certain, if you have a better guess than mine please share it.

          • earonesty
            4 days ago earonesty

            Segwit enables future larger increases by specifically addressing quadradic hashing attacks. Without segwit, a hard fork to larger block sizes will render bitcoin vulnerable to DOS attacks.

            The only reason Jihan is blocking segwit is to keep block small, fees high and asicboost enabled…. this is making him rich. Why would he vote to stop the money coming in?

        • stravant
          4 days ago stravant

          So provide a better answer?

          Given how successful he is, I refuse to the believe than the answer is that “He’s an idiot”. Clearly there is some well thought out net benefit to himself to take the actions that he is. It’s not like he’s just blocking for shits and giggles.

      • JustSomeBadAdvice
        4 days ago JustSomeBadAdvice

        The reason for Jihan’s fondness of large blocks lie in the very nature of mining businesses– it is naturally centralizing.

        No, because bigger blocks mean more usability and adoption, which means higher price.

        A lot of people are fond of larger blocks in one way or another, and a lot of people are highly opposed to them.

        The fundamental question causing the rifts is simply how to balance the negatives of:

        High node operational costs
        High transaction fees
        Lower Bitcoin prices (through lower adoption, leading to the rise of serious altcoin contenders)

        Lightning won’t solve this problem; Lightning users will eventually find that if they participate as a peering node without 100% uptime, they’ll lose coins they didn’t even spend. Horror stories will spread and people will stop peering unless they are a hub. Hubs will centralize due to risk and overhead costs; If they get big enough as a percentage of btc blocksize, someone will eventually perform a tx/s bottleneck attack defaulting against either the clients en-masse or the hubs en-masse. Lightning is cool and has potential for rapid trustless settlement in certain conditions, but it is no scaling magic bullet, especially without continual blocksize increases as adoption/price grow.

    • Abell68
      4 days ago Abell68

      Cus usa vs china

    • zomgitsduke
      4 days ago zomgitsduke

      They want to prevent it because they know it will turbocharge the price of litecoin. From there, it’s only a matter of time before every other crypto tries for it.

      When you want control, and you get a dumb shortsighted idea in your head, you’ll stop at nothing to achieve it.

    • Symphonic_Rainboom
      4 days ago Symphonic_Rainboom

      If you are the majority, you aren’t preventing it against the majority.

    • zcashcowboy
      4 days ago zcashcowboy

      In Bitcoin it is a fair portion of the mining community for reasons I can at least understand. In Litecoin it’s simply spite from that retard Jihan. He can truly fuck his mother.

  • _jstanley
    5 days ago _jstanley

    Antpool’s hashrate abruptly surged by around 20 percent in a period of few hours, from 200 to nearly 500 GH/S

    Eh? That’s 150%.

    • arcrad
      4 days ago arcrad

      Perhaps they mean as a percent of total network hashrate?

    • Leaky_gland
      4 days ago Leaky_gland

      https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-hashrate.html#3m

      Roughly 20% shown here

      • _jstanley
        4 days ago _jstanley

        So they meant to say:

        Antpool’s proportion of the total hashrate abruptly surged by around 20%.

        Because Antpool’s hashrate “abruptly surged” by around 150%.

        • roadtrain4eg
          4 days ago roadtrain4eg

          Even better! When speaking about proportion it’s usually percentage points, not %. =)

  • autotldr
    5 days ago autotldr

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I’m a bot)

    As Litecoin is moving within 5 percent of its Segwit activation threshold, some doubt the intent behind the sudden increase is to prevent litecoin activating segwit.

    Jiang Zhuoer, the owner of both LTC1BTC and LTC.TOP, claimed that he won’t upgrade to softfork SegWit, nor will primary Litecoin pools like LTC1BTC and LTC.TOP. Bitcoin users at 8btc assumed that Bitmain should claim responsibility for the sudden hashrate increase in Litecoin.

    Some users are not buying this, assuming that Bitmain is deliberately trying to stop Litecoin Segwit using L3’s hashrate.

    Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top keywords: Litecoin#1Segwit#2April#3percent#4hashrate#5

  • Patn3m
    4 days ago Patn3m

    Love the alien graphics _

  • Djulius
    4 days ago Djulius

    Tenemos show para rato.

  • wachtwoord33
    4 days ago wachtwoord33

    “suspected”

    • gotamd
      4 days ago gotamd

      The sky is suspected of being blue, too.

  • andonevris
    4 days ago andonevris

    Jihad’s getting a LOT of bad press

    • jay45678
      4 days ago jay45678

      And even more money!

    • Gristledorf
      4 days ago Gristledorf

      I’ll be excited when Chinese authorities start pressing his balls in a vice.

  • Sukarti
    4 days ago Sukarti

    Well obviously he deliberately blocked it. This recent ploy is just buying time so he can permanently block segwit by getting his next generation of miners online on his customers dime.

    UASF should happen sooner than later.

  • Hitchslappy
    4 days ago Hitchslappy

    God I hate this company so much…

    • fuyuasha
      4 days ago fuyuasha

      You should complain in the strongest terms to the CEO

    • ctrlbreak
      4 days ago ctrlbreak

      I know I’ll never order anything from them again. I hope Jihan goes to prison for the fraud he’s currently suspected of committing. Against customers who have purchased and paid for scrypt miners he’s not currently delivering.

      • earonesty
        4 days ago earonesty

        Yep, I’m done with antminer

  • sirpask
    4 days ago sirpask

    A mi me han pillao con el carrito del helao… y no digo mas, que este foro es de Bitcoin ….

    Si antes no me gustaba el puto chino… ahora mucho menos.

  • CryptoInvestor
    4 days ago CryptoInvestor

    The information in this article is wrong. It doesn’t need to be at 75% for 14 days – just 75% of the blocks mined in that period. So it can drop below 70%, as long as 6048 segwit blocks are mined over the period it doesn’t matter.

  • xeroc
    4 days ago xeroc

    … and there is nothing you can do about it because, well neither bitcoin nor litecoin have a governance system that gives the power to the people, but it gives it to the greedy miners…

    • Explodicle
      4 days ago Explodicle

      Sure they do, those people can buy whichever coins or forks they want.

  • webitcoiners
    4 days ago webitcoiners

    It’s not “suspected”. It’s the fact. Everyone knows that.

    Also, Jihan and his mates will tell endless lies to impede SegWit, such as “I like SW, but….”

    They want to maintain the centralization status in mining rigs.

    • ctrlbreak
      4 days ago ctrlbreak

      They are now attempting to get Charlie Lee to China for a ‘Litecoin roundtable’ meeting. He hasn’t learned yet he must kowtow to the mining cartel. Fuck EVERYTHING about those guys.

      • webitcoiners
        4 days ago webitcoiners

        ‘Litecoin roundtable’

        So they want to replace LTC devs with ‘Litecoin roundtable’, even after they purchased Ltc unlimited domains?

        • ctrlbreak
          4 days ago ctrlbreak

          Yup. It’s absolutely infuriating. They now appear to be holding activation at about 72%. This is not how things should be and every goddamn sane person in the community knows it.

  • freetrade
    4 days ago freetrade

    Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. For example, /r/CryptoCurrency is a good place to discuss all cryptocurrencies.

  • Halperwire
    4 days ago Halperwire

    I think the mentality needs to be changed with respect to miners and nodes. Miners are paid to perform a service. Why are they given the power to dictate all rules on the network? They will obviously have a conflict of interest at some point. Also as we are now seeing, companies which produce asics have a monopoly with production and mining which gives them an unfair market advantage. Nodes do not have this unfair production attribute and users are not rewarded for running them hence no conflict of interests.

    With this being said I think UASF or UAHF are the way bitcoin will need to process future upgrades and let mining hash power follow if they wish to get paid.

  • SDCrypto
    4 days ago SDCrypto

    You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

    • ctrlbreak
      4 days ago ctrlbreak

      It absolutely is. Especially when a completely overwhelming amount of the community wants it to activate.

      He’s also defrauding hardware customers who have already paid for scrypt mining hardware that he is apparently delaying shipment of and using himself to prevent SegWit from activating.

    • ronnnumber
      4 days ago ronnnumber

      Not really up on this debate, but it looks like unfair practices that, unchecked, would ultimately lead to the monopoly of a single miner would result in a network no one wants, including said miner.

  • BitcoinMichi
    4 days ago BitcoinMichi

    We all can agree that Jihan needs to be decentralized.

    DECENTRALIZE Jihan!

  • CAPTIVE_AMIGA
    4 days ago CAPTIVE_AMIGA

    That God burns Jihan Wu

  • ctrlbreak
    4 days ago ctrlbreak

    Oh look! A few new pools with familiar sounding names have decided that they only now have an interest in Litecoin! Amazing coincidence!

    https://imgur.com/a/DoFmg

  • 2ndEntropy
    4 days ago 2ndEntropy

    It is their hashpower they are allowed to use it as they wish that is the point of proof of work based blockchains.

  • knight222
    4 days ago knight222

    Suspected? They openly admitting it.

    • chris101sb
      4 days ago chris101sb

      They prevent progress. They are the enemy of the people.

      • knight222
        4 days ago knight222

        Assuming SW is progress. Which is not.

      • FaceDeer
        4 days ago FaceDeer

        I guess more bad things have been done in the name of progress than any other. I myself have been guilty of this. When I was a teenager, I stole a car and drove it out into the desert and set it on fire. When the police showed up, I just shrugged and said, “Hey, progress.” Boy, did I have a lot to learn.

        — Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

      • highintensitycanada
        4 days ago highintensitycanada

        They stop bad ideas, is the progress?

  • moleccc
    4 days ago moleccc

    “suspected”?!? “deliberately”?!? As if it was a crime of some sort…

    In other news, voters are suspected of deliberately voting for the opposition!

  • Shmullus_Zimmerman
    4 days ago Shmullus_Zimmerman

    I hate the verbal games on this sub sometimes.

    I’m a supporter of SegWit. It provides throughput increase, some protocol fixes, etc. IT will provide the ability for L2 solutions to increase the velocity of money using Bitcoin.

    But I’m sorry, its an activation process that is voluntary. In my opinion the threshold was set too high, but its a voluntary process.

    The title of this thread would be akin to saying “A bunch of Trump voters are suspected of deliberately preventing Hillary’s election.” As if those Trump voters had otherwise an obligation to vote for Hillary.

  • B4kSAj
    4 days ago B4kSAj

    wow, my tweet to Wang Chun is quoted in this article, im famous 🙂

  • stravant
    4 days ago stravant

    I don’t understand what you’re getting at with this post.

    What do you mean “deliberately”? What, as opposed to accidentally?

    He’s well within his rights to point his hash power at a pool that doesn’t support. That’s the whole point of having the voting in the first place: People can vote against it.

Please sign in first