English
Chinese
F2Pool, why not pick a side?
in
Mining
13
12
18919
Many had wanted Wang Chun to start signalling for the activation of SegWit especially in the wake of the recent showdown between the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited developers.
The man known to be the face of F2Pool – the second largest mining pool controlling about 12% of the mining hashrate – has stuck to his guns and choose not to budge. Also, he didn’t show any obvious support for the Bitcoin Unlimited camp which has been proposing another option. Hence, it could be rightly said that Wang and F2Pool placed themselves in the middle – neutral.
His stance on the hard fork issue has been deemed most rational of the major players that could be seen and heard in the ensuing saga especially when he stated that Bitcoin can’t and won’t fork.
Looking deeper
While he has been praised in some quarters for not supporting BU, a keener look into his comments on the Bitcoin scalability issue – as well as those attributed to him – shows that he didn’t rule out the possibility of a fork completely. Rather, from his assessment, what could be deduced from his words is that the stage does not seems set for a fork yet.
Before the March 25 showdown which dropped Bitcoin price below the $900 range – that was when about 46.5% of miners that signalled for BU in the last 144 blocks thinks differently, Wang had tweeted a post that seems to shield miners as the target of the ongoing deadlock but shifted it to developers.
He maintains that the miners were “using their hashing power to rescue Bitcoin from those malicious developers” – those developers who refused to admit that the blocks are full, and claim 300 KB is more than enough for now. He later submitted that an unusable network, no matter how safe, is useless.
He further tweets to single out a Core developer as one of the few “still actually coding something.”
When linked to a screenshot thread of a QQ group discussion on 8btc forum in which a co-founder of F2Pool, Mao Shinhang, described Core developers as “douchebags” and that BU code “sucks”, it supports the argument that F2Pool supports both camps’ points of view – SegWit and increased block size.
So why not pick a side?
Though F2Pool is seen as the key mining pool to activate SegWit starting with Litecoin, a call which has been going on in the past months, Wang notes that the decision to “support someone who often see you as their enemy” requires deep thinking before a choice is made.
The Bitcoin hard fork has been considered a risky venture that needs careful preparation and enough time to deploy particularly for the huge amount that could be at stake. While it is somewhat clear that F2Pool seems to be working to achieve a low price in the mining space for the foreseeable future, the debate on what would become of the fork continues.
This is particularly relevant because the idea of a user activated soft fork UASF that was earlier suggested by som sections of the Bitcoin community has turned out to be controversial. UASF reportedly centres on how a blockchain might add an upgrade that is not directly supported by those who provide the network’s hashing power.
Olusegun Ogundeji writes on tech-related issues including from the crypto/Blockchain space.
COMMENTS(12)
Many had wanted Wang Chun to start signalling for the activation of SegWit especially in the wake of the recent showdown between the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited developers.The man known to be the face of F2Pool the second largest mining pool controlling about 12% of the mining hashrate has stuck to his guns and choose not to budge. Also, he didnt show any obvious support for the Bitcoin Unlimited camp which has been proposing another option. Hence, it could be rightly said that Wang and F2Pool placed themselves in the middle neutral.His stance on the hard fork issue has been deemed most rational of the major players that could be seen and heard in the ensuing saga especially when he stated that Bitcoin cant and wont fork.Looking deeper While he has been praised in some quarters for not supporting BU, a keener look into his comments on the Bitcoin scalability issue as well as those attributed to him shows that he didnt rule out the possibility of a fork completely. Rather, from his assessment, what could be deduced from his words is that the stage does not seems set for a fork yet.Before the March 25 showdown which dropped Bitcoin price below the $900 range that was when about 46.5% of miners that signalled for BU in the last 144 blocks thinks differently, Wang had tweeted a post that seems to shield miners as the target of the ongoing deadlock but shifted it to developers.He maintains that the miners were using their hashing power to rescue Bitcoin from those malicious developers those developers who refused to admit that the blocks are full, and claim 300 KB is more than enough for now. He later submitted that an unusable network, no matter how safe, is useless.He further tweets to single out a Core developer as one of the few still actually coding something.When linked to a screenshot thread of a QQ group discussion on 8btc forum in which a co-founder of F2Pool, Mao Shinhang, described Core developers as douchebags and that BU code sucks, it supports the argument that F2Pool supports both camps points of view SegWit and increased block size.So why not pick a side? Though F2Pool is seen as the key mining pool to activate SegWit starting with Litecoin, a call which has been going on in the past months, Wang notes that the decision to support someone who often see you as their enemy requires deep thinking before a choice is made.The Bitcoin hard fork has been considered a risky venture that needs careful preparation and enough time to deploy particularly for the huge amount that could be at stake. While it is somewhat clear that F2Pool seems to be working to achieve a low price in the mining space for the foreseeable future, the debate on what would become of the fork continues.This is particularly relevant because the idea of a user activated soft fork UASF that was earlier suggested by som sections of the Bitcoin community has turned out to be controversial. UASF reportedly centres on how a blockchain might add an upgrade that is not directly supported by those who provide the networks hashing power.http://news.8btc.com/f2pool-why-not-pick-a-side
They need to hurry up and do something. Regardless of whether or not Bitcoin is going to lose value, it is just terrible for transactions right now and at least either solution is trying something.
Quote from: Qartada on March 30, 2017, 09:53:00 AM
They need to hurry up and do something. Regardless of whether or not Bitcoin is going to lose value, it is just terrible for transactions right now and at least either solution is trying something.
Bu is the 5th wave of bitcoin. Its a attack to kill it..Segwit is best option.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9EEluhC9SxE&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: notthematrix on March 30, 2017, 12:37:05 PM
Bu is the 5th wave of bitcoin. Its a attack to kill it..Segwit is best option.
Segwit is indeed the best option. Even when you consider that it isn’t a perfect long term solution. It’s important that all alternative sides are being put to stop. It’s a shame that someone creeps in and just artificially sets up everything in a way that it will cause a fork as result. BU gets supported by shills and trolls, and perhaps a few people that see value in their proposal. Core has the majority of the support among people here, BU can’t change a single bit in this regard.
Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: 8btccom
Can’t f2pool be configured to allow individual member signalling?
That’s an interesting question. We shall forward this to F2pool
This is the sway vote.
No need to pick a side. Pick the best aspect of each side and vote for that.
My guess is that the miners will let Blockstream and Bitfury fork themselves off the network. No need to do anything. Let their ego’s do all the work.
I think there is a need to pick a side.
On the one hand, you have a group of banks, who formed Blockstream Corp, which pays the salaries of the primary Core devs. Their goal is to convert Bitcoin from a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system” into a settlement layer for banks.
On the other side, you have a rebel alliance that believes in bitcoin and is working to keep it true to Satoshi’s vision.
There will be no compromise. Eventually, one team will win, and Bitcoin will either be destroyed or saved.
According to Satoshi, the miners must choose. The longest chain wins.
许多人都希望王淳开始信号支持激活隔离见证（SegWit）软分叉，特别是最近与Bitcoin Core和Bitcoin Unlimited 对决之后。王淳作为鱼池（F2Pool）的创始者该矿池约占全网12%的算力坚持自己的想法，没有让步。此外，王淳也没有对BU表现出明显的支持态度，因此我们可以说王淳和鱼池目前处于中立立场。他在硬叉问题上的立场一直被认为是币圈众多重要参与者中最理性的，尤其是当他表示比特币不能也不会分叉。 更深入的观察 尽管他因为没有支持BU而受到了一些称赞，通过深入观察他对比特币可扩展性问题的评论，我们可以看出他并未完全排除比特币分叉的可能性。相反，从他的评价我们可以推断出分叉的条件尚未具备。在3月25日，比特币价值跌破900美元，最近的144个支持BU的区块的矿工中约46.5%有不同看法，王淳曾在推特上发表过一篇帖子，该帖子似乎是为了保护矿工，而将这个烫手山芋转移给了开发者。他阐述道，矿工们正在利用他们的算力将比特币从充满恶意的开发者手中拯救下来。这些开发者拒绝承认区块已经满了并声称300KB对于目前已经足够了。王淳之后提到，不可用的网络无论有多安全仍然是毫无用处。他还主张单独挑出一个Core开发者作为少数仍旧贡献比特币代码的开发者之一。根据来自有人在巴比特论坛发布的一张QQ截图显示，鱼池的联合创始人毛世行将Core开发者称为人渣而BU的代码烂透了，这就证明了鱼池对双方阵营的态度支持隔离见证，支持大区块。鱼池为什么不选择一方站队呢？ 在过去几个月中，鱼池被看作是在莱特币中激活隔离见证的关键。王淳指出，支持那些经常把你视为敌人的人这个决定需要进行再三思考。比特币硬叉已经被看作是风险，需要进行精心谋划，需要足够的时间进行部署，尤其对于大额财产来说是存在危险的。很清楚地是鱼池正在研究在可预见的未来降低挖矿成本，但关于分叉的争辩仍将继续。这将具有实际性意义，因为最近提出的用户激活软分叉（UASF）概念也引发了大量争议。据报道，UASF提案主张在未获得矿工提供算力支持的情况下对比特币网络进行升级。原文：巴比特国际站（http://news.8btc.com/f2pool-why-not-pick-a-side） 作者：OLUSEGUN译者：王二
Please sign in first