Bitcoin hardware

bitcoin cloud mining

Update: Chinese Mining Pools Still Undecided about Bitcoin Classic, Says Huobi

Updated on Jan. 22, 2016 at 11:50 EST:

Bitcoin Tv-programma recieved a response from major Chinese Bitcoin exchange Huobi, which indicated that the situation wasgoed still evolving. According to Huobi, there wasgoed not yet overeenstemming among the Chinese mining community about whether to run Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core. This contradicts the earlier information from F2Pool and HaoBTC indicating that a decision had bot reached. “We all feel it’s not adequate for us to give comments at the uur because Evan Mo and other miners are still discussing this kwestie and toevluchthaven’t come to a overeenstemming. Wij will continuously pay attention to this punt and make official comment on it when the time is right,” said a Huobi spokesperson te an emailed statement to Bitcoin Tv-programma.

Shortly after the sensational public break-up inbetween Bitcoin and R3CEV – hire Mike Hearn, and the launch of several alternative Bitcoin implementations, the block-size dispute is reaching fever pitch. Bitcoin Classic, ter particular, has bot gathering support among companies, users and some developers. Significantly, a number of mining pools has also publicly come out te support of the Bitcoin Core fork led by Jonathan Toomim.

The 2nd largest mining pool on the Bitcoin network, with some 23 procent of hashing power, China-based F2Pool, wasgoed said to be among the pools ready to switch to Bitcoin Classic. Yesterday, however, rumors embarked to surface claiming that the Chinese pools had switched position, and will stick with Bitcoin Core.

Speaking to Bitcoin Tv-programma, F2Pool technicus Wang Chun confirmed this is indeed the case.

“The rumors are true,” Chun said. “Miners ter China were frightened by Luke Dashjr’s proof-of-work switching pull request.”

The specific pull request Chun refers to wasgoed made by Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin LJR developer Luke Dashjr last week. Dashjr argued that a hard fork should be accompanied by a switch of Bitcoin mining hashing algorithm, spil it would render ASIC miners obsolete and could re-decentralize mining. Since Bitcoin Classic intends to democratize governance of the implementation, users could vote on the pull request, it had not received widespread support spil of yet.

The pull request itself, however, wasgoed quickly closed by Bitcoin Classic lead developer Jonathan Toomim, who considered the idea too radical. He argued it shouldn’t have bot submitted to GitHub directly – but rather discussed on the voting pagina and Reddit.

Many Bitcoin Classic proponents believe that the pull request wasgoed a tegenwerking attempt against Bitcoin Classic. They reason that the proposal wasgoed specifically intended to strike fear into the hearts of the mining community, if the pull request were to be adopted, any investments made te mining hardware could quickly be made worthless.

When Bitcoin Tijdschrift spoke to Wang Chun earlier this week, the pool technicus had already nuanced his position. F2Pool’s claimed support for Bitcoin Classic wasgoed misinterpreted, said Chun, stating:

“We did not say wij would ‘support’ Bitcoin Classic. Wij used the word ‘welcome,’ to be precies.”

Earlier this week Chun did, however, emphasize that he wants the block size limit to be enhanced. Perhaps more significant, Chun insists a hard fork is the desired solution to accomplish this – rather than a soft fork through Segregated Witness, spil the Bitcoin Core development team intends.

“At the Scaling Bitcoin workshop ter Hong Kong, almost every one of us agreed that block size should be enhanced, and should be enlargened spil a hard fork, spil there wasgoed no soft fork solution back then,” Chun explained. “Then, last minute, Segregated Witness wasgoed introduced. I admire Dr. Pieter Wuille’s brilliant hack to deploy it spil a soft fork. But despite being brilliant, the soft fork Segregated Witness is still a hack. A hack is dirty. Such a technology would be better implemented spil hard fork.”

Chun has made a concrete hard fork proposal since – however the details of this proposal are not yet clear.

A hard fork solution is regarded spil a measure of last resort by the Bitcoin Core development team. With hard forks, all utter knots on the Bitcoin network need to switch their software to the latest version or risk being “forked off” the network, with potential unforeseen consequences. Soft forks, considered safer by most Bitcoin Core developers spil they only require miners to switch their software, have bot spinned out several times.

But Chun, like the Bitcoin Classic development team, believes the Bitcoin network can grow more cleanly through a hard fork.

“Since Segregated Witness will only permit for some 70 procent of added space, a 2-megabyte hard fork would permit for more headroom, which could end the debate for now. People will not only be more sated, they’ll also see that wij can actually get something done, get something fixed… not just find some detour hack to leave the punt to the next generation.”

While Chun earlier this week indicated that support for Bitcoin Classic te absence of a hard fork wasgoed not fully off the table, it seems that has now switched.

After ending this article, a 2nd Chinese wallet service, HaoBTC, has confirmed to Bitcoin Tijdschrift that Chinese pools will stick with Bitcoin Core, too.

Bitcoin Tv-programma will be closely monitoring this story spil it progresses.

Trending Now

Amid Bitcoin Scaling Debate, Segregated Witness Testnet Comes in Public Stage
Guest Postbode: Understanding the Boundaries and Potential of Blockchain Technology
Op Ed: Three Legal Pitfalls to Avoid ter Blockchain Clever Contracts
Op Ed: Slovenia Primed to Become a Blockchain Toevluchthaven

Newsletter

Store

Call for Writers

Wij are always looking for talented writers to join our team. If you have an article you’d like to have published to our audience please reach out to



Related movie: Fastest Bitcoin Miner 0.6 BTC Vanaf Day



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *