Re:Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain T...
by sanswork on Thursday July 14, 2016 @06:38PM
(#12097736)
What I see is a whole bunch of miners who say they'd like a change but won't make the very small effort to actually make one.
My other points that you skipped over all still stand. If the majority truely wanted change they could do it painlessly. But they don't so the minority that does has to find something to blame besides lack of support so you come up with a ridiculous dream in which a handful of developers are holding everything up.
Are you actually for real?
This is the current mining pool distribution: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
Antpool, which represents 17% is in favor of 2MB, and has threatened to NOT include any Core changes until it happens.
Proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4l564f/bitcoin_cor...
f2Pool, which is 23%, supports 2mb.
Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13571787#m...
BTCC, which is 13%, supports 2MB
Proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40az4o/bobby_lee_b...
BW, which is 12%, supports 8MB! Huobi, (HaoBTC), is 7%, and also supports 8MB.
Proof for both: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5qj5/draft_signe...
KNCMiner, which is 2%, supports bitcoin classic (2MB hardfork)
Half of slush pool (5% total, so 2.5%) supports classic.
The only major miner that hasn't explicitly supported some sort of block size increase, is I believe Bitfury, which is ~10%.
Now, please add up all of these numbers, and see if it adds up to a majority.