Oddbean

The solution to miner centralization is not one pool that does it right, so all can mine at that pool. It's more pools and ideally also ones that do it right. In my book, any pool that has low switching cost is great as it allows miners to direct their hashes at a different pool quickly should problems arise. If banning wizard pics and the associated lower rewards is not perceived as a problem, let them mine at OCEAN.

More pools isn't enough. Each and every miner needs to be deciding for himself. Until OCEAN, miners had no choices. Now they have one more. Soon, we'll release the flood gates so they have infinite possibilities

Is this a load of 💩 or am I missing something? 👇 "Until OCEAN, miners had no choices." No choices to one more makes 2 choices. What you're saying makes no sense at all. What was the one and only choice before Ocean? Or did we have more choices all along and this is a load of shit? nostr:nevent1qqs9dzrc8vn3afvh8n4ywm89kta6nz4tztygfzt28xcc86g5nw4545gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzplw4arm2urdcz7lqkuw6ypyccxqxj6xc5eze2kwzf8ej97nnge98qvzqqqqqqy22ecva

Ocean does a lot of things different from most miners. They use PPLNS (tweaked and renamed TIDES) which makes payouts transparent and fair. You can mine directly to a bitcoin address (no account, no kyc). Everybody is angry about censoring inscriptions. Big whoop, who cares? Y'all don't even like inscriptions. I am genuinely confused by the coinjoin censoring. Why does whirlpool need an 80 byte op_return? (Apparently they don't.) Why does knots censor it? (Luke just stonewalls everyone on this point.) Seems like dumb decisions all around. Overall, a kyc free mining pool with fair and transparent payouts is a massive win. Everybody else uses PPS which reduces miner payout variance and gives the pool full control over blocks and profits. Censorship is a big problem if all pools censor the same stuff. If they all censor different stuff it is not really a problem. Ocean is a net positive. With Sv2 the censorship will be a non issue.

Braiins does not and they're no KYC. Only difference is having to get an account. No account required is the win but the source is closed and it's only for Ocean. Miners can already build their own blocks with stratum v2 which Braiins already supports.

Braiins used to talk big about open source then they did a 180 and quietly closed their source code. They also use FPPS which lets them do shit like keep out of band fees for themselves w/o compensating the miners. I don't know if they have abused this power but nothing is stopping them. DEMAND also recently announced they will launch with Sv2 support like the same day OCEAN went live and everyone collectively shrugged and started yelling about OCEAN. All the other pools are more or less the same: KYC & FPPS. More pools presenting more options is better, exactly like Luke said.

They JUST switched TODAY and it was market demand as the reason for the switch. I haven't even gotten a payout from their FPPS system yet. I would rather get a consistent payout. You would have thought the same if you were getting the wild payouts on their pool before. Braiins has had v2 for like over a year...

Actually, @LeoWandersleb said it best. More pools, especially with low switching costs, is the big win. BTW with OCEAN you need to stick around for 8 blocks to get the full payout iirc. So the switching costs are not that low...

The standard datacarriersize Knots has always used is 42 bytes. They knew that and ignored it. We haven't changed anything in this regard. Brc20 comes in at 45 bytes, so just increasing it isn't a viable solution. That doesn't mean we're giving up - we do want to mine these - but it's going to take some work if Samourai doesn't fix the issue on their end (ultimately there's no good reason for ANY of this data)

Thanks for the response. I am not knowledgeable about datacarriersize. Does this refer to a constant in bitcoind code? Does it only apply to OP_RETURN? I was under the impression that BRC-20 uses the inscription data envelope technique, which does not involve OP_RETURN. That makes me think you are using datacarriersize to refer to the total amount of data you are willing to allow a transaction to store, regardless of the technique used. Can you please clarify this for me?

@Luke Dashjr You rock. Great example of a perseverance, strength, courage of a builder that changes the world. Ignore naysayers, haters that distract and stall progress (shipping and opening up new possibilites).