Topic: Another closed door Core - Chinese miners meeting (Read 3880 times)

Any links to those notes?

All I have found, barely readable,
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/cali2016/

Future outlook of Bitcoin
"A wild Bobmon has appeared in the room. It's very important to capture this pokemon."
Did anyone catch it?

Good stuff!




And you were doing so well.

While the Chinese mining kings were over here, somebody was hacking Bitfinex over there.

Nice timing?

you do realise that MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
is actually bitcoin-core (with segwit) version that allows 2mb base blocks.
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE is a variable utilized by bitcoin-core..

its got nothing to do with "gavinista" it has nothing to do with "big blocks" because the funny part is that "serialized" blocksize of bitcoin-core is 4mb..
here i will explain it in english
gavinista's want 2mb of total data..
core wants 4mb total data, but only 1mb baseblocks which means traditional transactions(old privkeys) are limited to the 1mb base block. and the other 3mb is for signatures of new style privkeys.

however MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; is still cores deemed safe 4mb bloat of total relay data but with 2mb base block size to allow those that dont want to use the new privkeys, to have extra buffer within the main block.

as for you saying that you are ignoring MULTIPLE different bitcoin implementations that exist currently and instead choose to go in the single direction of just one corporation.. because some how you think core is more decentralized than 12 other implementations (bitcoinj, bitcoin ruby, bitcoinBU, etc etc) is your delusion. and your misunderstanding of decentralization

anyway, ill digress and will ask you the same question other "streamers" are avoiding answering..

when luke JR, a bitcoin core dev releases a bitcoin-core version (with segwit) of MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
will you accept that the controversy is over and that decentralized choice can be regained and that core then gets back to being on a level playing ground of open choice of many implementations from many sources all offering 2mb instead of dictator control of one source trying to prevent expansion of the main(base) block buffer.
or
will you be part of a REKT campaign to push luke JR under the bus and get him removed from the main bitcoin github because you prefer the dictatorship preventing the expansion of the main(base) block buffer

all i really need to know and have you reply to is
1. "yes i will support MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; but only if there are no 'trojan'/bugs added elsewhere in the code"
2. "no i wont support MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; and will REKT Luke JR because its not the direction i want bitcoin to go in"

i have even numbered it to help you stay on point and reply with least effort and cost to your time.

What you're writing is simply delusional. Fact is that all the Gavinista bigblock-altcoin schemes failed miserably. The community chose to stay with the original, decentralized Bitcoin. And progress with Core development shows it was a smart choice.

Despite the doomsday scenarios widely circulated in the XT/ClassicCoin FUD campaign, the network is in a healthy state. There is no urgency to increase the maximum blocksize. Thanks to Segwit even a 1 MB limit offers significant of room for growth. (That doesn't mean that the blocksize should never be increased, it just must be done in a sensible way to preserve decentralization.)

Bitcoin Core developers are not dictating anything. They continue to build a better Bitcoin for all of us. The fact that they meet with miners for discussion shows that they try to incorporate their issues in the roadmap.

ya.ya.yo!

From link,

And all you post here is a link to some shit magazine saying what you posted here earlier, "we need better communication"?
Pathetic.

Looks like you are just stalling, while you wait for the miner "announcement".

wrong topic?


Thanks for sharing

Lol, like the problem was a lack of communication... that's all we've had.

The problem is the lack of willingness to pursue a reasonable compromise, and the resultant lack of any action that isn't on a whiteboard at Blockstream HQ.

Now we'll see if becoming unprofitable and facing threats from altered PoW spin-offs will wake up the miners.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-and-developers-meet-in-california-to-improve-communications-1470158657

well r/btc trolls want to organize a fork...I've seen how well that went with Ethereum so I'm out. Good job trolls, you rekt Bitcoin

The community can't know that and they'd have to believe in someone's words which is what is worrisome here.

That would be beneficial indeed.

I hope that you're joking.

Random prices movements are pointless to waste time on, so the answer is no. Most people panicking about small movements in the Speculation section have nothing better to do with their lives.

Hope to join their group chat too LoL But the continuous drop of bitcoin is not alarming on my opinion.I do believe that it will recover soon but anything can happen so we have to watch out. I have no idea if theres any factor affecting the price drop? Chinese? Brexit?

having a meeting about the price is silly..
bitcoins FIAT value is as relevant as the direction the karate kid paints a fence.
expect "upp, downn, upp downn" motions forever. bitcoin is not and should not be a stagnant fixed price coin

Is there a meeting? Why am I not invited?  Is this meeting related to the sudden drop of Bitcoin and the sudden climb of some alt coins? Those Chinese guys are up to something again, so what are they trying to copy now 

you improve communications by actually communicating. not saying that certain things wont be discussed or agreed to

from what i see, your boss and his employees and friends turned a meeting scheduled to communicate and find some agreement to bitcoin consensus, and twisted it into a party where certain topics wont be agreed on (literally avoiding communication of topics) and instead putting drinks into peoples hands to make them talk about off topic stuff.

gmaxwell please tell your boss that miners want the extra buffer, known technically in core as: MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
and that talking about it was the whole point of spending travel costs
tell him this..  as telling him is a form of communication

then answer this..

will you personally accept a Core implementation with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; in it. wrote by one of your colleagues
or will you prefer to comunicate to your friends and colleagues to start up another REKT campaign to push a core contributor out of bitcoin-core dev team like what happened with hearn, gavin and garzic

all i really need to know and have you reply to is
1. "yes i will support MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; but only if there are no 'trojan'/bugs added elsewhere in the code"
2. "no i wont support MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; and will REKT Luke JR because its not the direction i want bitcoin to go in"

i have even numbered it to help you stay on point and reply with least effort and cost to your time.

They came out to meet with many parties in the area, in fact. You just hear about it in this case.  The meeting was mostly social-- discussing our common passion (Bitcoin) and trying to improve communication.   I think notes are going to be posted, in fact, because we're dweebs like that.

I thought it was really positive-- and good to meet up with people face to face that I'd only talked with in email before.

The Bitcoin industry seriously needs better communication-- especially crossing language and cultural barriers-- rather than hot comments on social media. Improved communication will lead to fewer potential avenues for miscommunication and better cooperation in the future.  Don't buy into rbtc fud.

I don't have a singular friend that contributes to Core. I'd say that I have as much influence as you do. Keep in mind that there have been other individuals that have initiated closed-door meetings in the past (an example would be Garzik and the miners IIRC).

No. That's not necessarily the cause, although I'm certain that some people would like to paint that picture.

Agreed. Can you tell your friends at Core to stop doing it?


Yes, agree again, the ham-fisted way in which this FOMC meeting social event was conducted has sliced 10% off the Bitcoin price so far.

Optimist? Then you have a very wrong and naive view of the world. A closed-door meeting should be among the things that are frowned upon by the Bitcoin community.

There's really no way in which a closed-doors meeting is better than an open one. Even just posting some live updates via twitter or reddit would be much better than what we have now.

There are already people doing that at /r/btc.

I am a optimist and I think any communication is better than no communication, even if this is behind closed doors. It would be better if it was open to the public, but then open communication would be stopping some people from genuine constructive inputs, because they will play the camera and not the topic at hand.

Let's see how this turns out, before we start to pull out the pitchforks and start throwing the stones.