The people on your list read like the United Nations of Bitcoin. Just like the venerable dignitaries of the United Nations, they are important people, certainly, but powerless and not really in control of anything.
united nations of hyperledger..
Topic: Bitcoin devs, CEOs, others to gather for Satoshi Roundtable retreat this month (Read 1504 times)
January 14, 2017, 04:59:51 PM
united nations of hyperledger..
January 14, 2017, 12:16:41 PM
All the major miners are welcome to attend. There are several people from China attending.
Claiming it's a "whitey" audience is both incorrect, spiteful and bizarre. The release doesn't list the name or race of the attendees other than a handful of them.
What specific person who should be invited do you think was excluded based on race, if anyone?
Claiming it's a "whitey" audience is both incorrect, spiteful and bizarre. The release doesn't list the name or race of the attendees other than a handful of them.
What specific person who should be invited do you think was excluded based on race, if anyone?
Of course the major miners are welcome to attend but they won't because they don't have to because they're in control. Hell, the devs couldn't even set the block size where they wanted to because the Chinese mining consortium said no.
Look at the list of names attending. It reads like a western golf championship with the token "black guy" attending. Just like the western golf championship, it's not racist because no others choose to attend and the token "black guy" that does attend is winning all the games.
If you want to really discuss the future of Bitcoin, you need representatives from BTC China, OKCoin, antpool, F2Pool, BTTC and HaoBTC. It wouldn't be a bad idea to include an invitation to representatives of the Chinese Ministry of Finance, Chinese National Development and Reform Commission and the People's Bank of China. They might not send a representative but it's a nice gesture none the less. Since TBF self destructed in a pool of corruption there really is no other group taking the lead concerning governments.
The people on your list read like the United Nations of Bitcoin. Just like the venerable dignitaries of the United Nations, they are important people, certainly, but powerless and not really in control of anything.
January 14, 2017, 11:02:58 AM
All the major miners are welcome to attend. There are several people from China attending.
Claiming it's a "whitey" audience is both incorrect, spiteful and bizarre. The release doesn't list the name or race of the attendees other than a handful of them.
What specific person who should be invited do you think was excluded based on race, if anyone?
Claiming it's a "whitey" audience is both incorrect, spiteful and bizarre. The release doesn't list the name or race of the attendees other than a handful of them.
What specific person who should be invited do you think was excluded based on race, if anyone?
January 13, 2017, 03:13:49 AM
You should invite representatives from the Chinese government and all the Chinese mining farms and exchanges. Your little "western whitey festival" isn't really representative of the group currently in control of bitcoin's direction.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
On average 30%+ of VC investment money is lost, 50% never returns a profit and 20% return enough to be considered a success. There's going to be a hell of a lot of losers in that building.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
On average 30%+ of VC investment money is lost, 50% never returns a profit and 20% return enough to be considered a success. There's going to be a hell of a lot of losers in that building.
but investments can be a tax write off if a loss it made.
EG put it into a "foundation" and you already save ~20% by not paying tax on profit(corporation tax) as its wrote off before its even made 'returns'. just by putting it into a foundation (AKA linux foundation)
then if you make a loss you can offset the loss of one investment against other investments that profit to average down the profit and pay less tax on the eventual profits of all investments longterm.
so its more like
0% make a loss 70% break even and 30% profit.
but with that said. inviting bankers into a closed door event. will have obvious hand shaking and ass kissing for the devs that love their millions of fiat income.
January 13, 2017, 01:28:18 AM
You should invite representatives from the Chinese government and all the Chinese mining farms and exchanges. Your little "western whitey festival" isn't really representative of the group currently in control of bitcoin's direction.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
On average 30%+ of VC investment money is lost, 50% never returns a profit and 20% return enough to be considered a success. There's going to be a hell of a lot of losers in that building.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
On average 30%+ of VC investment money is lost, 50% never returns a profit and 20% return enough to be considered a success. There's going to be a hell of a lot of losers in that building.
those statistics reflect a pyramid scam, though with the modern flow of information most things are turning out to be
highly corrupt and show most of the characteristics of a pyramid scam,
January 12, 2017, 11:16:27 PM
Your little "western whitey festival" isn't really representative of the group currently in control of bitcoin's direction.
Bruce, may I suggest you invite Shawn Wilkinson so to entertain the fest-goers with perhaps a Bojangles dance to satisfy Baldy's concerns? That, and take a pic of the gang having ~half the attendees infected with hepatitis donning painted-on slanted eyes while Shawn Wilkinson's center stage wearing one white glove doing the moonwalk.
January 12, 2017, 10:50:21 PM
You should invite representatives from the Chinese government and all the Chinese mining farms and exchanges. Your little "western whitey festival" isn't really representative of the group currently in control of bitcoin's direction.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
On average 30%+ of VC investment money is lost, 50% never returns a profit and 20% return enough to be considered a success. There's going to be a hell of a lot of losers in that building.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
On average 30%+ of VC investment money is lost, 50% never returns a profit and 20% return enough to be considered a success. There's going to be a hell of a lot of losers in that building.
January 12, 2017, 05:03:58 PM
When it started Bitcoin was 90% of what people talked about related to blockchain. I like the other people attending because they can learn from the Bitcoin people and Bitcoin can learn from them.
Good roundtable info.
Good roundtable info.
January 11, 2017, 08:01:04 AM
if its a "satoshi" round table then its about bitcoin..
if you want to make it about blockchain.. then call it the S-haber round table..
S. Haber 1992
if its not about discussing ways to improve things. and more about just some social ass kissing and talking about each others deepest secrets behind a closed door.. then they are literally in the closet.
so call it an S-haber closet meeting
please note this post does contain humour although content has validity.
if you want to make it about blockchain.. then call it the S-haber round table..
S. Haber 1992
Quote
Once hashing functions are chosen, such a scheme could be carried out like a world championship tournament: Heterogeneous local networks could govern local subtrees [pools] under the scrutiny of local participants, and regional “winners”[miners] could be combined into global winners under the scrutiny of all interested parties[nodes]. Global communication facilities are required, and a broadcast protocol must be agreed upon, but no centralized service bureau need administer or profit from this system.
...
we consider the linking protocol. In certain applications, such as a laboratory notebook, it is crucial not only to have a trustworthy date for each entry[blocks] but also to establish in a trustworthy manner the exact sequence[chain] in which all entries[blocks] were made.
Linear linking of one entry to the next[chain] provides the most straightforward means of achieving this. Next we consider the difference between the random-witness method and the tree method.
...
Given these tradeoffs, we imagine that the three methods may be used in a complementary fashion, as the following example illustrates. An individual or company might use linear linking to time-stamp its own accounting records, sending the final summary value[blocks] for a given time period to a service maintained by a group of individuals[miners] or parties[pools]. This service constructs linked trees at regular intervals.[blocktime]
...
we consider the linking protocol. In certain applications, such as a laboratory notebook, it is crucial not only to have a trustworthy date for each entry[blocks] but also to establish in a trustworthy manner the exact sequence[chain] in which all entries[blocks] were made.
Linear linking of one entry to the next[chain] provides the most straightforward means of achieving this. Next we consider the difference between the random-witness method and the tree method.
...
Given these tradeoffs, we imagine that the three methods may be used in a complementary fashion, as the following example illustrates. An individual or company might use linear linking to time-stamp its own accounting records, sending the final summary value[blocks] for a given time period to a service maintained by a group of individuals[miners] or parties[pools]. This service constructs linked trees at regular intervals.[blocktime]
Quote
The name "Round Table" is not directly drawn from Arthurian Legend; rather both its title and its maxim comes from a speech made to the British Industries Fair in 1927 by the then HRH Prince Edward, Prince of Wales 'The young business and professional men of this country must get together round the table, adopt methods that have proved so sound in the past, adapt them to the changing needs of the times and wherever possible, improve them'. The phrase "adopt, adapt, improve" is a key facet of the organisation, and is often seen on Round Table literature and regalia.
if its not about discussing ways to improve things. and more about just some social ass kissing and talking about each others deepest secrets behind a closed door.. then they are literally in the closet.
so call it an S-haber closet meeting
please note this post does contain humour although content has validity.
January 11, 2017, 07:11:35 AM
Capacity is not the main topic for a lot of attendees.
I also think it's good to get Bitcoin and non Bitcoin blockchain people together
I also think it's good to get Bitcoin and non Bitcoin blockchain people together
January 10, 2017, 08:15:13 PM
bruce have fun in miami
just be sure to highlight the 6 points i make in post #7 and the hardware wallet wristband idea in post #11
oh and lastly. can the devs really try to do a different TX priority calculation that actually works for the purpose its intended.
EG not biased towards rich holders able to spam blocks every block just by holding 144btc with a 250byte tx
while pushing developing countries out as 'spam' if they held 0.1btc and required to wait a week for their 250byte tx to register as priority
EG instead of the old
(total tx value*confirmations)/tx bytesize
with target of 57,600,000
which is a richman/poorman emphasis calculation.
change it to be something more fair and actually practical at solving the problem of tx's(bloat and regular spending spam attempts)
EG
((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))
where the target number is set based on mempool demand by a separate target calculation
which is more about bloat control.. NOT income snobbery..
where low coin maturity(age) and higher byte size penalizes them
and it also factors in future blocksize increases over time to actually gives more of an allowance in the priority as blocksize buffer increases.
but dont worry about my example. just tell the devs to sort themselves out and do some code rules instead of using fee's as the motivator. because fee's dont motivate people to be more leaner with their tx's or less spammier.. it just makes honourable people pay more due malicious spammers.
i say this below with a slight edge of humour although its content has got merit to think about:
if anyone starts rebuttling about gigabyte blocksizes. please slap them with a reality stick or a wet fish and remind them that the actual proposals offered are actually workable and within reason.. no one has proposed gigabyte blocks.. not tomorrow, not next year not even the next decade.
if core actually help the community with dynamic block release starting at 2-4mb this year. to allow unbiased non-bandcamp creating equal and free choice..
then later once activated
if nodes cannot cope with a certain size(EG 8mb+) in say 2020
the nodes will not flag desire for a certain size (EG 8mb+ in say 2020) meaning a consensus wont go beyond what is capable by the majority.
consensus itself can solve the 'what if it gets too big' problem by the nodes who are struggling, not voting to go big. it does not need devs with secret agenda's holding it bake using fake doomsdays to scare the community...
let the nodes decide..
thus pools wont push the activation if they know nodes cant cope(yep i said nodes, not devs). 2-4mb is already deemed safe so no point holding back 1mb.
and it will grow naturally when the majority can cope with more.
there is no point limiting natural growth purely with potsmoking fuelled fake stores of unnatural and stupidly irrational growth doomsdays. when the community have only proposed rational and safe numbers..(2-4mb)
bigger edge if humour:
maybe next year rename is to the 'satoshi roundtable' to 'blockchain closet' to emphasise its no longer about bitcoin(satoshi) and its also behind closed doors
just be sure to highlight the 6 points i make in post #7 and the hardware wallet wristband idea in post #11
oh and lastly. can the devs really try to do a different TX priority calculation that actually works for the purpose its intended.
EG not biased towards rich holders able to spam blocks every block just by holding 144btc with a 250byte tx
while pushing developing countries out as 'spam' if they held 0.1btc and required to wait a week for their 250byte tx to register as priority
EG instead of the old
(total tx value*confirmations)/tx bytesize
with target of 57,600,000
which is a richman/poorman emphasis calculation.
change it to be something more fair and actually practical at solving the problem of tx's(bloat and regular spending spam attempts)
EG
((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))
where the target number is set based on mempool demand by a separate target calculation
which is more about bloat control.. NOT income snobbery..
where low coin maturity(age) and higher byte size penalizes them
and it also factors in future blocksize increases over time to actually gives more of an allowance in the priority as blocksize buffer increases.
but dont worry about my example. just tell the devs to sort themselves out and do some code rules instead of using fee's as the motivator. because fee's dont motivate people to be more leaner with their tx's or less spammier.. it just makes honourable people pay more due malicious spammers.
i say this below with a slight edge of humour although its content has got merit to think about:
if anyone starts rebuttling about gigabyte blocksizes. please slap them with a reality stick or a wet fish and remind them that the actual proposals offered are actually workable and within reason.. no one has proposed gigabyte blocks.. not tomorrow, not next year not even the next decade.
if core actually help the community with dynamic block release starting at 2-4mb this year. to allow unbiased non-bandcamp creating equal and free choice..
then later once activated
if nodes cannot cope with a certain size(EG 8mb+) in say 2020
the nodes will not flag desire for a certain size (EG 8mb+ in say 2020) meaning a consensus wont go beyond what is capable by the majority.
consensus itself can solve the 'what if it gets too big' problem by the nodes who are struggling, not voting to go big. it does not need devs with secret agenda's holding it bake using fake doomsdays to scare the community...
let the nodes decide..
thus pools wont push the activation if they know nodes cant cope(yep i said nodes, not devs). 2-4mb is already deemed safe so no point holding back 1mb.
and it will grow naturally when the majority can cope with more.
there is no point limiting natural growth purely with potsmoking fuelled fake stores of unnatural and stupidly irrational growth doomsdays. when the community have only proposed rational and safe numbers..(2-4mb)
bigger edge if humour:
maybe next year rename is to the 'satoshi roundtable' to 'blockchain closet' to emphasise its no longer about bitcoin(satoshi) and its also behind closed doors
January 10, 2017, 01:00:31 AM
The World Bank is essentially a government position so
whoever the rep is trying to pretend they can attend
without my authorization from the CCCB is FIRED
whoever the rep is trying to pretend they can attend
without my authorization from the CCCB is FIRED
January 09, 2017, 10:55:54 PM
how many of the attendees would have run the blockchain on their computer in 2011
January 09, 2017, 08:30:10 PM
"I just shat a stinky Marshall Long, but thanks to Poo Pourri nobody's the wiser."
Translated: Thank Jehovah that Marshall Long's not attending if the OP et al. is of any indication.
January 09, 2017, 08:20:51 PM
If you have ideas on how to make it a more balanced mix, I'm all ears.
Who specifically should be invited who is not?
Right now, I think the mix is pretty representative of the industry: dominate by Bitcoin and Bitcoin companies and devs, but with a healthy number of alt coins or non Bitcoin blockchain folks and Ethereum etc and then some investors and service providers.
If you look at its evolution, it should be clear the guest list isn't pushing some agenda -- year one there were very few blockchain people other than Bitcoin so we had 90% Bitcoin and then Vitalik and a couple others. Year 2 it was more of a mix, this year it's almost 50/50 pure Bitcoin / other blockchain projects.
A lot of other blockchain projects have been isolated from bitcoin, I think that it's ideal to get everyone talking -- weaker chains can see the benefits of the Bitcoin chain and Bitcoin can benefit from learning more about what the massive companies want to do.
Who specifically should be invited who is not?
Right now, I think the mix is pretty representative of the industry: dominate by Bitcoin and Bitcoin companies and devs, but with a healthy number of alt coins or non Bitcoin blockchain folks and Ethereum etc and then some investors and service providers.
If you look at its evolution, it should be clear the guest list isn't pushing some agenda -- year one there were very few blockchain people other than Bitcoin so we had 90% Bitcoin and then Vitalik and a couple others. Year 2 it was more of a mix, this year it's almost 50/50 pure Bitcoin / other blockchain projects.
A lot of other blockchain projects have been isolated from bitcoin, I think that it's ideal to get everyone talking -- weaker chains can see the benefits of the Bitcoin chain and Bitcoin can benefit from learning more about what the massive companies want to do.
January 09, 2017, 05:56:53 PM
franky don't be ridiculous, there are anti segwit and anti core people such as Roger Ver invited, so why are you talking the usual bullshit with your Alex Jones tier theories about how blockstream is working with banks, when if anyone is working with banks then that would be Roger Ver and the rest of idiots trying to turn bitcoin into paypal 2.0 by centralizing the nodes with ridiculous block size increases.
The dynamic block size proposal is a failure and doesn't work, how many times does BU need to be debunked for you to get it.
Activate segwit and stfu.
The dynamic block size proposal is a failure and doesn't work, how many times does BU need to be debunked for you to get it.
Activate segwit and stfu.
lol i guess your not a coder or someone that actually runs scenarios, or researches
instead you just get spoonfed some info and stick to a story told to you by atleast 3 people and because their script sounds the same you automatically deem it must be true.
try doing some research
blockstream are tied to hyperledger.. go check out the "members" page of hyperledger
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members
then count the number of attendee's that are paid blockstream devs. then count the number of attendee's that are hyperledger members. and you will see its not a 50:50 split of pro:anti core.. its 80-90% pro-core(blockstream)
but hey you cant argue the facts.. so instead you wanna sling insults instead.
try backing up your statement that the meeting is unbiased, and dont just throw in an empty gesture reference. show something of real equal substance
also LN is paypal2.0... go research it..
and i mean really research it. really understand and read all the details of how core/blockstream devs want the hub managers to work/make income/control channels..
learn CLTV (in human real world usage terms its like the 3-5business day hold on 'available bank balance' paypal does)
learn CSV revokes (in human real world usage terms its like the chargebacks paypal does)
look at the 'penalty fees' blockstream devs have as a concept for mitigating issues.
learn who is actually offering the paypal2.0 and be part of reality.. not part of a misdirecting story you have been told
January 09, 2017, 05:34:13 PM
franky don't be ridiculous, there are anti segwit and anti core people such as Roger Ver invited, so why are you talking the usual bullshit with your Alex Jones tier theories about how blockstream is working with banks, when if anyone is working with banks then that would be Roger Ver and the rest of idiots trying to turn bitcoin into paypal 2.0 by centralizing the nodes with ridiculous block size increases.
The dynamic block size proposal is a failure and doesn't work, how many times does BU need to be debunked for you to get it.
Activate segwit and stfu.
The dynamic block size proposal is a failure and doesn't work, how many times does BU need to be debunked for you to get it.
Activate segwit and stfu.
January 09, 2017, 05:32:56 PM
I am sorry, but no Satoshi no party.
January 09, 2017, 05:31:54 PM
Remember -- no matter what the APPEARANCE is of transparency NO meeting is really transparent.
US Congress broadcasts everything ...doesn't work.
I could annoy everyone, park streaming cameras in the room and broadcast every minute --- the companies and others would simply alter what they say and tailor it to an audience and most would be silent.... then at dinner people would break off into groups and end up talking over coffee until 2am ...if we recorded dinner convos they'd head to the bar...if we recorded thst they'd head to their hotel rooms.
My suggestion: anything you are concerned about, publicly ask a company what their position is and hold them to their words
US Congress broadcasts everything ...doesn't work.
I could annoy everyone, park streaming cameras in the room and broadcast every minute --- the companies and others would simply alter what they say and tailor it to an audience and most would be silent.... then at dinner people would break off into groups and end up talking over coffee until 2am ...if we recorded dinner convos they'd head to the bar...if we recorded thst they'd head to their hotel rooms.
My suggestion: anything you are concerned about, publicly ask a company what their position is and hold them to their words
January 09, 2017, 05:28:49 PM
As far as the privacy, there are a million things that people don't want public:
- criticizing someone
- disagreeing with a business plan (example, ABC company just got startup funding for an editable blockchain project -- if I think that's a bad idea I'm not likely to say so publicly because I don't want to harm them ...I'd rather talk to them and convince them)
- discussions of joint ventures or deals that are not public
- discussions of challenges (XYZ Funded company keeps losing key staff and thinks it's hurting the business badly, they want advice from fellow CEOs...they would not ask this publicly because they don't want to cause alarm or scare off customers)
- is _____ a scam? Privately I will circulate names like I have concerns about ____ and here are the concerns -- I won't do so publicly unless it's like OneCoin and I'm 100% absolutely sure it's a scam. If I'm only 90% sure I won't tweet it because I don't want the risk of slandering a good business
Etc.
- criticizing someone
- disagreeing with a business plan (example, ABC company just got startup funding for an editable blockchain project -- if I think that's a bad idea I'm not likely to say so publicly because I don't want to harm them ...I'd rather talk to them and convince them)
- discussions of joint ventures or deals that are not public
- discussions of challenges (XYZ Funded company keeps losing key staff and thinks it's hurting the business badly, they want advice from fellow CEOs...they would not ask this publicly because they don't want to cause alarm or scare off customers)
- is _____ a scam? Privately I will circulate names like I have concerns about ____ and here are the concerns -- I won't do so publicly unless it's like OneCoin and I'm 100% absolutely sure it's a scam. If I'm only 90% sure I won't tweet it because I don't want the risk of slandering a good business
Etc.
Jump to: