Topic: Coinbase CEO disagree with "The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus Proposal" - page 2. (Read 3879 times)

In fact, if you carefully analyze this announcement, it is full of holes and incorrect terms(What is that "non-witness data"?), obviously written by someone who don't even understand segwit. So it is just chinese miners are intentionally making a deal, without even look at who is making the deal with them  

Why chinese miners are scared by a hard fork? Because a hard fork might cause large amount of coin withdraw from their FRB operated exchanges and that may cause a bank run on them. So there are lots of shady things going behind the scene

We know that bitcoin is created to prevent FRB from happening, so ironic, now FRB become the tool to prevent bitcoin from happening

there are 100 core devs and 6000 people running nodes. unless there are 100-6000 signatures.. its meaningless

klestin knows its 2016.. he is rebutting Amph who seems to think the halving is july 2017(same time as 2mb gets activated)..

so Klestin is saying that the halving is happening a year ahead(before) cores roadmap for 2mb.. not at the same time, to correct amph.

so lauda, putdown the Java book, and after you finish reading C++ for the first time, get a english dictionary.

Wrong. There are Core developers present.
They are obliged to create an proposal and prepare the code between April and July

Almost everyone is on-board with Segwit. Have you not seen the signatures for the Core roadmap?

Useless propaganda.

No one takes that round table proposal seriously, don't we lack of these kind of announcement/proposal year over year?  

1. None of the core devs are in the meeting, Adam signed that letter as "individual", these days everyone can represent himself as bitcoin CEO
2. The proposal is just a pie in the sky promise, does not provide any details about the hard fork and how it is going to be implemented
3. It is just a move trying to push in an architecture change (SegWit) that is impossible to pass chinese miners or core devs' approval in near future
4. Chinese miners will understand later that they get nothing by doing everything for Blockstream, and trash it just like they trash the classic support proposal

There's a halving in 2020 after the one in 2016 (i.e. every 4 years on average). What are you talking about?

---

---

Update: I might have misunderstood the last part.

He's just a single CEO.

You seem to have missed the "2017" part of "July 2017".  The next halving is a year ahead of this.

who cares?

i disagree with him and strongly vote for core at this stage 

Consensus is reached every new block since 2009.

Nothing ever changed sry.

using the data of people that regularly upgrade
core 0.11.2 = 2563
classic 0.11.2 = 1049

just a few weeks ago it was ~2400:~500   = 1mb 83%:17% 2mb
and now it is as shown above 2563:1049   = 1mb 71%:29% 2mb

so consensus is changing. and not holding strong

dont you see? 1MB holding strong.
There lies the current consensus.

by getting the ball rolling in april with a (generous)70 day consensus (10,000 measure instead of 1000) and followed by a 6 month grace.
giving people about 8 months to wake up and upgrade
would mean that miners can start making 1.001 blocks by christmas this year and slowly get confidence to make bigger blocks by july2017.

but by having 7day consensus in july, and debates about what constitutes consensus for a few months, and then finally triggering the 2mb buffer in july 2017.. miners wont start making 1.001mb blocks until after july.. and wont be getting confidence to grow naturally bigger until christmas 2017..

but here is the funny thing.
this block limit debate has been going on for years, and in summer 2015 a 2mb bip was thought up.. if that was included then. even with a 1 year grace period. it would not have become active until AFTER segwit sorted out the malle issues (spring this year). meaning the last year of debates were meaningless delays for a problem that would not have happened. and for all the doomsday events to have never been doomsdays.

so why delay it any longer

and what makes me laugh is that core think its ok to release a version in november 2015, march 2016 and april 2016 and july 2016..

so if they think its ok to have 4 updates in the space of 8 months... then its certainly ok to have 1 update in that time

segwit + 2MB might - but I agree that July 2017 is probably soon enough.

An unexpected increase is usage might require it sooner, that's all I'm saying, is that I hope they are open to doing it sooner if there is an increase that warrants it.

If you choose the 2 MB block size limit (as Classic proposed), it won't be able to handle that sudden surge in transactions either. So what's the problem again?

He doesn't have to adopt anything. Nobody can force them to upgrade either. It doesn't matter though. He can't stop the activation of Segwit as that is solely up to the miners.

Keep focusing on your trolling on the internet, you're truly a winner.

They're regulated control freaks

From what I understand segwit can handle a lot more than that.

Anyway I've read from another news that the Xapo CEO doesn't wanna adopt the what these roundtable discussions plan to implement. What's up with these service providers?

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

It is way better than rushed HF without consensus and proper rules (e.g. grace period).

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).