Topic: Consensus Reached - page 2. (Read 5225 times)

pay no attention to lauda trying to twist everything. it was only 1 month ago that he thought bitcoin was programmed in java.. which reveals how little he really knows.

miners have actually tweaked their implementations to be more efficient for mining. so it wont take much for them to implement the 2mb buffer without needing core to hold their hand. so although core wants to stay on their 2 year roadmap of delaying 2mb until mid 2017. the miners and community do not need core to do it..

what would be helpful is that if the growth of the indicators that 2mb is going to happen soon. that core also release a version with the code aswell. that way their fanboys are not left behind causing contention, but also going with the majority and not causing contention.

80% hashing power and a bunch of devs all agreeing to somthing that most of the community likes is toothless???

  


this agreement awesome!

its this or we continue the blocksizebitchfest indefinitely

take your pick.

No. I don't think you understood the point of this meeting. This has nothing to do with Blockstream nor the other people from Core (who were not present). The people present there can only represent themselves. This statement ensures continued work on Segwit and the work on a HF proposal (note: by the people who signed the statement). They will submit the HF proposal and then we will see what happens. The developers might not like it, the community might not like it, etc. We can't know right now.

The thing is that only a small minority (5?) of the blockstream core devs signed the document. The blockstream core devs that did not sign the document can do and say whatever they wish and not loose their credibility. It would be possible that the blockstream core devs would release and (publicly) support a HF that *only* changes the maximum block size to 2 MB (yet still takes ~5 months to release), then all/most of the other blockstream core devs would strongly oppose this HF, effectively torpedoing it. In this scenario, no one would technically be reneging on their word yet the maximum block size would still be at 1 MB. This is why it would have been more advantageous for the blockstream core devs to have to deliver consensus on a HF before SegWit is implemented and before the economic/mining stakeholders agreement to not run Classic goes into effect.....eg. no consensus, no agreement.

Not having all of the blockstream core devs sign the agreement is what effectively makes it toothless.

It also just to happens that the blockstream core devs who work for blockstream are advocating a particular side of an argument that is something that I believe would be beneficial to their employer.

Are there any outstanding bandwidth and HD doomsday stories that need to be debunked?

I don't watch a whole lot of Netflix, but when I do, according to Netflix, I download about 3 GB of data every hour, which works out to roughly 50 MB every minute, or roughly 833 kb every second. It would take me roughly 2.4 seconds to download a full 2 MB block in that time, and assuming download speeds are the same as upload speeds, I could relay a 2 MB block to 8 peers in roughly 19 seconds.

The above assumes that I am consuming all of my bandwidth capacity watching Netflix, which I am not considering that I am able to watch an HD show while simultaneously browsing the internet without any issues.  

This will not happen. The only reason for which you are thinking of this is because Luke-jr made a proposal to change the algorithm. People reacted in panic. I can write a BIP on why we should increase the supply to 100 trillion and propose it. This does not mean that it is going to happen.
Which tells us that the propaganda behind Blockstream is foolish at best. As Mark F. has stated, people at Blockstream are allowed to think for themselves and strongly voice their opinions. The people who have been at the consensus roundtable can only (truly) represent themselves. By this agreement, the people who signed the statement have to come up with a HF proposal between April and July. How about we first wait and see? Luke-jr (IIRC) even asked for help (reddit, IIRC) so that they get it out in May.

once all the bandwidth and hard drive doomsday stories got debunked. and the only remaining defense was contention of those who dont upgrade becoming left behind.. it makes no rational reason to choose to stay behind purely for the worry that staying behind leaves you stuck behind..

thats something that has been racking my brain for the last year why core was so adement against the blocksize since summer of last year, when the only issue would be that they themselves by not providing a compatible version would cause their fanboys to be left behind..

the even funnier thing is that the roadmap last year stated they were thinking about putting in the 2mb in 2017. and so nothing has really changed.. the community for months now has been trying to get core to alter their roadmap to bring the basic changes into aprils update to get 2mb available before christmas.. but now the PR wagon of blockstream are going to pretend that they have given in to the community as if july 2017 is other peoples idea, even though it was part of the plan since 2015

if they do torpedo the HF.... then there word means nothing, and no one will want to follow a bunch of liars weather or not they agree with them. already a huge % of poeple are unhappy with core, for whatever reason, but we'll stick with them because core + miners were able to came up with something we can all agree on. breaking their word mean that % of people automatically leave, and i wouldn't be surprised if there supports leave simply because no one likes being lied to.

I lack the technical knowledge to give all the possibilities that could be included in a HF that would essentially make the 2 MB HF a deal breaker, however one possibility is that the mining algo is changed in a way so that current ASICs cannot continue to mine (note: changing the mining algo is currently on the Hardfork Wishlist).

From the looks of it however, it appears that several blockstream core devs are already opposed to the HF (that currently only has changing the maximum block size to 2 MB in what is changing), so even if there are no controversial features in the HF, it is possible there will be significant resistance to the HF from the blockstream devs.

I think it probably would have been more sensible for the agreement to state that a consensus for a HF must be delivered by x date and then there could be a soft fork that allows for SegWit. This would essentially close the loophole of blockstream devs who did not attend the roundtable of torpedoing any HF that increases the maximum block size

finally we have a breath of fresh air.
A new era of stability seems to be coming to bitcoin. This will strengthen the currency and the community

hold the phone.

I am for segwit, i loudly supported it when it first came out, i may have expressed some concerns about its complexity, but i'm all for segwit, and praised Core for delivering on their promise of taking more time to come up with a better solution than simply bumping the limit. I got pissed a bit when i heard peter todd's interview suggesting that segwit was as good as it gets and core will never touch blocksizelimit. But now I am quite happy with the consensus reached, I feel this whole processes had lead to a very good solution / plan. as painful as it was it was worth it.

I will now continue to loudly support the new agreement that core and miners hashed out.

I'm a bit clueless about all of this to be honest but trying to make sense of it. This seems like on the whole it will be good for the BTC price in the short-term at least yeah? Too hard to speculate on how that affects the long term price though I guess?

I did not say that they'd create a credible argument against it. What I meant was if the poster read the thread he'd know that this would not stop here (I don't expect it to either).

Apparently he came right after you called. Luckily I have such doltish people on ignore and don't have to bother.

Divide et impera. After their 'technical' and 'political' arguments lose their ground they resort to attacking the people on the other side to discredit them. However, that doesn't seem to be working either. I wonder what is next?

are people still thinking that lauda is making any logical debate.

about a month ago Lauda wasnt even sure what language bitcoin was programmed in

20:24 Lauda: Bitcoin does not use Java right?

he has no clue about the code, he doesnt seem to read the code as if he even read just a few lines of it, he would know its not java.. and so this proves that he only looks at the glossy PR adverts and videos that summarize it all, which is normally biased in favour of the coders that made the features.

i have debunked nearly every possible excuse he could find to say 2mb wont work. by showing him it can work

i doubt he even runs a full node because there is even proof that he has no clue about how long it takes to initially sync up a node,
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453065740.0
and it seems if he ever set up a node he would not run it on his own computer but on a VPS
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453065539.0

so i am not sure why people even interact with lauda. he does not know the code and is endlessly getting things wrong

as for carlton and icebreaker.
they just love drama. they know deep down that the code can be implemented into any version, that includes core too.. but to them its never been about code, its been about trying to accuse people of wanting to be in a band camp of gavin to attempt to say its a bad idea just on that.

when they realise that the 2mb desire is nothing about gavin and is about code that can be implemented by anyone they will grow up and stop doing the gavin vs back cries.. and realise that its a 1mb vs 2mb debate.

Bah, who in this thread is supposed to have a credible argument against SegWit? adamstgbit and QuickSeller?  This is terrifying propaganda, they'll be sicking Frankie1 on it next lol

The various campaigns against Bitcoin as seen by Wuille/Maxwell/Friedenbach etc always had a faint hint of desperation about them, because it was always going to be heavily reliant on success, at least on a 2nd attempt. They've failed many times now. The tactics will change, possibly very quickly.

No. Especially not when you see al the FUD spreading.
Coinbase is not going to just let it go!

Read the thread. It is unlikely that this is going to be the end. Do you think that the people behind the (well funded) campaign would just give up so easily?

at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.

There is less uncertainty now as we are sure what the way forward should be. This should have a positive effect overall (not just the price). However, there are still shill/sadists/other that are complaining on r/btc/.

FUD indeed, misleading article at best. Brian should be ignored, but Mark has a point though. This shows us the following: Core is not equal to Blockstream; Core is compromised of independent volunteers with different opinions, ergo conspiracies in regards to Blockstream are foolish at best. The people who took part in the meeting can't represent everyone from Core either, they represent themselves. Those who have reached consensus are to present a valid HF proposal between April and July. Mark (as an example) has every right to not participate in this (he can always just give input).

well it was looking good...now I see this is in the news...man a guy can't get a break from all the FUD on all this. IMHO use the frigging 'consensus' roadmap for now and then use
consensus on the hard fork. I mean if the big boys can't play nice and at least point in one direction w/o getting slam'd for it ...this is all just one big cluster**** and btc is doomed

sheesh agree on something to vote it down would be an improvement imho ....rather then just running around saying 'my way or the highway"

link below on the FUD part of all this

http://bitcoinist.net/core-devs-and-classic-adopters-alike-disagree-with-roundtable-resolutions/

whats is the benefit to us if the Consensus Reached ?