Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion
Pages:
Author

Topic: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick! - page 2. (Read 1984 times)

AgentofCoin
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 01:55:43 PM
#31
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:44:10 PM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.
Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol. Smiley

The agreement terms is the agreement. There is nothing more.
Seems the media mislead everyone, since they added and subtracted to the agreed terms within their articles.

If the miners were not happy with the terms at the time, they could have walked away and said, "no deal".
Instead, all signatories managed to agree to what they themselves could agree to.

Whether the agreement is a good one or not is not relevant.
The issue is whether people are breaching their agreed duties.
I believe (without full knowledge) that no breach could have occurred from the Core signatories since
the 2MB HF terms agreed to only activate when SegWit is released. Their part would begin now.
giggidy23
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 01:44:10 PM
#30
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.
Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol. Smiley

@Lauda, your views about anything straying from the core party line are well known.
If you have nothing of substance to contribute, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post in this thread. thanks.
Lauda
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 01:36:46 PM
#29
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM
If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.
This is obvious to pretty much any non-shill and reasonable member. Even after it was initially a bit confusing to some, the community tried to clarify wherever and whenever possible.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM
What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.
They don't have anything. This account was created for the sole purpose of attacking people. Do you really expect reasonable arguments from such?
AgentofCoin
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM
#28
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.
Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?

The agreement is actually very simple.
The Core signers agreed to propose and lobby for a 2MB HF, three months after SegWit is officially released.
giggidy23
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
#27
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.
Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

P.S. You still haven't explained what you think is happening in those pics. plz do.
Carlton Banks
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:57:21 PM
#26
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 12:46:34 PM
You know what promising something you can't deliver is called in the vernacular? It's called LYING LIKE A FUCKING RUG.

Do something. Oh no, that's right, you're doing it, lol. As you were, ladies and gentlemen. Roll Eyes
giggidy23
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:56:29 PM
#25
Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 28, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Do you feel that "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team" is not, in substance, equivalent to "we didn't promise you dick"?

Not at all.

There is nothing equivalent about that at all.

If I promise to vote against BREXIT, and I promise to campaign against BREXIT, but I make it very clear to you that I do not get the final say all by myself, that my vote may be insufficient and that my campaigning may not sway enough people.
Had the core devs promised to campaign for the shit they promised to do, you'd have a decent point. They didn't. They promised to do it.
The difference may seem subtle, but it's there.

Quote
Is that equivalent to "I don't promise you dick"?

Perhaps you believe me to be influential enough that you value that promise from me.  As long as I fulfill my promise to the best of my ability, I've done my part. Even if BREXIT passes.
"I never promised to pay you back, I promised to try to pay you back. I didn't even promise to try very hard, lol, did I?"
Try pulling that IRL, Danny.
AgentofCoin
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
#24
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 12:46:34 PM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 10:26:42 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media:

Bitcoin Core & Miners Agree on Scaling Roadmap: Hard Fork Code Comes July 2016, Activation in 2017

Doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is the terms of the contract or agreement.
Almost 100% of the time the media gets the story/issues wrong. No one should base their knowledge
of issues from bitcoin media (especially when they are constantly wrong and half the time paid to shill altcoins).
You're telling me that the press and everyone on this forum misconstrued this?


And not a single core dev has seen it fit to correct such a grievous error?

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.
Roll Eyes
Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

I don't really understand the issue. If "Core" provides information on their site as to the roadmap or etc,
then "Core" takes an official stance and is attempting to comply/enforce/implement such a stance.
If a few Core contributors to the Bitcoin code make an agreement with anyone, even God himself,
descended from heaven, that does not bind the remaining Core Contributors (over 80 at least) to such
an agreement.

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

ELI5 what the core devs thought they were doing here, you keep artfully redacting shit:



What is the point of "reaching an agreement," issuing fancy press releases and posing for those nauseating pics when such agreements are fundamentally impossible in Bitcoin?

You know what promising something you can't deliver is called in the vernacular? It's called LYING LIKE A FUCKING RUG.

It's not artfully redacting anything. Those things are worthless to the actual issues at hand.
(Also, they take up a lot of space on this page, so a small posting turns into half a page.)

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

If you can't do that, which is simple, then you are putting forth an incorrect argument.
There is then no other action that may be taken other than going in circles.

You can not cite pictures and articles from bitcoin media as to what occurred.
Only the terms of the agreement is the guiding instrument.

I am arguing contract law and you are arguing pictures and media.


Cuidler
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:50:41 PM
#23
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:05:54 PM
It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

The appeal to Bitcoin Core authority is very dangerous for Bitcoin future in my opinion, few people with bitcoin github commit access have too much power given to them currently from miners obviously, and not just chinese miners.

To demonstrate Bitcoin open-source, more parties should come up with their repos with code improvements and modifications to Bitcoin protocol both soft and hard, competetion is much safer Bitcoin future, no risk of few key persons to define Bitcoin rules, thus only the hashrate which secure Bitcoin should have final word.

The HK agreement defining miners must run only Bitcoin Core is the worst that could happen, as monopoly is never best option. And I dont believe anyone who believes they deliver the best code and Bitcoin is open-source, availabe for anyone to modify and define Bitcoin would demand this - it seems the few key persons with bitcoin github commit access thinks only they have such privilege.
giggidy23
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:46:34 PM
#22
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 10:26:42 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media:

Bitcoin Core & Miners Agree on Scaling Roadmap: Hard Fork Code Comes July 2016, Activation in 2017

Doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is the terms of the contract or agreement.
Almost 100% of the time the media gets the story/issues wrong. No one should base their knowledge
of issues from bitcoin media (especially when they are constantly wrong and half the time paid to shill altcoins).
You're telling me that the press and everyone on this forum misconstrued this?
https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg
And not a single core dev has seen it fit to correct such a grievous error?

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.
Roll Eyes
Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

I don't really understand the issue. If "Core" provides information on their site as to the roadmap or etc,
then "Core" takes an official stance and is attempting to comply/enforce/implement such a stance.
If a few Core contributors to the Bitcoin code make an agreement with anyone, even God himself,
descended from heaven, that does not bind the remaining Core Contributors (over 80 at least) to such
an agreement.

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

ELI5 what the core devs thought they were doing here, you keep artfully redacting shit:
https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg

What is the point of "reaching an agreement," issuing fancy press releases and posing for those nauseating pics when such agreements are fundamentally impossible in Bitcoin?

You know what promising something you can't deliver is called in the vernacular? It's called LYING LIKE A FUCKING RUG.
Kprawn
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:13:17 PM
#21
They can make all the promises they want, but if it's not done in the correct manner, Bitcoin will suffer worst consequences than a few miners throwing a temper tantrum. Yes, the miners is one of the building

blocks of this experiment, but they are not the only partner in this. There are 1000's of people with millions of dollars invested in this too, and the Core developers have to protect their interest too. The main

goal will have to be to keep the network secure and stable.  Roll Eyes ... If that is not done first, everyone will suffer losses.
AgentofCoin
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:05:54 PM
#20
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 10:26:42 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media...

Doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is the terms of the contract or agreement.
Almost 100% of the time the media gets the story/issues wrong. No one should base their knowledge
of issues from bitcoin media (especially when they are constantly wrong and half the time paid to shill altcoins).

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.
Roll Eyes
Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

I don't really understand the issue. If "Core" provides information on their site as to the roadmap or etc,
then "Core" takes an official stance and is attempting to comply/enforce/implement such a stance.
If a few Core contributors to the Bitcoin code make an agreement with anyone, even God himself,
descended from heaven, that does not bind the remaining Core Contributors (over 80 at least) to such
an agreement.

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

Lauda
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 12:02:35 PM
#19
Another shill account created in order to spread FUD. Isn't this just classic? Roll Eyes
Luke-jr handled the situation decently especially considering this part:
Quote
Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties).
Isn't it amusing how the /r/btc parade wants to burn luke-jr on a stake (even though he has done nothing wrong here) but ignores the fact that it was already violated by another party?
franky1
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4788
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 11:54:29 AM
#18
Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 28, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Not at all.

There is nothing equivalent about that at all.

If I promise to vote against BREXIT, and I promise to campaign against BREXIT, but I make it very clear to you that I do not get the final say all by myself, that my vote may be insufficient and that my campaigning may not sway enough people...

Is that equivalent to "I don't promise you dick"?

Perhaps you believe me to be influential enough that you value that promise from me.  As long as I fulfill my promise to the best of my ability, I've done my part. Even if BREXIT passes.


in short we should see an exact copy of bitcoin v0.13(having segwit) in the next few months, but then amended to also including the blocksize changes to, available to download via luke Jr's own github repo.
that way luke Jr forfils his commitment without having to worry about the "vote"

if luke doesnt release the code in his personal repo. then the last year of roundtables and agreements was complete waste of time and luke jr has failed

i do however look forward to seeing lukes version. even if a new "its an altcoin, luke JR should be disassociated from bitcoin, sack him, throw him to the wolves" rhetoric starts up again..
which has already been seen by anyone who has released and blocksize increase code in the past

DannyHamilton
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
#17
EDIT: I should know better than to get involved in nonsense like this.
RawDog
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1026
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 10:51:41 AM
#16
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 08:12:54 AM
Quote from: thejaytiesto on June 28, 2016, 08:07:40 AM
Miners don't know shit about bitcoin. They think that because they run a bunch of miners and keep expanding their mines, that automatically means they know how to scale a protocol worldwide.


...and that's why it's perfectly OK to lie to them.
Besides the fact that the are also stupid, young, Chinese, and totally without balls.  That is why Core/Blockstream owns their silly little yellow asses.  Core/Blockstream owns bitcoin.
rizzlarolla
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1001
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 10:49:10 AM
#15
Signed Luke jnr - Core dev.
or,
Signed Luke jnr - Sole trader.

How can a distinction possibly be made here?
Luke jnr sole trader should not have been negotiating.


giggidy23
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 AM
#14
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 10:26:42 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:39:17 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:06:36 AM
Quote from: Denker on June 28, 2016, 08:34:50 AM
Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media, yeah:

Bitcoin Core & Miners Agree on Scaling Roadmap: Hard Fork Code Comes July 2016, Activation in 2017

But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.
Roll Eyes

Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.
AgentofCoin
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 10:26:42 AM
#13
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:39:17 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:06:36 AM
Quote from: Denker on June 28, 2016, 08:34:50 AM
Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?
giggidy23
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Re: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!
June 28, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
#12
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:39:17 AM
Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:06:36 AM
Quote from: Denker on June 28, 2016, 08:34:50 AM
Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that 9frodulent) contract could be made less valid if I break some clause contained therein?

Also, explain to me what all this was about:

https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 28, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 09:06:36 AM
- snip -
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
- snip -

I read the quote.  I don't see the part where he says, "We Didn't Promise You Dick!"

Did you see quotation marks in the thread topic? Do you know how those work?
Do you feel that "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team" is not, in substance, equivalent to "we didn't promise you dick"?
Pages:
Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion
Jump to: