Topic: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick! - page 3. (Read 1984 times)

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

Perhaps if you were less interested in FUD, you'd have used a Subject line more like:

"Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: I intend to uphold [my promise] as best I can"

That is at least something I can actually find in the quote.

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?

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.

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.

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Most of them don't really care about bitcoins future, they want to earn lots of money without much effort and little maintenance/electricity fees.

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.

[–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 2 points 17 hours ago

HaoBTC, in the future, if you have concerns or questions that need clarification and/or answering, please just ask, rather than posting on a blog that we probably don't read and might not even notice...

Things that we tried to make clear both at the meeting itself, as well as afterward on social media:

    Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)
    There was no hardfork promised (not even all the Core dev team has authority to do that), only code that could be recommended for one. (This also was made VERY clear.)
    The hardfork proposal promised was not a "2 MB hardfork", but a hardfork that would include as one minor change, the ability to include up to 2 MB of current witness-included-in-txid (anyone-can-malleate) transactions.
    Miners have no leverage to make demands. If they attempt to hardfork without community consensus, they harm only themselves, while Bitcoin moves on without them. (At least for my part, my goal of the agreement was to end division and argumentation, which did not happen, admittedly not because of the fault of many of the agreement participants.)
    The July 2016 estimate was not part of the agreement, and certainly not a deadline. It was (at the time) a reasonable expectation based on the agreement terms.
    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).

Admittedly, both at the meeting and now, I consider the "SegWit delayed until HF is released in Core" position some miners took to be unviable, and that miners will be pressured to deploy it much sooner by the community. After all, not deploying segwit literally means they are preventing the block size increase. However, I understand the agreement places no such obligation on them.

Since the agreement was made:

    SegWit has still not yet been included in a release. Thus the three months deadline has not even begun "counting" yet. (I still aspire to have something by the end of July if possible, but I consider this to be above and beyond the agreed-on terms.)
    Discussions have revealed that the goal of expanding space for anyone-can-malleate transactions loses the necessary performance improvements included with SegWit to make larger blocks safer, thus cannot safely be done without ugly hacks to introduce new limits similar to BIP 109 which might become a nuisance to Bitcoin both today and in the future. This isn't a show-stopper to writing code, but it may make it difficult to come up with something that unbiased parties can recommend.
    Many third parties have expressed that they will under no conditions consent to a hardfork that comes out of this or any other political agreement. This won't block code nor recommentation, but it does guarantee such a proposal cannot be adopted.
    Some developer(s) have expressed concerns that doing a hardfork safely ("soft hardfork") is somehow "unethical" to them, and doing it unsafely will require even greater efforts on ensuring consensus is reached not only from the community, but also that there are no nodes accidentally left behind. This isn't a blocker, but it probably makes deployment much harder.