Topic: Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus? (Read 2919 times)

The guy that tried to patent Hot Wallet doesn't impress us much either. Surprise.

Actually let me rephrase this: If it was about 'banksters' wouldn't Armstrong (i.e. Coinbase) be supportive of Core, not Classic?

We're Bitcoiners. They're in bed with banksters. How is it not obvious?

What is wrong with you people? You've become completely obsessed with Blockstream. How can a claim "is now controlled by" be valid when this is just one of many investors? Quite strange.

Wasting everyone's time as always.

Apparently it isn't for people who are supportive of Classic.

Core is not a centralized group. It would be hard to get a statement signed by all of the developers (many different views/approaches). Besides, there was no mentioned of '2 MB' in the statement, was there?

Labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid especially when it happens to be true.

The CEO of AXA strategic investments, a primary investor in Blockstream, just so happens to be a chairman of the Bilderberg meetings and also an HSBC banking boardmember.

I will have to do some more research to see if it's true but so far it's looking like it is.

I like how some conspiracy theorists are correlating the Bilderberg Group with Blockstream...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/

Proposal reached at the round table consensus was a success for Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin classic.
It will proof to be beneficial in the long term.

i understand it's not guaranteed, i would however like some kind of statement that Core devs at least wants to go ahead with 2MB limit.
if i go by what i'm hearing its almost guaranteed that they will simply say "decentralization", "dangerous HF" and then call it off THEMSELVES.
are they genuinely backing the 2MB proposal? or did they simply agree to shoot it down again next year?
this is more of a rant than anything else... not worth responding to:
Vladimir said "I'm all for it" thats a start, but  Vladimir is another one of these leaders with no balls like Adam of blockstream, at least that what it SEEMS like. If you can't speak on behalf of your team and or make the tough calls when your team members can't agree your not a leader.

TL;DR:
Satoshi's Round Table Classic (the original) reaffirmed the spirit of cooperation and innovation.
Satoshi's Round Table: The Last Supper (the one below) will re-reaffirm the spirit of cooperation and innovation.
"Unflinching fun for the whole family. I laughed, I cried."--Charles Manson
"Uncompromisingly transgressive"--David Koresh

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to tell a few people but they are unable to comprehend it apparently. There is no guarantee that the HF is going to be accepted/going to happen. Also anybody can write their own BIP (proposal) for a HF. With this agreement the developers who signed it have to make a proposal and code it before July (if they fail to do so, then the agreement is done and they lose trust && reputation).

From the consensus letter


It is possible for Bitcoin Core to reject the HF recommendation.


So, I read this as saying that nothing is set in stone yet, i.e. a HF is not guaranteed to happen.

You're either being naive or disingenuous.

Validation time is quadratic. This means that somebody could construct a transaction (at 2 MB) that would take too long to validate (over 10 minutes). BIP109 does not solve this, but adds a limit to the size of transactions. Segwit on the other hand scales down the validation time making it linear.

Again, you didn't understand the roundtable at all. The people who were present there (some Core developers) have to present a HF proposal and code between April and July. This does imply that this proposal will be implemented/accepted by either developers/miners/community (i.e. no guarantee). You first have to wait for the actual proposal. How many times do I have to tell you this?

lets try to get back on track here.

Questions...

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

or maybe a better question, did the roundtable have any effect on anything or anyone? has anything changed due to the roundtable?

Yes, exactly... if there are deficiencies with the proposal, then the burden is on the presenter to amend it in ways in order to make it acceptable.

This is exactly the point that so many people miss, and they cannot wrap their heads around the logic.

The burden is not on the status quo to provide the road map, but instead it is on the presenter of the proposed change to both show proof that the change is needed and that their proposal adequately addresses the described problem.  It appears quite clear that BIP 109 does not meet either the burden of persuasion or the burden of production.

I think that these are very important points that are explained in a fairly easy to understand way.

In essence BIP 109 - (referring to classic, right?), is attempting to undermine bitcoin with at least the couple of unacceptable terms that you highlighted above - 1) too short of a "grace period"  and 2) too low of a threshold for consensus.

I don't understand the point about the "quadratic validation" problem, but the first two issues of undermining consensus seem sufficient in order to cause the proposal to be totally and completely unacceptable.

I think from the totality of my post, I already indicated that you seem to be the FUDster, rather than Lauda.

Lauda provided you a sufficiently specific response, and I elaborated a bit on it in order to more specifically outline the general dynamics and the kinds of folks that are against bitcoin being successful.  No more specifics are needed, and if you are requesting specifics, either you are trolling, or you are quasi-retarded.... The trolling part seems more likely, but surely it is possible that you are not too smart, yet I doubt that you are retarded... but what the fuck do I know?




There's no need you fucking goofball - there's all kinds of information out there regarding plots to undermine bitcoin, but o.k... let me play along for a little bit in order to entertain your seemingly bullshit attempts at trolling... Have you ever heard of the USA government (surely the US govt is not a monolithic entity, but there are various policing forces and financial branches that consider bitcoin to be a threat to the USA government in terms of finances and in terms of population control)?  Have you ever heard of JP Morgan?  We don't really need to go into any more details... it's not necessary to outline each and every anti-bitcoin organization (or individual) that is considerably motivated to spend resources to undermine bitcoin.



More or less, I already said it.  Ether you are being a goofball, you are a goofball or you are trolling for information that is not really necessary to explain further. 

My feels. They hurt.

Makes sense. Less french people there. Less chance of you switching sides.