Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus? - page 3.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 03:02:35 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 09:34:04 AM

well they need to.
they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

They don't need to talk to Blockstream. Blockstream does not have control over the development.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 09:34:04 AM

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

Because when you are part of Blockstream you are free to express your own views, which is exactly what some did (e.g. maaku).

Quote from: ATguy on February 26, 2016, 11:02:53 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 10:32:29 AM

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked.

Nope. Anyone who thought that a few Core developers could represent a whole decentralized (voluntary) group at the meeting was acting foolish at best. Nobody was tricked. There was zero guarantee that the HF proposal is going to be implemented. The statement says that a proposal has to be presented along with code before July. Patience people.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 10:10:36 AM

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"
so why did they change it back?

I've posted an explanation from Peter on the first page. Have you even read anything that was posted?

what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 09:34:04 AM

well they need to.
they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

They don't need to talk to Blockstream. Blockstream does not have control over the development.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 09:34:04 AM

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

Because when you are part of Blockstream you are free to express your own views, which is exactly what some did (e.g. maaku).

Quote from: ATguy on February 26, 2016, 11:02:53 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 10:32:29 AM

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked.

Nope. Anyone who thought that a few Core developers could represent a whole decentralized (voluntary) group at the meeting was acting foolish at best. Nobody was tricked. There was zero guarantee that the HF proposal is going to be implemented. The statement says that a proposal has to be presented along with code before July. Patience people.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 10:10:36 AM

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"
so why did they change it back?

I've posted an explanation from Peter on the first page. Have you even read anything that was posted?

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 10:32:29 AM

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked. Next time miners should request signature of all Bitcoin Core developers over hashed text before providing their signatures. The number of Bitcoin Core developers saying no hard fork possible and for example luke-jr, one who signed this deal encouraging others on reddit post to create website to sum reasons why hard fork is dangerous for Bitcoin clearly shows even luke-jr intentions are not to make the deal happen (first SegWit then 2MB hard fork activated in July 2017).

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1013

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 26, 2016, 10:10:36 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 09:56:04 PM

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"

so why did they change it back?

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 09:56:04 PM

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"

so why did they change it back?

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1013

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 26, 2016, 08:44:03 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 07:43:48 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 06:55:12 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 06:46:15 AM

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

Why would it be fud to indicate that non specific others want to undermine Bitcoin.

Because there is no information there. It's just something you say to create fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Quote

We all know that and we don't need to name names. There are status quote financial and banks and governments that can lose a lot of money in their various undermining efforts and still make out better if they can keep Bitcoin down for as long as they can.

Name one and show me evidence that they are using this debate in the manner implied to damage Bitcoin.

Quote

It's implicitly spreading FUD to suggest that these entities and persons do not exist and to attempt supporting ways to undermine consensus by pushing for xt and classic that are both admittedly more than block size limits but instead aimed at undermining Bitcoin governance in part through creating internal controversy .

No, you might think I am misleading you or that I am wrong, but I am not spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Dear Vladimir,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJscrxxl_Bg

act like a Fing leader O_O

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 09:56:04 PM

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

Quote from: Kakmakr on February 26, 2016, 01:28:27 AM

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

That's the whole point of this. Divide Bitcoin internally and try to crush it, because the cryptography that it currently uses is not breakable.

well they need to.

they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR
the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

so as i understand it

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

I don't understand well, does it mean blockstream has come to end as we expected?
Or is it just drama or some kind of distraction?

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 07:43:48 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 06:55:12 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 06:46:15 AM

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

Why would it be fud to indicate that non specific others want to undermine Bitcoin.

We all know that and we don't need to name names. There are status quote financial and banks and governments that can lose a lot of money in their various undermining efforts and still make out better if they can keep Bitcoin down for as long as they can.

It's implicitly spreading FUD to suggest that these entities and persons do not exist and to attempt supporting ways to undermine consensus by pushing for xt and classic that are both admittedly more than block size limits but instead aimed at undermining Bitcoin governance in part through creating internal controversy .

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1013

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 06:55:12 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 06:46:15 AM

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

vilain

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

"Exactly. Apparently everyone overreacted due to the small amount of confusion that this caused. The ecosystem is 'kind of' in a state of mess right now when it comes to the community and consensus."

I tottaly agree with you here, there' s a lot of confusion in the air currently.

I'm really surprise the price is still rising despite all that.

Wink

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 06:46:15 AM

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

Quote from: alani123 on February 26, 2016, 06:40:26 AM

If I'm not mistaken, it was requested to attend as individuals and not representing Blockstream. Consensus becomes a tangled web this way though, makes it seem like an agreement can't even be reached among Blockstream's peers, which are the same organisation.

Exactly. Apparently everyone overreacted due to the small amount of confusion that this caused. The ecosystem is 'kind of' in a state of mess right now when it comes to the community and consensus. This is stalling development and wasting people's time. Additionally it does not help at all when people make blind accusations against each other.

Update: You continue to ignore advice and derail the thread; nothing surprising. This has nothing to do with FUD. There is relevant information in other places.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1013

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 06:38:07 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 06:32:27 AM

Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Certain people stand to lose a lot if Bitcoin succeeds to become mainstream. This has nothing to do with the 2 MB block size limit. You need to look at the bigger picture. However, this is off-topic here. There are other places where you might find relevant information.

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

If I'm not mistaken, it was requested to attend as individuals and not representing Blockstream. Consensus becomes a tangled web this way though, makes it seem like an agreement can't even be reached among Blockstream's peers, which are the same organisation.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 26, 2016, 06:32:27 AM

Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Certain people stand to lose a lot if Bitcoin succeeds to become mainstream. This has nothing to do with the 2 MB block size limit. You need to look at the bigger picture. However, this is off-topic here. There are other places where you might find relevant information.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1013

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 09:56:04 PM

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

Quote from: Kakmakr on February 26, 2016, 01:28:27 AM

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

That's the whole point of this. Divide Bitcoin internally and try to crush it, because the cryptography that it currently uses is not breakable.

Who? Who's these shadows lurking in the dark? Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Try to keep it specific please.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 09:56:04 PM

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

Quote from: Kakmakr on February 26, 2016, 01:28:27 AM

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

That's the whole point of this. Divide Bitcoin internally and try to crush it, because the cryptography that it currently uses is not breakable.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on February 26, 2016, 12:34:11 AM

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

Mike Hearn did the same thing with his temper tantrums when he realized he was not the King on the Hill. No wonder some of the people says, they do not want to get involved with the politics and showboating.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on February 26, 2016, 12:34:11 AM

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

no one needs to create drama, this is bitcoin!

Topic: Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus? - page 3. (Read 2919 times)