Topic: f2pool not supporting roundtable was Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com - page 6. (Read 4596 times)

Resetting to SHA3 just weakens bitcoin hashing power temporarily and then maybe permanently. I say permanently since miners may discount their profits by taking into the possibility that the greater bitcoin community will make their investments worth zero at any time.

While a PoW hash reset could be used in the event of a mining attack, don't kid yourself - no one is seriously pushing for a beyond-controversial PoW change at this time.

People are waking up iB..

Tick tock.

yes, and with this definition of consensus you won't be able to do ANY progress at all. you would also need 100% miners agreement for example to call it a true consensus. that means that only ONE miner could potentially block any change you make to the protocol. because, hey its not consensus if not everybody agrees right?

true consensus is utopian.

Really?  This is what we're getting all upset about today in Bitcoinland?   

You owe Adam an apology for assuming he was responsible for the change in title, instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt and seeking clarification.

The whole "zomg y u cheat me" thing is such a third world negotiating tactic.  It's really tacky.

You've been looking and reaching for things to get offended about for days.  And this is the best you can do?

Really?  A discrepancy between draft revisions, one of which was released prematurely (without permission?) is no reason to get all whiny.

Why don't you just rage quit like Mike Hearn, if your feelings are so hurt and fragile trust so grievously wounded?

SHA3 is looking better everyday we have to watch the ASIC miner tail struggle to wag the Bitcoin dog.

Consensus = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on!

ok lets do it, i'm with you

lets move on.

That bold statement underlined was written after Adam asked his credentials be removed and he be represented as an individual, rather conveniently.
still relevant is the host thought he was more than an individual off the street.

the statement is intended to give credit to the decentralized decision making process that resulted in a consensus for a delayed increase independently of Blockstream.

It's a joke given the reality of the situation, the authors commenting history and the control Blockstream exsert over Core. Your using it out of context and overlooking its intended meaning.

political consensus defining majority rule using censorship and closed door meeting is not going to benefit bitcoin in the long run.  

I think it's great that Blockstream employees are given independence, but that doesn't stop Blockstream the company from having an official position. Charlie Lee has different opinions than Brian Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that Coinbase can't have an official stance.

Mark's no compromise attitude is genuine and is probably shared by a number of core contributors. It's part of the reason that there is a swell of support for alternative Bitcoin implementations and if not for a compromise, we'd see the continue tug of war in the community eventually expressed in PoW longest accepted chain.

Like it or not, the community can ultimately override any individual or minority group's wishes. Today that minority is Classic. Tomorrow that minority could be stubborn Core contributors.

According to Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream developer:

"Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.

I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

Blockstream have a conflict of interest, their business is greatly enhanced by limited block space. The conflict is they control the majority of developers set the addenda and direction for the development of the Core the dominant Bitcoin Client, and are pushing to limit block space.  

Arguably GMax has already resigned from assigning BIP's and contributing to the developer’s mailing list as a result of the conflict of interest.

Adam Back, changed his designation for one of 2 meager reasons, lesser reasons may be given.

1) He implied to prioritize benefits his employers (the shareholders) would not commit too.

or

2) He wanted to avoid punting Blockstream in the position of a conflict of interest.

Interestingly other Blockstream employees didn't identify as Blockstream employees.



somewhat troubling is the pretense of Han Solo - a reported Litecoin Miner dictating and deciding the future of Bitcoin in a closed door meeting.

@ the Bitcoin Chinese community it’s worth noting Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to Gavin to maintain, under Gavin's lead bitcoin has grown up. Adam Back is a late comer to bitcoin dismissing it as insignificant for the first few years of Bitcoins existence.  

He claimed to have almost invented Bitcoin but didn't recognize it as significant until it traded over $1000 years after launch while under Gavins lead. Blockstream have taken control away from the steward who brought it to where it is today. Following Blockstreams lead blindly disadvantages us all, you need to act in your best interest not Blockstreams to maintain decentralized consensus.

Fees don’t halve, and they won’t go up in value, (people will just use other competitive fee solutions like Litecoin) you need economics of scale to maximize revenue.  

I dont know what u guys thought while preparing this so called consensus. Neither do I understand, what is written in Chinese. But, in English it is clearly written...

1. This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the non-witness data to be around 2 MB, with the total size no more than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community.

2. If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.

But, maaku7 of BlockStream has already expressed his discontent to this Consensus - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

So, whether Adam Back signs as an individual or as BlockStream president, broad support across the entire Bitcoin community is still absent. Hence 2mb is not happening.

I don't trust your statement about not trusting you...

I've been hodling since 2011 and for the first time I'm seriously diversifying a large % into altcoins. I guess it will take longer before the mainstream and non fanatics do this. But it will happen, if you miners don't get your shit together.

Maybe when your mining income gets to $0 you'll wake up?

No shit you've been cheated. Stop listening to God Emperor Adam Back and start forming your own opinions. Take some actions without permission. Grow a spine.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.th28ftnjh
Per Adam's request:
Adam Back President Blockstream
Now it's matching the Chinese version

Thats like saying "i pledge my allegiance to the flag/queen/country..." as if it means that you would therefore act 100% outside of your own personal interests, or the interests of the company you are president of

Its a painfully clear conflict of interest that core devs work for bitstream as defined by ethics, and as such the right thing to do is clearly acknowledge it and make sure systems or oversight is in place that it does not result in misuse. I think its great that some of the core devs found work at a company in the bitcoin industry (as they should), but it needs to be a clear and meditated approach so that the act in the interest of bitcoin rather than blockstream. simply hiding the "blockstream" label from people like Adam Back's signature is just shifty and looks like obfuscation

if it doesn't expect friedenbach to be kicked out

it maybe a reaction to mark friedenbach and his attacks on the made consensus.

IF this is accurate, it looks like consensus is falling apart.  Why the hell did Back do this? To give BlockStream a way out?  Perhaps they never intended to honor this agreement in the first place.

They definitely do - all mining pools compile and tweak themselves. We know this since validationless mining isn't available in Core or Classic.