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 7. (Read 4532 times)
What? F2pool does not run their in-house bitcoin client? Watta joke...
Does appear a bit ridiculous... so Either there is some unmentioned other reason, some cultural difference, or just an excuse to back out... it really doesn't make much sense in context.
Ya because they realized they were duped into adopting SW in exchange for something they could do anyway without blockstream permission.
That is very insulting to the Chinese miners and f2pool... I seriously doubt they have remained ignorant of segwit and its implications that have been so openly discussed for months.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/476xgc/decoding_the_recent_consensus_a_recent_front_page/
"If you've worried bitcoin will end up with two different coins, leading to a market crash - you should rest assured. The major result of the meeting is: Core agreed to add 2MB hard fork in code, and in exchange, Chinese miners agree to continue to run core. There will be only one framework where we determine when and how to HF/SW. The risk of splitting is thus reduced greatly."
"To ensure core will release a version containing hard fork code, Chinese Miners will agree to deploy SW. In other words, if core refuses to deliver a HF version, or the software is with inadequate activation prerequisites (such as HF triggered only with 95% or more hashrate agree), our miners can refuse SW."
As you can see, core used a 2mb HF as a negotiating chip to get miners to adopt their SWSF, which is a requirement for their company building LN/SC in order to make a profit and pay back their 55 milion $ investors.
Changed back to Blockstream this morning: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
Now that probably doesn't mean much because I don't see Adam compelling Blockstream employees to write code or support a HF they might be opposed to. It does go to show that those that attended the meeting have high expectations that the HF will take place. If it doesn't, expect Classic to gain steam...
Now that probably doesn't mean much because I don't see Adam compelling Blockstream employees to write code or support a HF they might be opposed to. It does go to show that those that attended the meeting have high expectations that the HF will take place. If it doesn't, expect Classic to gain steam...
Remember Blockstream employees signed a pledge indicating that their primary allegiance is to Bitcoin before themselves or Blockstream, Adam Back being listed as an individual makes sense in context:
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702288186265903104
They might as well have pledged to put sustainable
development, world peace and mental health of rainforest insects
before themselves or their company.
Totally meaningless.
we already know we can't trust Block$tream so where's the issue - switch to classic
Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.
You are not negotiating from a position of power...First you need to run classic. Then go the round table discussions. Negotiate from a position of power.
I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?
This... but the reversal signals that blockstream is now behind this statement as a company.
Yes to the first quote, and no to the second I would say...
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3
I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?
This... but the reversal signals that blockstream is now behind this statement as a company.
Already Resolved-
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?
The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.
serious question: anybody knows the reason why Adam Back's title was changed in the first place (from president of BS to individual)?
I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?
Already Resolved-
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?
The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.
>90% of core contributors haven't signed that doc. Code will be delivered, but there's zero assurance that it makes it into Bitcoin Core.
Already Resolved-
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?
The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.
serious question: anybody knows the reason why Adam Back's title was changed in the first place (from president of BS to individual)?
Already Resolved-
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?
The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.
What an idiot.
Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.
Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.
Would it have been annoying to have F2pool later say they only showed up as individuals and the pool would continue to mine on Classic? See a similarity?
The issue is that there is a very good chance that Blockstream as a whole refuses to go along with the HF, which is fine, but what exactly is the point in having Adam as President of Blockstream then? He might as well just be "guy that doesn't code at Blockstream" then.
Already Resolved-
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736
I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?
Does appear a bit ridiculous... so Either there is some unmentioned other reason, some cultural difference, or just an excuse to back out... it really doesn't make much sense in context.
Ya because they realized they were duped into adopting SW in exchange for something they could do anyway without blockstream permission.
That is very insulting to the Chinese miners and f2pool... I seriously doubt they have remained ignorant of segwit and its implications that have been so openly discussed for months.
My assumption is that Adam originally signed as Blockstream President, then when other members of Blockstream said that they were not on board with his plan he went back and changed his signature to individual.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3
IMO this is pretty serious, you cant change a contract after you sign it, and there is a big difference between his signature as an individual and that representing Blockstream.
Perhaps next time the contract should be hashed and the hash stored in some decentralized immutable ledger
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3
IMO this is pretty serious, you cant change a contract after you sign it, and there is a big difference between his signature as an individual and that representing Blockstream.
Perhaps next time the contract should be hashed and the hash stored in some decentralized immutable ledger
This is likely the case... and if anything reflects how ridiculous the notion that Blockstream or core is a monolithic organization with a single goal, when it is represented by many individuals. Likely an oversight by Adam, and one that can be quickly rectified as other blockstream members already agreed.
Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.
My assumption is that Adam originally signed as Blockstream President, then when other members of Blockstream said that they were not on board with his plan he went back and changed his signature to individual.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3
IMO this is pretty serious, you cant change a contract after you sign it, and there is a big difference between his signature as an individual and that representing Blockstream.
Perhaps next time the contract should be hashed and the hash stored in some decentralized immutable ledger
What an idiot.
Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.
Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.
Does appear a bit ridiculous... so Either there is some unmentioned other reason, some cultural difference, or just an excuse to back out... it really doesn't make much sense in context.
Ya because they realized they were duped into adopting SW in exchange for something they could do anyway without blockstream permission.
What an idiot.
Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.
Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.
Does appear a bit ridiculous... so Either there is some unmentioned other reason, some cultural difference, or just an excuse to back out... it really doesn't make much sense in context.
Jump to: