Topic: Satoshi Roundtable Retreat - 70 top Techies & CEOs - What should be covered? - page 2. (Read 9206 times)

QuestionAuthority.

honestly, i have no clue what you're on about.

that has nothing to do with any bitcoin conference or meet up.  and nothing to do with the roundtable either.

the people who attend these types of events do so because they want to see bitcoin succeed and feel that meeting other like minded people can help them do that and smooth the rough edges to help make it happen.  decentralisation is the key word.  it was mentioned so often that you almost wish they'd find another word.   very few people in attendance even mentioned their own businesses or what they do in the bitcoin space.  almost all of the conversations are about how to take bitcoin forward - in a general way - so that more people will have the ability to use it, in new and exciting ways.  not only the unbanked.. but also the banked.  fully inclusive.  not even excluding the bankers.  everyone should have access to it.

you make it sound like you dont want money to be used for its primary purpose.  you sound anti business.   money allows people to buy and sell goods and services.    you sound like youre against commerce.    anyone who can help onboard more people into bitcoin is a good thing.  do you think most of the world is going to start using it because its there?   most will need encouragement via goods and services that are easier and cheaper to use than what they use at present.  that requires innovation of new bitcoin businesses for us to on-board the next few million bitcoin users.  and will need some established and successful businesses to be able to on-board the next billion!

if that sickens you, i think you should take up a hobby that doesn't involve 'digital money' because money is mainly used for commerce/business.  get used to it, or find something else to do.   you cant be pro bitcoin and anti business.   makes no sense.

I have a friend who'd like to know why Bruce spent so much energy trying to bounce those talking heads with the web cam while Marshal Long was eating octopus with some retarded lady with a white board. Did you see that?

Maybe I am a little resentful because he did not even acknowledge in this thread my very "insightful" recommended clarifications?

Were they all sequestered in rooms discussing what's best for Bitcoin the bank emancipator or what's best for the individual business interests that attended?

I have attended many conferences because they were held in my region. The disappointing aspect of every single one was the lack of interest in the concept of relieving people from the need for a trusted third party. In fact, many of the businessmen in attendance were counting on becoming the necessary link between the user and their money. The whole concept of bastardizing the basic tenet of Bitcoin is so repulsive it makes me want to abandon Bitcoin altogether. I don't need just another replacement bank. The one I use now works just fine.

I can't wait for Bruce to return and tell us what of his 8 points he took from this thread. Were we helpful? How helpful? Very helpful?
How much did this lovely lady cost?

^
Was she bringing up three very lovely girls?
Did all of them have hair of gold, like their mother?

That was almost a story.

^^A simple "no" would've sufficed

they hired a lovely lady to annotate what was being discussed.  She drew some pretty pictures and wrote some words on big sheets of paper and i believe they plan to publish those so you will see pretty much a good summary of everything that was discussed.

i should also point out that many times during the weekend, the key players (mostly devs) retired to breakout rooms, locked the doors, and had their own small discussions, pretty much like they did at other conferences.  i think this is a good thing as sometimes there are too many voices in the room to get stuff done.   so parts of the weekend were big groups and parts of it were breakouts into small groups.

as i said, i left several hours before the thrilling conclusion, so i still have absolutely no idea if they put the world to rights, or left it the same as it was before (!)

they were still knee deep in discussion when i left.  and maybe they still are.  or maybe they agreed to disagree, and leave the status quo.

the problem with the status quo is that large unhappy contingents become forced to take matters into their own hands, which splits the group.. and we would really like the group to find common ground and stay as one group.

So, can you give me a list of agreements reached at Hogwarts Wizarding School Camelot Dungeons and Dragons Satoshi's Demilune whatever that thing was called?
I mean, other than devs agreeing that calling each other names in public is bad form?

sorry, thats not what happened last week in hk and its not what happened at the roundtable either.  you're being very negative about a group thats trying to be constructive and alleviate bottlenecks and try and knock a few heads together so we can all 'get on with it' and stop bickering.

bitcoin is an ecosystem of many parts.  miners, exchanges, wallets, devs, retail, wholesale, data, and most important, users.   future direction needs to consider its users and potential users, and keep making improvements that ideally bring the entire ecosystem forwards (in a timely fashion) and shouldn't be decided by small parts of the ecosystem without considering the interests of the other parts.

one of the goals of the roundtable was to involve stakeholders in trying to bring forward a commitment to deal with the scaling issues, and most likely will knowingly kick the can down the road a little bit, because many blocks are full - today - and most people feel like a little breathing space This Year is better than leaving it a whole year before that happens - so that it gives the devs time to find a better technical solution for the future.   There was unanimous agreement that bitcoin needs to scale but not agreement on how quickly.  After a lot of debate, it seemed like the goal converged into one of time-scale.

the handshake from last week in hk had a worst case 'go live' date of mid 2017 for raising the block size (july 2017? i recall).  the roundtable was trying to explore if there was a will and a way to bring that worst case date forwards (perhaps into late 2016, or sooner), and achieved, perhaps with a simpler and less risky implementation at least initially, with further improvements to follow.

there was strong feeling by all but certainly wasn't 100% agreement.   With 80 people there, there certainly weren't 80 opinions.  Most were in one of only a few camps.   some wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater... but most wanted to find a compromise that could let everyone achieve something positive and be happier instead of grandstanding and digging heels into their legacy positions.

there was also agreement on all sides to stop disparaging each other publicly as it helps no one and actually hurts bitcoin.  we all have the same ultimate goal, to make bitcoin successful.. and the nastiness in public forums has to stop (as does the fanboys doing their ddos attacks etc)

The roundtable was VERY useful for everyone concerned and for bitcoin in general, and it should happen more often.   instead of these people sniping at each other on the forums and on reddit, they need to meet, and iron out differences.

And this isn't just a Dev issue.  The actual users, product people, tier 2 people, wallets, exchanges etc... ALL should have a voice.   It would be very wrong if only the core devs decide the future strategy and direction.   stakeholders should have a say in the feature set and strategy (but clearly, since they aren't all techies, they won't design the tech nor define how its achieved)

if you were to somehow liken or simplify bitcoin to a 'company' that makes a product or service...   no company would just have devs doing their own thing in isolation without input and guidance from other areas like the 'market', strategy and biz dev.  a company has a lot of working parts that all contribute to the end product direction and it would be arrogant to think a product can solely be defined by a group of devs, no matter how smart they are (and they are the smartest devs on the planet) - but they still need input from the rest of the virtual parts of the organisation - different types of users of the 'product/service'

a lot of folks worked very hard for a positive outcome, and to try and find space to compromise.  unfortunately, i left early (flight home to london) before the conclusion of the meeting and wasn't present to hear what progress was made.  presumably since there has yet to be an announcement, they're still knee deep in discussion, even after the event.

There were some very helpful characters.  it does bitcoin a disservice to shit on any of them.  Bruce especially.   He did NOT grandstand like you suggest. 

So, what you're sayin' is that this week's event was the musical?



PRINCIPAL KNIGHTS:
We're knights of the table
Although we live a fable
We're not just bums
With royal mums
We've brains that are quite a-ble
We've a busy life in gaining consensus a lot.

SOLO BY MARSHALL LONG:
I like to cup balls a lot.

This one was just for a bunch of startups on life support to commiserate and glad hand about how, last weekend, a group of 4 dudes already shook hands on the path for the next 2 years. 

So what are the conclusions of this wanna be something special elite kind of freemasons crap roundtable??

This is interesting: This guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_Kamkar - spoke at the meetup, but is not on the list. I wonder if he snuck in donning a sombrero, then won a staring contest against Adam Back.

Is that Marshall Long? If yes, who is he sitting next to?



Another question: How did the two Knights Templars get in?

I called the INS and let them know where he is.






jk

Nah this circlejerking roundtable is just noise nobody cares about.

Lets not give them too much importance, the actual consensus in bitcoin is these control freaks are just clueless despite how hard they try to keep it secret .

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/482kx2/satoshi_roundtable_live_reddit_thread_has_started/

You are 100% correct, for I got the two events mixed up, but was taken aback that the error wasn't corrected by Bruce or some others. TBC, I'm not putting the blame of my error on others. A few posts up, I depicted all three events, only one of which was at Necker.

I was tricked by the Illuminati.

Here's an idea for next time: Fully declare where the event is goin' be held and be adamant about it being a private affair, or something similar. You can safely assume that any 3-LA will know where the event is being held, with most Bitcoiners not giving a damn, but their antennae goes up if the venue is kept secret.