Topic: Satoshi Roundtable Retreat - 70 top Techies & CEOs - What should be covered? - page 9. (Read 9206 times)

Adam Back asked him on twitter if he would like to join.
Fair move I would say although I'm not a big friend of Mr. Armstrong.
But I think it's important to have as much parties as possible on this table.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/701971156790718469

Isn't Brian Armstrong a strong advocate for Bitcoin Classic? I'm surprised that he's not attending this event.

Basically that's what I wanted to say. Probably they have their good reason but I still don't get why not showing up (it could have been only one of them to attend!!) in this kind of meeting

as investors. i see no point in them turning up just because they hold coin. as they cannot do much to improve bitcoin just by holding it.
but if their ETF was actually going to become a reality soon and they wanted some collaboration to help improve the trading platform using LN or liquid.. then there may be a reason to attend, where they can suggest what some of the features should do be actually useful to the outside financial world

Mmm ok. If they are to invest in btc I simply don't get why not attending this. Thanks for the answer by the way

another suggestion

to all the attendees that are more about the learning and experience of bitcoin
for example
MIT, bitcoin foundation, DCI, CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium, transform group

is there going to be a big push to sort out the learning and information of bitcoin from a multisource collaboration
so that there is pretty much everything from pseudocode of the basic thought process of the bitcoin processes, to indepth courses that can award qualifications. and other things like organizing the conferences and having a place where people can learn through video's and advertisments (images/leaflets)

another suggestion
can the miners attending make it formally known that they are not after doomsday scenarios of 1.999mb blocks right from the kickoff, but are logically going to make minimal increases when comfortable to avoid risking too much processing time(which loses them the fastest first game), to instead increase naturally at a slow cmfortable pace knwing there is enough buffer to grow without hitting limits often.. thus debunking some peoples doomsday theories of big maximum size blocks non stop
(yea i know im now being picky but alot of people seem to be scared of increasing the buffer and not accepting its a buffer at all and instead a nuke to bloat the chain to the max)

Thanks Franky for the summary suggestion!

well segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

however instead of 16 months. we suggest 8 months.. then thats an acceptable amount.. i would have said 5 months because core thinks its ok to make a release in november one in march and another in april, so 4-5months seems ok to core.. but due to it being a hard fork, 8 seems more gracious.. and definetly better than 16

can they  will they, such quibbling over semantics.

i have no comment on the blockstream bit.

thats an empty question.. can they... yes... will they... well thats not the question you asked. and so that question will be left empty even if its the real answer you were looking for.

blockstream are known to being vague and giving half answers that can be assumed to have 2 meanings. allowing them a get out clause to pretend its not what they said

maybe best the summerized question u proposed removes the "can" and replaces it with "will". that way blockstream cant give a vague answer

ultimate question for bruce to bring up at the round table..

"Mr Marshall Long, where are peoples coins. either release the funds or we are not releasing you from this room.. officers, arrest this man"

People still utter the words 'Bitcoin' and 'moon' in the same sentence?

not a bad start

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

Every effort ever now should be put into the Lightning Network and how to get it operative as fast as possible and enhance and fine tune it as good as possible, all other efforts to try to scale Bitcoin worldwide are a massive waste of time, this should be our first priority now, once we get this working we can start going full time on sidechains, after that is just moon time.

Is it common practice to invite serial liars to the retreat, or did Marshall Long promised to take a bath, hopefully not in the ocean surrounding the island endangering any endangered species?

fully agree,

i'm just saying, there's alot of work to be done, split up the work, and review each other's work when done.

maybe the work isn't related to a BIP, say we need to research how effective the gossip network is. one team can be looking at that area running test, coming up with good numbers, while the other team works on somthing else.

both teams would agree to share all data they collect.

note to Bruce Fenton:

it might be worth when reading the posts to summerize the thoughts people have and then edit the OP to add brief summary of idea's that way people who jst skim read topics can see from the main post what suggestions have already been made

EG

bips should not be a core controlled thing.. for instance gavin recently made a bip that ANYONE core/xt/bu/bitcoinj could all implement .. by having individual bips for individual companies will just cause more debates and make bip 100001 something we would see soon..

bips should be something ANYONE can implement and not be branded/copywrited/limited to a company.
bips should be in draftform and tweaked and improved on and then finalised.. rather then making 100000 different bips until one of them sticks

1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter of how Exactly it will be rolled out.

2) incentives, can we somehow increase the incentives to run a full node?

3) Make peace, it's obvious  we need a competing impl. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.

the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.