Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19255. (Read 26607604 times)

I hope you've learned something here, besides what it feels like to be crushed by a 75,000 horsepower iCEBREAKER.

how many bitcoins do you guys own

 

Awww, yeah!

https://youtu.be/hj-jPJK8DEE

Sit back, sip that Hennessy, and watch the money flow.

 

The consensus is "there is no consensus on anything but 1. segwit asap and 2. fuck Classic."

Honey Badger continues to sleep soundly.  The noise of cans being kicked down the road does not disturb him in the least.

Blockstream is never to be underestimated. They literally didn't move an inch and everyone is circle jerking "the great compromise"... incredible. What a wet noodle the miners turned out to be... so much for that childish delusion I used to hold.

Watching fatty lose his principles for a $20 $19 relief rally was the hardest part. 

GG guys... GG

Classic is still on the table, should Core not deliver on promises...

The CEO of a VC-backed private corporation, and a handful of Chinese miners, just unilaterally decided the future of Bitcoin. And they have the gall to call it consensus.

This is bad, really bad.

Editing this comment to respond in one place to the army of throwaway accounts jumping down my throat:

What would consensus look like? In my view there are five main groups that would need to agree on changes to Bitcoin to achieve consensus: The developers (the code), the miners (the hashpower), the nodes (the network), the exchanges and payment processors (the economic majority), and of course the users (Bitcoin early adopters). The users don't really steer the ship, they just vote by deciding to use/hold Bitcoin, and they'll vote by buying alt-coins if they don't agree with the direction the other four take.

At this meeting there are only representatives of two of those groups; the code and the hashpower. Missing from the developers are extremely important people like Gavin Andresen (Bitcoin's chief scientist), and Jeff Garzik. Missing from the hashpower is the single biggest pool Antpool and other pools like Slush, who have decided a hard fork to 2 MB needs to happen urgently, not years from now.

Calling this tiny meeting consensus? Laughable.

As to VC-backed Blockstream taking control of the Bitcoin protocol, they have a fiduciary duty to create a return for their investors. Their business plan is to profit from protocols built on top of Bitcoin, protocols that benefit from a crippled Bitcoin layer usable only for settlement. All their actions so far show they have a laser-like focus on enabling features in Bitcoin that will benefit the Lightning Network, while restricting the throughput of the Bitcoin network as much as possible until their product is ready to sell.

This will backfire, the users and the economic majority will move to a network that functions correctly.

Now Chinese translated version also ready, words are carefully selected by attendees to avoid any disparities between languages.

anything below 460 is pure GOLD

The consensus is "there is no consensus on anything but 1. segwit asap and 2. fuck Classic."

Honey Badger continues to sleep soundly.  The noise of cans being kicked down the road does not disturb him in the least.

how many bitcoins do you guys own

 

how many bitcoins do you guys own

 

 

anything below 460 1200 is pure GOLD

Although I am surprised to see anyone thought I had any principles, it does seem like the draft for the consensus is somewhat different from what I initially thought.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46qpua/bitcoin_roundtable_consensus_statement/

"This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the maximum effective block size, to more than 2 MB and less than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with a broad support across the entire Bitcoin community."

I've partially accepted the fact that "big blockers" have lost this round and have been trying to figure out if there's any future for Bitcoin after the miners decided to go with Core. I was very encouraged by two things today:

1. Core will commit to a HF of at least 2MB and have the code ready for July. Even if the trigger is Feb 1 2017 it would mean that a lot of the uncertainty surrounding Bitcoins viability would be gone. 2MB with Segwit would allow Bitcoin to grow on the main chain. Not much, but maybe enough for it not to experience an economic collapse.

2. Miners were explicitly threatening to ditch Core if they didn't give them a bump in the block size limit within a given time frame. That is powerful. What little I've understood from this debate is that parts of core are manipulators and lying bastards and can't be trusted, so it would be nice if someone held a gun against their heads.

However, If the miners accept the wording quoted above then this agreement is a total loss. We've seen the phrase "maximum effective block size" before. It takes into account the theoretical increase from segwit and all the other witchcraft they've been talking about lately. Bitusher even started including LN blocks into the calculations in an earlier discussion in this thread. We might end up with less than 1MB maxBlockSize on the main chain by the looks of it.

In short, I'm as disappointed in me as you are.

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”

http://www.strateman.ninja/roundtable-tech.pdf