Bitcoin Forum

It seems that we finally have reached consensus with 2-3MB blocks + segwit + LN and much more.

Some months ago everyone who spoke about these things was banned by clueless mods (Theymos and friends) and called a persona non grata. Finally some devs opend their eyes and woke up. They understood the concerns of the other side and changed their view.  The industry and a majority of users wanted bigger blocks - core devs want a maximum of decentralsation - all moved to reached the goal : consensus!

Thanks!  :)

I agree that this sounds good so far and all the weekend I was following this topic and the HK meeting on twitter.
BUT this was just an agreement between the participants.Consensus has to be done by the community.
And I'm pretty sure that Gavin and the Coinbase idiot will come up with another few attempts to takeover Bitcoin.
This is not about scaling anymore.That has become a political debate of what Bitcoin shall become in future.

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too  :P

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

At this point I don't particularly care.
Our Mechanical Turk has lost its cybernetic charm, now that everyone knows it ain't backed by maths and sciences. People have seen its inner workings -- turns out it's controlled by a bunch of cantankerous sweaty midgets :(

...or maybe they just have a different view?

theymos ban were targetting classic and xt, i don't remember him banning anything related to segwit/2mb/core, LN not sure....

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.
Same dirt, same accusations of corruption, same stalemates due to shittily defined terms. Same shit, different wrapper.

---

*also unsure if the Mechanical Turk bit is misleading, since it means "Amazon" to most people nowadays. The mechanical Turk (https://bitcointalk.org/wiki/The_Turk) was a fake chess playing robot.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/562px-Kempelen_chess1.jpg

It is indeed truly refreashing to see such a consensus coming.

But I'm not sure the effect will be so strong. Network is still a bit full and it's not gonna change quicky.
Lots of things can happen yet! I don't trust this consensus as long as I haven't seen it by my own eyes ;)

OP it seems that you have completely misunderstood that meeeting. The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals. There is no guarantee that their HF proposal will reach consensus among the developers, users nor miners. The statement does require them to submit a proposal and code between April and July.

What, if anything, does this do to my coinbase wallet if they are rejecting the hard fork before and after it happens?

No but that's a good working base.

If all political parties agree on a law proposal, it's a good sign.
Even if after you gotta put the proposal to a referendum and that in the end, the people will still have to vote ;)

It's still stupid to hardfork to 2MB but I guess it's a good compromise to make the people calm down and stop bothering the devs, but I don't like this idea of the devs giving up to demands by clueless people just because some of them are really noisy on internet forums, but I guess some of the miners and so on (which are also clueless but happen to run big mining businesses) wanted at least some block size increase so whatever, it's still better than having Classic taking over.

Then they are left in the dust. They will be required to update or loose millions of $ and thousands of customers.

They are just expressing their view.

What makes you think that Core devs changed their minds regarding artificial limits (aka fee market). It's either this or scaling via block increase.

The fact they agreed to release 2mb code doesn't mean that much really. I'm glad they showed some flexibility and willingness to compromise tho. Small step in the right direction, hopefully buys more time for more open and civilised discussion on BTC future.

Yes. Either you have not read the statement or you have not understood it properly. The people who attended there (e.g. Matt) can't represent all of the people contributing to Core. There isn't a guarantee that the proposal will be accepted by any group.

Nobody mentioned anything about '2 MB code'.

They can't do much anyhow.

Exactly. These clueless people really need to stop bothering the people doing to work. It's one thing to ask questions && discuss technicalities, making baseless demands and accusations is another.

call be optimistic but i guess that 80% of hashing power and the core of devs and industry leaders is a good start  ;)

If you think that everyone from Core was represented here, there is something wrong with your comprehension skills (how many times does one have to tell you this?). There is zero guarantee of anything aside from a proposal and code (if they don't want to ruin their reputation and trust). I've even seen people running around and stating that the HF will come as soon as the miners adopt it, ergo people need to do less talking and more reading.

You also weren't there so cannot talk on authority of what was or wasn't represented and by whom.

I didn't have to be there. This was said several times by several people, you just have to do an adequate amount of reading. There are also developers who have voiced disagreement over the meeting (e.g. maaku). You're free to ask these people directly on IRC, but you will get the same answer. Just because person X is part of Core and person X signed a statement, that does not mean Core (as a group, i.e. everyone) signed the statement. However, the chances of the proposal being rejected by the developers themselves are slim (unless they add more changes aside from the block size increase).

No, to talk with authority you HAVE TO be there. And you are trying to talk with authority over others. You have the same zero percentage proof to back up your argument.

I've completely disregarded that word. I've listed an example and an additional way of confirming it yourself, that's more than enough. A example  (https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d074dh7)that you've intentionally chosen to ignore. Again, instead of writing additional posts I suggest that you do research or use IRC.

---

---

Update: I'm wasting my time as you're derailing the thread. I will not respond further.

You do realise what I say and do in public can be the complete opposite of what I think for reason unbeknownst to you? Think about it. FFS

Welcome to democracy. The system was always supposed to work this way. It was designed to be extremely change resistant and only change when a huge percentage of users agree to the changes. If you don't agree with the proposals then you should do something. Anyone can mine or run a node of their choice, and no one has any more control than what you could have. This is a trust-less system. Only the completely predictable math in the protocol controls the supply, distribution, etc. If you want to change anything just make a version and convince the overwhelming majority of users to follow you. That is what others are doing.

--Lauda, Bitcointalk staff.

Well, I call a system that requires a consensus democratic. But perhaps he has a more nuanced definition of democracy. My point is that nobody is making you do anything unless they convince most everyone to go along with a change. It does suck to try bringing all these competing interests to a decision, but that has always been the plan. We could just change the code so that one person or a bank would decide on all changes. But who the hell would want bitcoin if that was the case? 

No. The only people that need to be convinced are right here:

http://s23.postimg.org/siwekhnyj/bitches.jpg

Welcome to Bitcoin!

Completely incorrect. You must get an overwhelming majority. If there really were only 20 miners in the world then the question becomes "why aren't you mining?" If you put millions of dollars into bitcoin, like those guys did, then you could compete with them. Bitcoin rewards for work, it's not free money, it's fair money. Any consolidation is limited to what the market will logically allow. Too much and other profit minded players start mining. True centralization is possible only when people leave money on the table, which is illogical.

Nah, I'm fine.
To begin with, democracy doesn't work by "how much money you sunk into it" (or, at least, not in principle).
So You might want to brush up on your democracy.

But, even humoring the notion of "financial stake," let's say I own half of all the bitcoins mined, but don't mine: no voice. If you think it's possible for an average user to mine Not_At_A_Loss, you're simply wrong -- economy of scale & subsidized Chinese power.
GL.

EDIT:
http://s10.postimg.org/6eb2y2f7t/Capture.png

Your right about small scale mining. It has gone to an industrial scale and entering the mining business would require large capitol investments. But anyone, anywhere is free to take a shot at it. That group in the picture has no ability whatsoever to stop you from going even bigger and eating their lunch. They have power, but not authority.

Let me compare it to a true unholy system, the "qualified investor". This law is changing right now but until this year poor people were not allowed to invest. It was illegal for you to invest a few thousand dollars in a local business.
Say a hardware store near you needs money to expand. They can seek investors, but only qualified investors. And what qualifies one to be an investor? You simply must be rich, that's all. You must have a million dollars in the bank and show that you will likely make a million in the next year. The idea is that poor people should work to make capitol gains for the investor class.  They must be  barred from investing and protected from making bad investment choices. So if I had a doctorate in economics but were poor I am unqualified. But if I had down syndrome and a million bucks I can be trusted to make the right decisions and can be a qualified investor. How fucking insulting is that.  :-\

^^
How did we get from Bitcoin's consensus mechanism to US market regulations?
But fine, if you want to trot out that pony, I'm game.
To get a TL;DR of why civilized countries have regulated markets, go to this forum's "securities" section. Yeah, ded. Died of fail & AIDS, that's why. That was unregulated market in action: all the issuers OKTHXBAI & all teh intrepid investors still liking their brass balls, wondering wtf happened.

I understand that you think you're as smart as anyone in the securities market, that you're plenty good enough, and that you have a right to make your own mistakes, but nannystate won't let you.
Life is unfair like that.
You get to be bummed about your limited investment options, the other half of the world worries about getting enough to eat. You don't get to invest in Crystal's Massage & Casino? Roughly half of humankind get to live on less than $2 a day.
Chin up, Buttercup -- you'll get by.

>So if I had a doctorate in economics
So if you had a doctorate in economics, you wouldn't be posting this bullshit. Read up on late 19th/early 20th century stock market.