Bitcoin Forum

yesterday we got some chilling news and the wall thread has been buzzing ever since.

is it true, is blockstream trying to veto the consensus reached at the roundtable last weekend?



links that sparked rumors that the roundtable consensus was falling apart

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13993733#msg13993733  <- Adam Back ( president of blockstream ) cannot speak on behalf of blockstream, f2pool is outraged.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic)
<- confirmation that blockstream is not onboard with the agreement

How about you list some sources? Hopefully these aren't some baseless accusations from /r/btc or rumors.

AFAIK these are rumors
the point of this thread would be to try and figure out if these rumors are true.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13993733#msg13993733  <- the Adam Back ( president of blockstream ) cannot speak on behalf of blockstream


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic)


question is do they have the power to veto the change and will they?

Okay people are really confused about this meeting and the statement. They are also confused on how Blockstream works. If you work there you are allowed to express your views even if they are completely different which is a good thing. Now as far as the meeting is concerned, the agreement was that between April and July the developers that signed it would have to create a proposal and present code for a HF in 2017. This does not mean that Core agreed to adopt it. Blockstream can't do anything here because the process is going to be somewhat like this:
1) Segwit in April
2) Presentation of the proposal and code between April and July.

Now after this, one of the following:
1) There is consensus among everyone (e.g. developers, users) and the code gets merged.
2) There isn't consensus among one or multiple parties, proposal gets rejected.

---

---

I guess this could be related:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376633.0


I don't quite get his problem. It's pretty clear that A. Back change it to avoid controversy, but they all new very well (or should have) who is Adam Back and who he represents. So what difference does it make for f2pool?

Adam Back is president of blockstream.
they thought he was signing as "president of blockstream."
implying that the blockstream group was onboard, and all they needed now was consensus from OTHER groups for the HF
but thats not how its playing out, and the agreement makes it seem as tho blockstream has veto power over the HF part of the agreement, and looking at maaku7 comment, it looks like blockstream will use the veto card when the time come.

of course f2pool is outraged by this...

That would make some sense. I didn't realise that maaku7 (Mark Friedenbach) was also on Blockstream's payroll.

This shit is getting entertaining.

"Sir Humphrey: The head of state must greet a head of state even if he's not here as the head of state.
Bernard: It's all a matter of hats, Minister.
Jim: Hats?
Bernard: Yes you see, he is coming here wearing his head of government hat, he is the head of state too, but it's not a state visit because he's not wearing his head of state hat protocol demands that even though he's wearing his head of government hat, he must still be met by the crown." - Yes, Minister: The Official Visit

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47cjb5/f2pool_to_withdraw_support_from_round_table_due/d0byl5a).

<sarcasm>
so it was all a misunderstanding then
Adam will talk with other blockstream devs and then sign the agreement  as "Blockstream President"
</sarcasm>

I think that it is o.k. to hold people's feet to the fire and to get clarification when there is some ambiguity; however, at the same time, we all should admit that there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole and scare mongering regarding a lot of topics, and my understanding is that bitcoin is not centralized, and that no one has veto power... but sometimes we do need reminders about the process that is being followed and whether various stakeholders and meeting participants are adhering to some kind of clear process.

I had attempted to ask for some of this clarification, too, and so far, I am not receiving any real response.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373481.msg13983412#msg13983412

On the other hand, we also know that in the real world, some stakeholders have more bargaining power than others based on a variety of factors.

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

"Adam Back, Individual" got changed back into "Adam Back, President, Blockstream" in the Medium letter (https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.hp1sni99p).

So no, I don't think Blockstream is going to veto the roundtable consensus. Not that they were going to veto it before. From what I understand, there just wasn't consensus among Blockstream employees to support the consensus.

thank you.

now if we could just confirm that blockstream is onboard, the wall thread might calm the f down a bit.

I like the part above that I highlighted... hahahahhahahaha..


That fucking wall thread is so un fucking calm at the moment.   :D

ya, its all pitchforks and torches over there, it's getting ugly.   :-X

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

no one needs to create drama, this is bitcoin!

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

Mike Hearn did the same thing with his temper tantrums when he realized he was not the King on the Hill. No wonder some of the people says, they do not want to get involved with the politics and showboating.

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

That's the whole point of this. Divide Bitcoin internally and try to crush it, because the cryptography that it currently uses is not breakable.

Who? Who's these shadows lurking in the dark? Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Try to keep it specific please.

Certain people stand to lose a lot if Bitcoin succeeds to become mainstream. This has nothing to do with the 2 MB block size limit. You need to look at the bigger picture. However, this is off-topic here. There are other places where you might find relevant information.

If I'm not mistaken, it was requested to attend as individuals and not representing Blockstream. Consensus becomes a tangled  web this way though, makes it seem like an agreement can't even be reached among Blockstream's peers, which are the same organisation.

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

---

---

Exactly. Apparently everyone overreacted due to the small amount of confusion that this caused. The ecosystem is 'kind of' in a state of mess right now when it comes to the community and consensus. This is stalling development and wasting people's time. Additionally it does not help at all when people make blind accusations against each other.

---

---

Update: You continue to ignore advice and derail the thread; nothing surprising. This has nothing to do with FUD. There is relevant information in other places.

"Exactly. Apparently everyone overreacted due to the small amount of confusion that this caused. The ecosystem is 'kind of' in a state of mess right now when it comes to the community and consensus."

I tottaly agree with you here, there' s a lot of confusion in the air currently.

I'm really surprise the price is still rising despite all that.

 ;)

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

Why would it be fud to indicate that non specific others want to undermine Bitcoin.

We all know that and we don't need to name names. There are status quote financial and banks and governments that can lose a lot of money in their various undermining efforts and still make out better if they can keep Bitcoin down for as long as they can.

It's implicitly spreading FUD to suggest that these entities and persons do not exist and to attempt supporting ways to undermine consensus by pushing for xt and classic that are both admittedly more than block size limits but instead aimed at undermining Bitcoin governance in part through creating internal controversy .

well they need to.

they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR
the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

so as i understand it

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

Dear Vladimir,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJscrxxl_Bg

act like a Fing leader  O_O

Because there is no information there. It's just something you say to create fear, uncertainty and doubt.


Name one and show me evidence that they are using this debate in the manner implied to damage Bitcoin.


No, you might think I am misleading you or that I am wrong, but I am not spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"

so why did they change it back?

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked. Next time miners should request signature of all Bitcoin Core developers over hashed text before providing their signatures. The number of Bitcoin Core developers saying no hard fork possible and for example luke-jr, one who signed this deal encouraging others on reddit post to create website to sum reasons why hard fork is dangerous for Bitcoin clearly shows even luke-jr intentions are not to make the deal happen (first SegWit then 2MB hard fork activated in July 2017).

They don't need to talk to Blockstream. Blockstream does not have control over the development.

Because when you are part of Blockstream you are free to express your own views, which is exactly what some did (e.g. maaku).

Nope. Anyone who thought that a few Core developers could represent a whole decentralized (voluntary) group at the meeting was acting foolish at best. Nobody was tricked. There was zero guarantee that the HF proposal is going to be implemented. The statement says that a proposal has to be presented along with code before July. Patience people.

---

---

I've posted an explanation from Peter on the first page. Have you even read anything that was posted?

what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )

Nonsense. Show me the list of developers that support 2 MB blocks, then show me the list of developers that support Segwit. You will see a huge difference in numbers there. It is either one or the other, you can't have both right now.

O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!

i'm done with you

You apparently have some comprehension deficits. Either get educated or go away with your random nonsense. It is Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. You can't have both right now, and that is causing this issue.

why are you saying this i never said anything about getting  Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first.

i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus? who is not loving it?

You're asking me something like: Why do some people do bad things? Why doesn't everyone want world piece?. These are questions that nobody can answer for everyone. People have different views about scaling Bitcoin in addition to there being sadists and possibly a paid campaign. There are a lot of sides, views, different personalities.

Pretty much every Classic supporter.

sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt  to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.

you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?

i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream

Okay, I don't think you realize the meaning of the words "right now". You can have both in 2017 for sure, but not within the next 6 months. Either we implement Segwit first, or we implement 2 MB block size limit (with the sigops workaround).

There are a lot of people (or shills) for which anything from Core isn't acceptable because it is Core. These people should be ignored at all cost (including people for which anything from the other side isn't acceptable for the same reason).

i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.


lets not count the shills....

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 :D

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective  block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
 

while i would prefer an unlimited block limit and let miners risk getting orphaned if they broadcast a block that is too big ...

i'm not on any side in particular, i will go along with any "consensus" that looks to increase effective block size ASAP

short of "consensus"  and off to "war" we go, my support falls with gavin...

 :-[

You heard me

It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs.

Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core.

---

---

[1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).

lmao, all hope is lost.

In the final months of the Second World War, Canadian forces were given the important and deadly task of liberating the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. I'd suggest you recognize. >:(

Why are you asking me to do something about it? Tell the precious 'leader' mister Gavin, who refuses to listen to pretty much every Core developer and the miners. BIP109 would be better (for example) if the grace period was a minimum of 6 months and it had a consensus threshold of 90-95%. You can create your own fork and apply a modified BIP109, I just couldn't bother.

Makes sense. Less french people there. Less chance of you switching sides.

My feels. They hurt. :'(

I think from the totality of my post, I already indicated that you seem to be the FUDster, rather than Lauda.

Lauda provided you a sufficiently specific response, and I elaborated a bit on it in order to more specifically outline the general dynamics and the kinds of folks that are against bitcoin being successful.  No more specifics are needed, and if you are requesting specifics, either you are trolling, or you are quasi-retarded.... The trolling part seems more likely, but surely it is possible that you are not too smart, yet I doubt that you are retarded... but what the fuck do I know?




There's no need you fucking goofball - there's all kinds of information out there regarding plots to undermine bitcoin, but o.k... let me play along for a little bit in order to entertain your seemingly bullshit attempts at trolling... Have you ever heard of the USA government (surely the US govt is not a monolithic entity, but there are various policing forces and financial branches that consider bitcoin to be a threat to the USA government in terms of finances and in terms of population control)?  Have you ever heard of JP Morgan?  We don't really need to go into any more details... it's not necessary to outline each and every anti-bitcoin organization (or individual) that is considerably motivated to spend resources to undermine bitcoin.



More or less, I already said it.  Ether you are being a goofball, you are a goofball or you are trolling for information that is not really necessary to explain further. 

I think that these are very important points that are explained in a fairly easy to understand way.

In essence BIP 109 - (referring to classic, right?), is attempting to undermine bitcoin with at least the couple of unacceptable terms that you highlighted above - 1) too short of a "grace period"  and 2) too low of a threshold for consensus.

I don't understand the point about the "quadratic validation" problem, but the first two issues of undermining consensus seem sufficient in order to cause the proposal to be totally and completely unacceptable.

This is exactly the point that so many people miss, and they cannot wrap their heads around the logic.

The burden is not on the status quo to provide the road map, but instead it is on the presenter of the proposed change to both show proof that the change is needed and that their proposal adequately addresses the described problem.  It appears quite clear that BIP 109 does not meet either the burden of persuasion or the burden of production.

Yes, exactly... if there are deficiencies with the proposal, then the burden is on the presenter to amend it in ways in order to make it acceptable.

lets try to get back on track here.

Questions...

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

or maybe a better question, did the roundtable have any effect on anything or anyone? has anything changed due to the roundtable?

Validation time is quadratic. This means that somebody could construct a transaction (at 2 MB) that would take too long to validate (over 10 minutes). BIP109 does not solve this, but adds a limit to the size of transactions. Segwit on the other hand scales down the validation time making it linear.

Again, you didn't understand the roundtable at all. The people who were present there (some Core developers) have to present a HF proposal and code between April and July. This does imply that this proposal will be implemented/accepted by either developers/miners/community (i.e. no guarantee). You first have to wait for the actual proposal. How many times do I have to tell you this?

You're either being naive or disingenuous.

From the consensus letter


It is possible for Bitcoin Core to reject the HF recommendation.


So, I read this as saying that nothing is set in stone yet, i.e. a HF is not guaranteed to happen.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to tell a few people but they are unable to comprehend it apparently. There is no guarantee that the HF is going to be accepted/going to happen. Also anybody can write their own BIP (proposal) for a HF. With this agreement the developers who signed it have to make a proposal and code it before July (if they fail to do so, then the agreement is done and they lose trust && reputation).

TL;DR:
Satoshi's Round Table Classic (the original) reaffirmed the spirit of cooperation and innovation.
Satoshi's Round Table: The Last Supper (the one below) will re-reaffirm the spirit of cooperation and innovation.
"Unflinching fun for the whole family. I laughed, I cried."--Charles Manson
"Uncompromisingly transgressive"--David Koresh

i understand it's not guaranteed, i would however like some kind of statement that Core devs at least wants to go ahead with 2MB limit.
if i go by what i'm hearing its almost guaranteed that they will simply say "decentralization", "dangerous HF" and then call it off THEMSELVES.
are they genuinely backing the 2MB proposal? or did they simply agree to shoot it down again next year?
this is more of a rant than anything else... not worth responding to:
Vladimir said "I'm all for it" thats a start, but  Vladimir is another one of these leaders with no balls like Adam of blockstream, at least that what it SEEMS like. If you can't speak on behalf of your team and or make the tough calls when your team members can't agree your not a leader.

Proposal reached at the round table consensus was a success for Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin classic.
It will proof to be beneficial in the long term.

I like how some conspiracy theorists are correlating the Bilderberg Group with Blockstream...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/

Labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid especially when it happens to be true.

The CEO of AXA strategic investments, a primary investor in Blockstream, just so happens to be a chairman of the Bilderberg meetings and also an HSBC banking boardmember.

I will have to do some more research to see if it's true but so far it's looking like it is.

What is wrong with you people? You've become completely obsessed with Blockstream. How can a claim "is now controlled by" be valid when this is just one of many investors? Quite strange.

Wasting everyone's time as always.

Apparently it isn't for people who are supportive of Classic.

Core is not a centralized group. It would be hard to get a statement signed by all of the developers (many different views/approaches). Besides, there was no mentioned of '2 MB' in the statement, was there?

We're Bitcoiners. They're in bed with banksters. How is it not obvious?

Actually let me rephrase this: If it was about 'banksters' wouldn't Armstrong (i.e. Coinbase) be supportive of Core, not Classic? ::)

The guy that tried to patent Hot Wallet doesn't impress us much either. Surprise. :-\