well the question remains...
Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?
I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company). 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? |
|
|
|
Lambie, you’re becoming a bully like iCEBREAKER  Now you're being unfair. Lambie has always been an asshole. iCEBREAKER is the pretender. And not a very good one. But seriously, eli5 it to me now. How will decentralization be altered in a meaningful way if the number of nodes go down from 6000 to 2000 (I don't think it would, but I'm curious nonetheless)? |
|
|
|
"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. 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. Because there is no information there. It's just something you say to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. 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. Name one and show me evidence that they are using this debate in the manner implied to damage Bitcoin. 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 .
No, you might think I am misleading you or that I am wrong, but I am not spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. |
|
|
|
Wow! Listening to normal people talk about Bitcoin is weird. |
|
|
|
"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. 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. |
|
|
|
I actually wasn't directing my comments specifically at you Adam
You clearly were, you quoted my reply, to replied to elements of it, you used to "you" repeatedly. So as well as you poor grasp of electronics you also don't understand that 'you' can apply to a group as well as an individual? I just quote your post in it's entirety as I couldn't be bothered editing out lots of bits. If you can't be bothered to organize a post in such a way that it reflects what you're trying to communicate then that's not what you're communicating. |
|
|
|
Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?
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. "Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD? |
|
|
|
well the question remains...
Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?
I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company). 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.
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. |
|
|
|
JayJuanGee, now you are the one that is going bonkers.
Geez, you're slow. Oh, and congratulations with your stint as ruthless dictator. Gave me a lol. |
|
|
|
anyone that say adam back was right not representing blockstreams interest at the meeting in HK is a fucking retard!
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miner....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
Hear, hear |
|
|
|
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later. Why keep saying stuff like this? Because I know that you know that most people want free money. But if they get what they want that will not be money any more! ^ He used to be smart. What happened? Is it the fluoride water thingy aztec was talking about? |
|
|
|
let try and change to mood in here.  classic core head and shoulders pattern about to complete, targeting just under 400. AKA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM ftfy |
|
|
|
We are currently under DDoS counterattack.
Fixed it for you. Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws. Plus the teeth. [img]http://i.m.a/ret.ard[/ img] Fatman, are you sure he's three already? Idk. He reminds me of a character in Alien 3 called 85. Except he would probably be closer to 64. |
|
|
|
We are currently under DDoS attack.
That's the Bitcoin community for ya. A three year old with a bot net. |
|
|
|
Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?
The devs that signed the proposal were some of the more pessimistic and cautious core devs regarding raising the blocksize . Most of the other devs will be easier to hear and convince to rally behind once the technical details are fully elaborated.
There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies.
This is ridiculous statement to make. Devs have absolutely no control over the miners, merchants, payment processors, users. We all have to choose to run or upgrade to their software.... that is the VOTE! Their influence over our ecosystem is completely indirect because even those that hate them secretly respect their expertise and efforts. Do not become bitter that you cannot force devs to write and maintain code for you that goes against their advice or moral conscience. Which is why... If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means.
|
|
|
|
Blockstream and their employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
First, the conspiracy was that Blockstream was a unified cabal of developers with a vision to control bitcoin and a plan to force everyone to use their subscription sidechain products. Now when the nutters find out that Blockstream has a contract which allows developers to independently express their thoughts without being coerced into following a unified company plan and are free to independently develop and contribute what they want with autonomy than they scream foul as if this is some attempt to further stall development. f2pool could have been mature about this matter and simply emailed Adam a friendly email to clarify what the issue was , but instead they decided to stir up some really petty drama so they could appease the widest audience with their political games of using false nVersion's to give miners on their pool a false sense they are "voting" for classic when the nodes are really running core. These political games aren't that big of a deal in of themselves besides being unprofessional , but when they are done with the ignorance of the inherent risks that using false nVersion's creates, is really harmful to our ecosystem*. * Using false nVersion's risk triggering safety warnings or potential forks. You are conflating different peoples views. Both sides have a wide variety of overlapping consensus. If you start conflating peoples opinions it will necessarily look ridiculous. Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back? There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies. The miners came to do business and expected the other side to do so as well. If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means. We'll see if Adams attempt to unring the bell will work, but it's pretty obvious that his and other devs commitment to this "consensus" is far less meaningful than the miners were lead to believe. |
|
|
|
Looks like anyone looking for a long term bet on eth might get some on the cheap soon.
If depends on how cheap you want. If it is less $5, you might get it. If it is less than $2, you will not get. I've got my target for $2.50. But you might be right. Eth is a strange beast. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
