Bin mit 50% raus und nehme Gewinne mit, was macht ihr ? Long ?
10% verkauft, Rest bleibt long. |
|
|
|
i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on!
Consensus = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole yes, and with this definition of consensus you won't be able to do ANY progress at all. you would also need 100% miners agreement for example to call it a true consensus. that means that only ONE miner could potentially block any change you make to the protocol. because, hey its not consensus if not everybody agrees right? true consensus is utopian. |
|
|
|
Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.
More BS: " Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."~ maaku7 https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqicdose he want segwit or not? WTF is wrong with these poeple. ok lets do it, i'm with you lets move on. i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on! |
|
|
|
Changed back to Blockstream this morning: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736Now that probably doesn't mean much because I don't see Adam compelling Blockstream employees to write code or support a HF they might be opposed to. It does go to show that those that attended the meeting have high expectations that the HF will take place. If it doesn't, expect Classic to gain steam... if it doesn't expect friedenbach to be kicked out |
|
|
|
Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Block stream anymore in the future.
Why does this even matter? I took the change to indicate that Adam was merely attempting to be humble and go into the meeting representing himself and his ideas rather than representing his company. Remember Blockstream employees signed a pledge indicating that their primary allegiance is to Bitcoin before themselves or Blockstream, Adam Back being listed as an individual makes sense in context: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702288186265903104This being said, you should have a healthy level of skepticism with everyone. it maybe a reaction to mark friedenbach and his attacks on the made consensus. |
|
|
|
NLC working double time today.  Good thing Bitcoinosphere has paradigm-shift-on-the-fly tranny with scatter shield: Antifragilistic!  your lucky bitcointalk uses an img proxy. Yes! ...no wait, why? i'm not implying anything Cool.  Don't worry, 'soon's the Blitznetverk kicks in, MooooOOooOon! is that dude from Chaos Engine?? |
|
|
|
that's remarkable sound! never would have expected him to be able to such a insight/compromise. now we only need to convince the other nutters left or get going without them. friedenbach would be to name here. i am surprised we havent heard anything from todd etc about their colleague being against the consensus. |
|
|
|
All the income in the gox data above is listed as JPY. Does that mean they've already liquidated any BTC, that the BTC hasn't been sold but is still listed at the current exchange rate, or that the BTC isn't included in these numbers?
i think the 200.000 are still untouched. they had some fiat so maybe they started with that. |
|
|
|
Whatever proportion of the money has been eaten by lawyers must be substantial judging by those figures.
its basically 1/9th of the overall amount. 1.200.000.000 yen = 10mio US$ 200.000 BTC * 440 US$ =88mio US$ that means 1/9th have been eaten so far. thats ok with me. not counting the fiat they had at the moment of bankruptcy... |
|
|
|
lol! now friedenbach threatens with a change of PoW.
seems like some part of core is really decisive about being left behind by the community.
It's like a fucking kindergarten. Although I am no Friedenbach fanboi, I think we agree on this:
I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely
Anyone who still labours under the misapprehension that the roundtable was a good thing for bitcoin needs to re-examine their understanding of Bitcoin, you see, in bitcoin we have only one real built in way to reach consensus, its PoW. apart from that we simply have no way of knowing what the community/economy/... wants. so basically you will always have to have meetups and there will always be somebody who wasnt there. we cant have an election like in other systems. and we cant have a survey that would lead to comprehensive results. we cant have one stake = one vote either. But its when that chance of PoW is denied that we start t get into problems. you can't deny it. miners are always able to mine the blocks they want and to use the version they want. so far the miners have been very cautious in using their voting power, but if that drag goes along they will do what they see best for BTC. closed-door-meetings are only a way of avoiding the miners to use their powers for the sake of the community-spirit, as we lack a way of election its the only way of dealing with these things at the moment. |
|
|
|
lol! now friedenbach threatens with a change of PoW.
seems like some part of core is really decisive about being left behind by the community.
It's like a fucking kindergarten. Although I am no Friedenbach fanboi, I think we agree on this:
I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely
Anyone who still labours under the misapprehension that the roundtable was a good thing for bitcoin needs to re-examine their understanding of Bitcoin, you see, in bitcoin we have only one real built in way to reach consensus, its PoW. apart from that we simply have no way of knowing what the community/economy/... wants. so basically you will always have to have meetups and there will always be somebody who wasnt there. we cant have an election like in other systems. and we cant have a survey that would lead to comprehensive results. we cant have one stake = one vote either. |
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d082hi8This is what I predicted. The holdout elements in Core object to the very IDEA of political compromise because they see it as a betrayal of engineering principles. This plays right into bigblocker hands, of course, because Now the miners will know what we have been dealing with all this time. Smallblockers will not compromise. ever. The only option is to route around the roadblock with Classic or something like it. The sane elements in core know that they are in danger of getting left behind by the "economic majority" and they will concede and agree to the Roundtable agreement. So Core is split. That's good news. it's what we wanted. Divide and Conquer. Now instead of Core against the world, it's half of core against the world. The purists smallblockers will win because there is bias for the status quo in their governance model. They will win the battle and lose the war. Core will reject the agreement and the miners will reject Core. Classic comes out on top. Cheap coins ahead! imo as the dust settles we start to recognize who seem to be the participants that were blocking from the beginning. it narrows down to friedenbach and gmax, whereas its not yet clear if gmax is OK with the "consensus". lets see what core has to say the coming days. if friedenbach wants to make his friedenbach-coin he is free to do so. |
|
|
|
but in this particular issue its just the other way around! the community, the exchanges, the economy, some devs, some core devs AND the miners agree pretty much on a way forward. its just a small group of core-devs (even a minority INSIDE of core) that wants to force its will onto millions of others.
its ridiculous!
The vast majority are ok with the compromise. A few insist on classic HF or a 1MB4evah. So if we have like 90 (segwit+hf later as long as there is a time schedule for it) 5 (only hf2mb) 5 (only segwit) The "5"s, won't matter that much. lets see, i am waiting for a core statement |
|
|
|
lol! now friedenbach threatens with a change of PoW.
seems like some part of core is really decisive about being left behind by the community.
Funny how some people think they can speak for a whole. I can only speak for myself - and if the consequence of mining becoming centralized is, that some miners are able to influence decisions which should ultimately belong to the community, then maybe a change of the PoW algorithm is not that bad. It may even lead to a more solid foundation for a globally connected financial institution. you see, you are partially right. if the miners would decide something completely insane and very hurting for Bitcoin overall and the community would be in strong stance against it, you would be absolutely right. the community should move on without them and not let some miners rule over the economy and community. but in this particular issue its just the other way around! the community, the exchanges, the economy, some devs, some core devs AND the miners agree pretty much on a way forward. its just a small group of core-devs (even a minority INSIDE of core) that wants to force its will onto millions of others. its ridiculous! |
|
|
|
|
lol! now friedenbach threatens with a change of PoW.
seems like some part of core is really decisive about being left behind by the community.
|
|
|
|
So, to sum up.
Yesterday's news: We have consensus!
Today's news: We don't have consensus, we have another split!
Oh well. At least the miners are taking action. They'll be the ones to decide how this goes, whatever the devs say. Hard to argue with hashpower.
agree. miners will have to take responsibility, devs seem incapable of doing so. y'all clueless, if not useless. so just focus in not eating your shorts by the end of the day, that would be great enough. why dont you just leave and do some "Heil Hitler!" with your FN-friends? bitcoin is libertarian in the end, nothing a true fascist could go inline with. |
|
|
|
So, to sum up.
Yesterday's news: We have consensus!
Today's news: We don't have consensus, we have another split!
Oh well. At least the miners are taking action. They'll be the ones to decide how this goes, whatever the devs say. Hard to argue with hashpower.
agree. miners will have to take responsibility, devs seem incapable of doing so. |
|
|
|
TIMBER!
looks like this community is beyond repairable. the consensus found yesterday is already under heavy fire. no surprise eth starts rising again, people want a functioning circle of developers. only way out of this mess could be that the miners just patch the code, in the end bitcoin has no decentralized way of deciding things apart from POW. Everyone will read that document like the devil reads The Bible, and it looks like one way of looking at it is that the core road map is unchanged. 2MB non-segwit but 4MB max total smells like little to no change in maxBlockSize. Their encouragement of using more signature heavy txs might eat up much of the 4MB. Idk, we might have to whip some answers out of Bitusher when he's back. It's pretty clear though that Bitcoin is not going to allow many more users for the next 18 months. Sort of hard to get all pumped up about this. true, would be nice to have it implemented in the roadmap. but "no new users"? i disagree, we will loose microTXs and gain new users that are doing bigger TXs. is it a good thing to loose microTXs? no of course not! but Bitcoin will survive to let them go for some time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
