The reputation of the organiser is off-topic? In a topic about the organisation? I see.
To me, it seems mostly to be so, but maybe it was your manner of presentation.. more than anything.... |
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down. There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules ( and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain. how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid. it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate. you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add?? I whine because i care. but you're right at this point we should all just fork off... i do believe thats what we are leading up too there may be no avoiding it It's not as bad as you are making it out to be. I mean, really? You are suggesting that it is not changing how you want it to, but really nothing is broken.. except some people whining that they want change faster than core is willing to accomplish it... change is still happening, but the xt and classic supporters are just saying that they want change faster and more.. blah blah blah.. but it is not necessary... So, why keep whining and whining and whining... it's not really helping, because there is already a list of plans that are in place that are continuing to be discussed but seemingly and apparently sufficiently adequate for the time being. wtv man this thread remains unanswered https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376895.msg14008780#newno one wants to admit it we are leading up to war... Maybe we should all just take a break for a while...  ? But the thing is that bitcoin is still happening.. and continuing to happen. |
|
|
|
|
one of my posts was deleted from this thread too... , recently.
I kind of assumed that it was NOT Adam who deleted it... but I could not be for sure..
the post seemed pretty benign...
|
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down. There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules ( and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain. how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid. it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate. you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add?? I whine because i care. but you're right at this point we should all just fork off... i do believe thats what we are leading up too there may be no avoiding it It's not as bad as you are making it out to be. I mean, really? You are suggesting that it is not changing how you want it to, but really nothing is broken.. except some people whining that they want change faster than core is willing to accomplish it... change is still happening, but the xt and classic supporters are just saying that they want change faster and more.. blah blah blah.. but it is not necessary... So, why keep whining and whining and whining... it's not really helping, because there is already a list of plans that are in place that are continuing to be discussed but seemingly and apparently sufficiently adequate for the time being. |
|
|
|
|
A lot of this discussion about scaling and bitcoin governance and even political alliances that are ongoing and bouncing around and contradictory seems all over the place to encourage FUDding and quasi-off topic posts within this broadly embraced bitcoin speculation topic's thread.
I believe that I posted earlier that I am a bit mixed regarding BTC's price direction... within the past 18 hours I guessed 52.75% inclined towards down and 47.25% inclined towards up .. but I remain a bit contented to have my buy / sells stacked and lined up....... Based on my own price speculations, I am not really feeling overbought or oversold at the moment.... even though I become nervous when BTC prices go down, yet from here on out, I am just going to continue to prepare for short-term 10% movements in BTC price in either direction...
At this time, I really think that there is going to be some difficulties to break BTC's downward below the upper $360s in any time in the near future, but certainly I've been amazed by price movements on a number of occasions.
Here's a modified version of my current stacking of potential buy/sells within approximately 10% price change.
Buys:
$383.00 0.130548303 $50.00
$393.00 0.127226463 $50.00
$403.00 0.099255583 $40.00
$408.00 0.098039216 $40.00
$411.00 0.097323601 $40.00
$418.00 0.095693780 $40.00
Sells:
$426.00 0.0704225352 $30.00
$430.00 0.0697674419 $30.00
$434.00 0.069124424 $30.00
$438.00 0.0684931507 $30.00
$441.00 0.0907029478 $40.00
$446.00 0.0896860987 $40.00
$451.00 0.088691796 $40.00
$456.00 0.0877192982 $40.00
$462.00 0.1731601732 $80.00
I understand that my price increments for my sells is quite a lot closer together and really adding up to higher total amounts (but really only by about 7%), but I guess that is just how the amounts have currently stacked up....and sometimes I am just doing a bit of flying off the cuff, when prices move quickly or if there is a bit of uncertainty if prices are going to reverse directions.
|
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. TL;DR: Let's organize a series of well-spaced Satoshi Round Tables, where we can propose governance changes, and chat about it for a ya=ear or two. In the mean time, you can start an altcoin of your own. That pretty much what you're saying? hahahahahahaha Finally you said something really smart, LambieChop (NOT) - I mean Bargainbin  |
|
|
|
Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.
Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.
You seem very negative. I really don't even know what you are proposing. No meetings of any kind? No conferences? Only top 10 devs are allowed to show up, no one else? Didn't say people did want to talk to me. Clearly they want to attend the event, because they are. Gangsters? So you consider several tops devs, almost all the top CEOs and leading voices on both sides of blocksize to be "gangsters, non-entities and nobodies"? Um. Okay. Disagree with that and likely 99% of users and people doing things in this industry would as well. If you don't think that miners, and developers, and CEOs who represent the majority of users and early adopters and holders have no influence then I disagree and we are probably so far away from each other in thinking that it's not worth talking. which direction It's always worth talking as long as people can attempt to stay on the topic and try not to take things too personally, and sometimes that will involve some level of ad hominem attacks. Surely, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate, but sometimes "humans" have difficulties controlling their emotions and they feel that they need to vent. But, that would not mean that you discontinue the conversation if the conversation can get back on track to attempt to address some of the more important substantive issues. So, referring to Bruce and his control freak organisation as gangsters is ad hominem? Ad hominem has to be slanderous, Bruce's gangster background is a fact, that he freely admits to. Of course, I'm sure he would defend himself by saying that he's a "gangster of geometry", or similar garbage, but that's to be expected from a member of an organisation that defends it's members and their secrets at any cost, lying is instinctive to these people. Seems like it is a bit much what you are saying, and doesn't seem like it is on topic... If someone is bias or corrupt, then that is relevant, but it is not really the topic of this thread, from what I can see. Therefore it seems to be unnecessary and irrelevant ad hominem.. because it is not the topic at hand. Bruce Fenton is a self-confessed member of essentially the most pernicious organisation in history, and "gangster" doesn't even begin to cover it. May I suggest that people think more carefully before validating this man's attempt to gain a position in the community, he has done nothing to warrant it, and everything to suggest he should not be trusted or engaged. (i.e. presiding over hilariously extravagant expense claims at the corrupt Bitcoin Foundation).
O.k... maybe some or all of this is true, but it is not the topic of this thread. also, maybe if everything that you say is true, then it would discredit, but still seems that it is far from proven, and it is not part of this thread topic. If there is a thread about such, you could link to it, for people who may want to engage about those alleged items.
So yeah, Bruce, I'm negative. About you. The only people who want Bruce Fenton and his corrupt friends involved in Bitcoin are Bruce Fenton and his corrupt friends. No-one has succeeded in strong-arming the Core devs up to now, and it's not going to happen as a result of this latest illegitimate organisation either.
I've already addressed this part. see above. |
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. No quibbling from this cat about that.  |
|
|
|
...
I may or may not be working on, or, rather, composing, another post that may or, in all likelihood shall, address some, if not all, of these areas of your purported and/or potential concern(s), which is to say the concerns you may or may not hold now are likely to be addressed in the post which is the topic of the post I'm currently composing, to the extent that you are really concerned (and will remain concerned upon the completion of the post of which I'm currently informing you), (even though it appears that you seem to appear to seem to be reverting back, i.e. regressing, to some (and/or all) of your earlier white knighting behaviors, or, perhaps, this is merely your feeble attempt at manifesting in the corporeal present the precognition of your future white-knighting behavior, the possibility which has not escaped me, albeit it's really shit. You fool.).
Regarding telling everything or a lot of things or stream of consciousness or whatever you want to call it, there is likely some repetition taking place I may or may not be working on, or, rather, composing, another post that may or, in all likelihood, shall address some, if not all, of these areas of your purported and/or potential concern(s), which is to say the concerns you may or may not hold now are likely to be addressed in the post which is the topic of the post I'm currently composing, to the extent that you are really concerned (and will remain concerned upon the completion of the post of which I'm currently informing you), (even though it appears that you seem to appear to seem to be reverting back, i.e. regressing, to some (and/or all) of your earlier white knighting behaviors, or, perhaps, this is merely your feeble attempt at manifesting in some of my recent content, but I may or may not be working on, or, rather, composing, another post that may or, in all likelihood, shall, address some, if not all, of these areas of your purported and/or potential concern(s), which is to say the concerns you may or may not hold now are likely to be addressed in the post which is the topic of the post I'm currently composing, to the extent that you are really concerned (and will remain concerned upon the completion of the post of which I'm currently informing you), (even though it appears that is no different from anyone else who has posted a lot in various parts of this forum.. with various repeated themes in the different threads.
Brevity, i.e. the shortness or rather concise terseness of the author's final product, e.g. a book or a letter, or even a diary entry where you start out with "Dear diary," which really doesn't need to be said at all if you think of it, but people just do it because everybody does it, anyway... the thing that the author should think about long and hard, before he puts pen to paper, is that brevity is the heart of, or, more precicely, the soul of, wit. To wit, wittiness, or even smartness. That's how important brevity is when you write. ...a book, or even a forum post. You are a goofball... Is that brief enough for you? |
|
|
|
if this thread must die then so be it
Losing faith ?  LOL, I think we should kill it. It is impossible to keep up with the conversation. Perhaps moderater can save us by locking it.  It's so popular that no one goes there anymore.....  |
|
|
|
i'm fighting fire with fire now.
I think this is how we lost the Gold is Collapsing thread.  yep, adam has gone nazi sensor ship on us all now ... read this quick before it disappears!! I think I can see the wall observer thread getting closed soon ... oh well. It was nice while it lasted. Nice to have gotten to know some of you guys. |
|
|
|
Why would a governance change be appropriate?
Loss of market share? check. (to whom? helrow?)
Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check (whatever.. we are still likely on the way up, except your fud hoping to go down, for whatever whinny reason)
Gridlock in decision-making? check. (self imposed by attempting to create a problem that doesn't exist)
Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check (hm? how could this be? bitcoin has not changed too much, since it's inception, so how could you conclude that each of these things have been lost? sure, the user base has grown.. and that is not a bad problem to have)
What more do we fucking need? How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck? (we need something more than what you are describing... that's for sure)
Responded above in bold to your made up shit. |
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. And part of the logical and propaganda difficulty with this is that the problem of bitcoin seems to have been recently that the urgency of the situations has been framed in terms of the size of the block, urgency, with a hidden governance agenda. Now, you are suggesting that the central consideration is the change of governance is what is urgent... Again the presumption and the burden is not on me to suggest what it would take to have a problem that necessitates a change, but the burden is someone who is proposing a change to provide evidence and logic regard what is the problem exactly and what are they proposing to change to fix the described (and in this case alleged) problem. If there is no change in anything, then the status quo remains and continues. |
|
|
|
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.
That's not really a sound logical extension, Adam. I wouldn't characterize myself as a "small blocker," but it does seem that the large majority of the core view seems to be a fairly decent and reasonable road forward... I am very sympathetic with Core in a lot of ways... especially in regards to questioning the need and/or the emergency that is put in front of us by the proposals involving XT and Classic and some of the seeming purposeful contention contained in those roadmaps to suggest that a hardfork is the only way to go and to call into question bitcoin's status quo governance in a kind of coo approach. Anyhow, beginning with Seg wit and then reconsidering to take one step at a time, seg wit is deployed along the way... as what the next step should be. It's uncanny. No matter how I shuffle the words around, your post reads exactly the same. That's called a reading comprehension deficit. I believe I had that when I was a kid, and when I used to read, but did not really understand the points that were being made. A potential bright side is that if you work at it, there is a decent possibility that you will be able to improve, so long as you put some effort into it, and attempt to recognize some of your challenged areas. |
|
|
|
i'm tried of getting FUCKED by blockstream.
Is it really Blockstream, or are you just reading too much into it.. and maybe even getting a little irritated by some of the personalities? I don't really know what to say, because the level of your exasperation seems to be somewhat blown out of proportion. In the end, we are going to have various individuals who maybe have too much influence, but that really doesn't mean that they are fully in charge or that they have veto power or anything like that. Yes, a lot of people are suggesting that the size increase should come first... but really is a size increase necessary or an emergency (even though down the road it is pretty likely to take place in various degrees)? Also, I don't really buy the propaganda that there is some kind of commercial interest biasing the more conservative and step by step approach... It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance... By the way, Adam, I will take you at your word that you are attempting to be genuine, and that you are not talking your book... I mean overall, there can be differences of opinion and still many of us with different opinions still are aiming for the success of bitcoin and price rises in the near future. |
|
|
|
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? Either his account has been taken over, or Adam has become delirious, and/or won over by some of the "emergency" propaganda (FUD). |
|
|
|
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.
That's not really a sound logical extension, Adam. I wouldn't characterize myself as a "small blocker," but I am very sympathetic with Core in a lot of ways... especially in regards to questioning the need and/or the emergency that is put in front of us by the proposals involving XT and Classic and some of the seeming purposeful contention contained in those roadmaps to suggest that a hardfork is the only way to go and to call into question bitcoin's status quo governance in a kind of coo approach. Anyhow, it does seem that the large majority of the core view seems to be a fairly decent and reasonable road forward... to take one step at a time, beginning with Seg wit and then reconsidering along the way... as seg wit is deployed what the next step should be. |
|
|
|
Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.
Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.
You seem very negative. I really don't even know what you are proposing. No meetings of any kind? No conferences? Only top 10 devs are allowed to show up, no one else? Didn't say people did want to talk to me. Clearly they want to attend the event, because they are. Gangsters? So you consider several tops devs, almost all the top CEOs and leading voices on both sides of blocksize to be "gangsters, non-entities and nobodies"? Um. Okay. Disagree with that and likely 99% of users and people doing things in this industry would as well. If you don't think that miners, and developers, and CEOs who represent the majority of users and early adopters and holders have no influence then I disagree and we are probably so far away from each other in thinking that it's not worth talking. It's always worth talking as long as people can attempt to stay on the topic and try not to take things too personally, and sometimes that will involve some level of ad hominem attacks. Surely, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate, but sometimes "humans" have difficulties controlling their emotions and they feel that they need to vent. But, that would not mean that you discontinue the conversation if the conversation can get back on track to attempt to address some of the more important substantive issues. |
|
|
|
See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit. The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.
FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.
Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.
The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).
<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#msg13983412On 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
