Looks like code is coming soon.

its all whistles in the wind and drama until we actually see some code to review that actually says it does 'what it say on the tin'

anyone can have a meeting. but meetings are meaningless.
code rules.. simple

Luke Jr is working on this - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html

Let us hope that everyone moulds it into the least shit option on the table.

The way parabolic bubbles work, we can very easily see testing of 4000 USD per bitcoin next month. The resistance there could be too much and cause significant correction (spanning 6+ months), but with that said 10 000 USD per bitcoin will be in game far sooner than 2020, sir 

Unless, some alt replace bitcoin as virtual gold (wealth retention), which I find extremely unlike in medium term. Even ETH is unfit for that, perhaps monero in couple of years. But not now.

Testing 8-10k might be on the table as soon as next year unless something catastrophic happens.

Sustained increases in living conditions result only from gains in knowledge. Top-down control plays in role in the the organization needed to facilitate the emergence of new knowledge. Top-down control facilitates its own removal for new knowledge eventually circumvents and undermines the prior order allowing society to climb to higher energy systems. The new system is also one of top-down control but the knowledge gained allows for an overall relaxation of the imposed order increasing economic degrees-of-freedom.

The evolution of the social contract is a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. It is likely that in the near future republics will be consumed by world government, and perhaps someday world government will evolve into decentralized government.

Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Each iteration increases the sustainable degrees of freedom the system can support.  

cashless societies, borderless currencies, blockchain apps for business, cheaper financial infrastructure

the big players are developing now

Actually, even though technically you are probably correct that bitcoin would be better with blocksize limit that is lower than 1mb - there is a certain advantage in just keeping the status quo - even if a lower blocksize limit would technically be the better design.

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

I have removed the rest of your message as it is based on a wrong premise. No, it was not a stop-loss order. I learned not to ever use stop-orders on Kraken as they simply don't work as intended (exactly as you are describing). I underatand stop loss orders are NOT on the order book until they get triggered and inserted (whenever that happens) in the order book. This has NOTHING to do with that.

It was LIMIT ORDERS, opened several days in advance, already on the order book that HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED YET THE PRICE HAS KEPT RISING ABOVE THEM.

When I say the trading engine/order book in Kraken is broken I really mean it. There is absolutely no technical explanation to this. The only doubt I have is WHO profited from it.

The word integrative means to join several parts into a whole. Conceptually, this implies some cooperation, or a joining of forces to achieve something together. Usually involves a higher degree of trust and a forming of a relationship. Both parties want to walk away feeling they've achieved something which has value by getting what each wants. Ideally, it is a twofold process.

In the real world of business, the results often tilt in favour of one party over the other because, it's unlikely that both parties will come to the table at even strength, when they begin the talks.

Nonetheless, there are many advantages to be gained by both parties, when they take a cooperative approach to mutual problem solving. The process generally involves some form or combination of making value for value concessions, in conjunction with creative problem solving. Generally, this form of negotiation is looking down the road, to them forming a long term relationship to create mutual gain. It is often described as the win-win scenario.

Integrative Negotiation Basics

Multiple Issues - Integrative negotiations usually entails a multitude of issues to be negotiated, unlike distributive negotiations which generally revolve around the price, or a single issue. In integrative negotiations, each side wants to get something of value while trading something which has a lesser value.

Sharing - To fully understand each other's situation, both parties must realistically share as much information as they can to understand the other's interests. You can't solve a problem without knowing the parameters. Cooperation is essential.

Problem Solving - Find solutions to each other's problems. If you can offer something of lesser value which gives your counterpart something which they need, and this results in you realising your objective, then you have integrated your problems into a positive solution.

Bridge Building - More and more businesses are engaging in long term relationships. Relationships offer greater security.

yes


more data needed for full node = less people running full nodes

the price is the wrong metric to be looking at, look at the node count (i.e. the decentralisation metric)

and it's flat. deadlining, essentially. And that means that those getting into Bitcoin in the current buying spree don't get why it's valuable in the first place, and it's difficult to adequately explain why the 6500 Bitcoin nodes enforcing the consensus rules are so important.

But it's easy to demonstrate that you're clearly not interested in that, the price appears to be telling you all you need to know. You should be learning about why the Bitcoin Network is what makes it valuable, not making unbacked schoolyard-esque assertions with zero computer science to qualify them

The only thing that we can judge from an objective standpoint are his economic incentives, which are broadly to let Bitcoin scale as soon as he feels altcoins are becoming a threat.

Yes, segwit in september, but not via this bullshit compromise. UASF BIP148!

Wow, that is a pretty crazy scenario. So Segwit will be activated but not locked in? What is the point of this? I dont get why they cant just be honest and do things properly.

I think it's ok. First they activate SegWit. Then everyone will see that hardfork is redundant. But if some fools try to hard fork after SW they will end up with alt on their hands.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

Any block size increase is not a reasonable roadmap forward. It solves nothing! It just postpones the inevitable next block size increase - 4mb, 8mb, 16mb... until full centralization. Big blocktards will accept anything just to follow this roadmap.

Nothing's being forced until someone pulls the trigger.  If you set yourself down the path of activating UASF, you're pulling the trigger and forcing their hand.  If they set themselves down the path of activating a non-consensual hard fork, they're pulling the trigger and forcing your hand.  No one has pulled the trigger yet, so simmer down and start negotiating before things escalate any further.

Pffft.  Not even close.  Devs can only propose rules, consensus sets them.  Maybe you're thinking of Ripple or some other closed-source shitcoin based on centralised development and the users having no say in the code they choose to run.  Like so many people out there, you're willing to sacrifice the freedom of choice you've been given and surrender yourself to one centralised authority because you're scared of another one taking over.

The time of the cypherpunks was all too short, now only the cypherpussies remain, pleading for someone in power to trust with their hopes and dreams.  Pathetic.  

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

A closely-watched fight between the Internal Revenue Service and a popular bitcoin exchange took a new twist last week, as senior Republicans in Congress sent a sharply-worded letter that suggests the tax agency is overstepping its powers.

The letter concerns an IRS investigation into possible tax evasion by customers who use Coinbase, a San Francisco-based company that many people use to buy digital currencies. As part of the investigation, which began last year, officials demanded that Coinbase turn over information for every one of its accounts.

Coinbase and its customers are currently in court trying to block the demand, saying it's too broad, and now the letter from the Republicans is likely to give them extra ammunition.
"The summons is estimated to affect 500,000 active Coinbase customers and would result in the production of millions of pages of associated records, many of which contain personally identifiable information ... Based on the information before us, this summons seems overly broad, extremely burdensome, and highly intrusive to a large population of individuals," says the letter, which is signed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and by Vern Buchanan and Kevin Brady, who head the House Committee on Ways and Means. (my emphasis)
Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.

The Republicans' concerns echo those of Coinbase and its customers, who argue the IRS does not need every single Coinbase account to carry out its audit, and that the investigation sweeps in people who have clearly done nothing wrong.

The tax agency, for its part, has pointed out that only 802 Coinbase users filed a tax form related to bitcoin in 2015, which suggests large number of people have failed to declare capital gains related to bitcoin.

The IRS investigation also comes at a time when the price of bitcoin has been on an incredible tear, climbing from $13 in 2013 to a new high of over $2,000 last week. Those who profited from the higher prices—either by selling bitcoin for dollars or exchanging it for merchandise—are required to pay taxes on the gain.

Some Coinbase customers, however, have not sold any bitcoin at all while many others hold only a minimal amount, raising questions of why the IRS demanded information about every account.
One theory, according to a lawyer who spoke with Fortune late last year, is that the IRS's sweeping demand is a negotiating tactic to make Coinbase more cooperative, and that the two sides will reach an agreement to allow the agency to inspect some, but not all, of the accounts.

The letter from the Republicans, which asks the IRS to explain its strategy for enforcing tax payments on digital currency by June 7, is likely to put pressure on the agency to come to a deal with Coinbase.