sharing is caring.
Claiming that you've developed something that you 'copy-pasted' is something else entirely. read it again. seems to me like Classic gives credit where credit is due. if there's anything else core would like to contribute, that would be gr8. |
|
|
|
If by "intend to deliver" you mean wait for Core to do most of the work and copy-paste it, then I agree.
sharing is caring. |
|
|
|
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar) There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home. -_- you solo mine or pool? |
|
|
|
|
you have it all wrong OP, bitcoin dev use to be "centrally planned".
now we have Core Classic Unlimited, all trying to get miners to agree with them.
development has never been more decentralized.
|
|
|
|
Urgently resolve issue of blocks being almost full
Implement BIP 109: Raise block size limit from 1MB to 2MB.
The result is going to be? Full 2MB blocks  Hard fork with 75% activation threshold (750 of 1000 blocks),
Cutting out absent miners and users, how kind.
28 day activation grace period.
is this a joke? We plan to hold an on-chain scaling conference soon, where these and future scaling solutions & concerns can be discussed among the community.
A conference? Wouldn't a golf tourney be more appropriate, considering the fact there's 0 skilled developers on the Classic team? -1 |
|
|
|
Initial Impression -- The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap) The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO. I can see this being the final nail in the home-mining coffin...  owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd. @BitUsher awaiting your response to this. |
|
|
|
Adam told you it wasn't. Close to a month ago, but don't mention that, 'Course (iirc) he also offered a fix for the issue, but don't mention that. Yep, better to see if the angry mob can be used to fuck with the price a bit more. /s if there's an angry mob it's not because of 1 small oversight. I was and still am perfectly willing to support segwit. i'm angry because, we had this agreement and now it's falling apart, who's making it fall apart? Blockstream guys... BTW, has it been confirmed that Blockstream can/have veto the agreement??? Grrr. I had a bad day yesterday. I meant 'peter todd told you', not 'adam told you', of course. Lol. Sry if that caused confusion in your reply. I'll assume it didn't... I'm surprised at your mood swings tho. You do seem angry and unreasonable lately. I see you joining the group who mislead as you did on the image i quoted above. There's a lot of fud here lately ... just thought I'd 'out' something rather obvious. Maybe you're just angry, impatient, and not checking your facts like you used to. Re the agreement: I'm not sure it could be considered a contract in any sense. It was more like a memorandum of understanding, so 'falling apart' isn't that much of a betrayal. If indeed it is even falling apart. I can understand adam's signature. He's a rep of a company that's guaranteed the employess free speech on the bitcoin topics, so kinda hard to sign off as the company prez. I'm sure he tried to get away with the 'individual' sig, but eventually was obliged to change it to prez. Understandable I think. It was a difficult call and may still cause trouble back at blockstream. Maaku's comments just reinforce that. The overall view tho, is that many players signed it, so there's some kind of commitment to modify the roadmap with a decent consideration of a hard fork in some months. That's better than you had (from core devs) before this agreement, right? Previously, there was just a vague mention of a future hard fork to clean up some stuff, rebase segwit's merkle tree, etc. Not what either side wanted, but better overall than what could have happened. i am livid. |
|
|
|
Thanks, I missed it earlier. Very good write up. Why Bitcoin's Decentralization Matters
Bitcoiners, from Bitcoin Core developers to long-time Bitcoin enthusiasts to recent /r/Bitcoin discoverers, love to talk about how Bitcoin’s decentralization is its ultimate feature. Rarely, however, do you see anyone explain why decentralization matters - surely it’s an interesting property from a computer science perspective, but why should consumers, businesses or investors care? This post is an attempt to write out why decentralization is foundational to Bitcoin’s utility and, somewhat more importantly, set up future posts talking about when it isn’t.
|
|
|
|
I can't believe I even have to say this but I do not hate the Chinese. I hate single party currency-manipulating governments with a sketchy understanding and respect for property rights and free speech.
Canadians, OTOH...
Plaid-wearing moosehumpers.
what about mexicans ?? I love beautiful young Mexican Girls. Especially my daughter. it's starting to make sense why the future of bitcoin matters to you. |
|
|
|
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> |
|
|
|
|
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
|
|
|
|
I guess this could be related: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376633.0Announcement: 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.
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... |
|
|
|
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 " 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 question is do they have the power to veto the change and will they? |
|
|
|
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 " 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 <- confirmation that blockstream is not onboard with the agreement |
|
|
|
...and we're still above $420. Dafuq  bitcoin = #bizarroworld watch it crumble when its confirmed the some of the Blockstream guys have veto power. |
|
|
|
Adam told you it wasn't. Close to a month ago, but don't mention that, 'Course (iirc) he also offered a fix for the issue, but don't mention that. Yep, better to see if the angry mob can be used to fuck with the price a bit more. /s if there's an angry mob it's not because of 1 small oversight. I was and still am perfectly willing to support segwit. i'm angry because, we had this agreement and now it's falling apart, who's making it fall apart? Blockstream guys... BTW, has it been confirmed that Blockstream can/have veto the agreement??? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
