Bitcoin round table

[johnyj]

This is your new Federal Reserve  

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7

[1714008299]

1714008299

[1714008299]

1714008299

[1714008299]

1714008299

[1714008299]

1714008299

[1714008299]

1714008299

[1714008299]

1714008299

[jyakulis]

 

[Patatas]

Welcome centralization,we're expecting this.The comment that caught my attention was right below the article and makes sense."The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.
I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB."
And there's more : https://medium.com/@drwasho/the-pool-administrators-who-have-signed-this-statement-represent-70-of-the-hashing-power-on-the-4fbdca201778#.skcl9nhbf

[Lauda]

Welcome centralization,we're expecting this.The comment that caught my attention was right below the article and makes sense."The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

That guy is trying to spread FUD about Core's intentions. It seems like these kinds of attacks have just begun. If you want to drink the kool-aid and submit to such, go ahead. The miners won't risk reducing the value of their coins.

This is your new Federal Reserve  

It seems like you guys are salty.  

[johnyj]

Another TBF, let's see how far they go

I doubt at this stage, a hard fork becomes inevitable, you can't walk towards east and west at the same time. Satoshi's 1 million coins will make sure the chain he does not like sink to the bottom of the sea

[Lauda]

Another TBF, let's see how far they go

This can't even be compared to the TBF. Stop your rumbling. It is the end of BU and Classic. I wonder what the next controversial HF will be called, 'Bitcoin Original' maybe?

[bargainbin]

Welcome centralization,we're expecting this.The comment that caught my attention was right below the article and makes sense."The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

Nah, it doesn't represent the miners OR the pool operators.
Same pool operators were pro-core after LukeJr. threatened them, then pro-Classic when the threat proved to be trolling, now again pro-Core after having been granted a seat @ Bitcoin Bilderberg Group.

That guy is trying to spread FUD about Core's intentions. It seems like these kinds of attacks have just begun. If you want to drink the kool-aid and submit to such, go ahead. The miners won't risk reducing the value of their coins.
...

Miners don't hold their coins, they *sell* them to the highest bidder. That bidder is, inevitably, the guy with fiat money, not the guy with BTC. Duh.

[Lauda]

-snip-

Nah, it doesn't represent the miners OR the pool operators.

When you "have the support of the pools", they are important and represent all the miners, but when you don't then they aren't and don't represent anything. You're making it too obvious and easy.  
Classic is DOA.

[bargainbin]

Nah, it doesn't represent the miners OR the pool operators.
Same pool operators were pro-core after LukeJr. threatened them, then pro-Classic when the threat proved to be trolling, now again pro-Core after having been granted a seat @ Bitcoin Bilderberg Group.

Keep drinking the kool-aid. Classic is DOA.

Nah, it doesn't represent the miners OR the pool operators.

When you "have the support of the pools", they are important and represent all the miners, but when you don't then they aren't and don't represent anything. You're making it too obvious and easy.  

Only suggesting that the miners (pool operators) will say whatever suits the moment. Real, rational human beings can't possibly bounce from one extreme to the other thrice within a month.
The whole thing is fueled by [petty] backroom dealings & [equally petty] posturing, making it painfully clear how Bitcoin really works; that Bitcoin's consensus mechanism is a muddled junkie's pipe dream. Though, I concede, somewhat funnier & less practical.

[johnyj]

Another TBF, let's see how far they go

This can't even be compared to the TBF. Stop your rumbling. It is the end of BU and Classic. I wonder what the next controversial HF will be called, 'Bitcoin Original' maybe?

Really? I see a surge of classic nodes following the announcement, and this time they are switching from existing core nodes, core nodes counts are dropping

[Lauda]

Really? I see a surge of classic nodes following the announcement

Here we go again. When the number of nodes is not in favor of a controversial HF then you guys claim that it does not really matter, but as soon as the numbers start growing then they suddenly do.  

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers.

The number of nodes is not a reliable metric.

and this time they are switching from existing core nodes, core nodes counts are dropping

Jan 29:
Classic 0.11.2: 22 Nodes
Core (all versions total): 3796
Other: 1695

Feb 10:
Classic 0.11.2: 589
Core (all versions total): 3825
Other: 1395.
"Switching", "dropping".  

[johnyj]

Really? I see a surge of classic nodes following the announcement

Here we go again. When the number of nodes is not in favor of a controversial HF then you guys claim that it does not really matter, but as soon as the numbers start growing then they suddenly do.  

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers.

The number of nodes is not a reliable metric.

and this time they are switching from existing core nodes, core nodes counts are dropping

Jan 29:
Classic 0.11.2: 22 Nodes
Core (all versions total): 3796
Other: 1695

Feb 10:
Classic 0.11.2: 589
Core (all versions total): 3825
Other: 1395.
"Switching", "dropping".  

[Lauda]

-snip-

That's quite unreliable as you can't see the exact numbers. All I can clearly see is mostly XT nodes switching to Classic and Core nodes fluctuating as always.

[Jet Cash]

What a shame that Bitcoin users can only vote with their feet. Without users, the whole system will die.

[chennan]

And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really???  There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out.  What happened to the idea of getting away from centralization and the Fed?  I guess this ideal doesn't really matter to people any more, and people are only buying into Bitcoin for speculation of making a couple extra dollars...

[franky1]

that chart needs changing..

the "core" nodes should be separated out so that the ones running the most recent update are categorised as deciding not to go for 2mb.. and those with older versions of core are categorised as "undecided".

then atleast it would be a fairer view of current situation. because not all people running core right now want to stick to 1mb so shouldnt be shelved into the same category that indicates they want to stick to 1mb.

surprisingly for once Lauda is using stats that is more representable of the network.. where only 0.7% increased in favour of core, but 9.7% decided on classic based on the changes between the 2 dates lauda linked

[Lauda]

And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really???  There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out.  

This is not really centralized and it works. You have two options: 1. Vote with your hashing power; 2. Vote by running nodes. You can't really blame Bitcoin if you lack the capital to compete with others.

This is really not a good way to explain it. There is no voting whatsoever. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty. People (who run full nodes) can't be coerced into accepting a rule violation except economically.

What a shame that Bitcoin users can only vote with their feet. Without users, the whole system will die.

Judging from the situation that we're presented with, the majority still supports Core and a lot of the users don't really care (i.e. aren't involved in 'politics').
Updated post.

[bargainbin]

And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really???  There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out.  What happened to the idea of getting away from centralization and the Fed?  I guess this ideal doesn't really matter to people any more, and people are only buying into Bitcoin for speculation of making a couple extra dollars...

“A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people, just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees. [...] Thus the [Bitcoin] dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”

[chennan]

And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really???  There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out. 

This is not really centralized and it works. You have two options: 1. Vote with your hashing power; 2. Vote by running nodes. You can't really blame Bitcoin if you lack the capital to compete with others.

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed.  To say that the only people who can "vote", in a sense, are the people who have acquired the most capital during these years Bitcoin has been around is seriously fucked up.  Also, miners doesn't really seem to "vote" with their hashing power and distribution of nodes... they "vote" by bitching and complaining and holding threats over the Bitcoin community that they will just shut it all down if they don't get their way or reach a compromise... at least that's what I'm understanding from this whole situation, I could very well be wrong... but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

I'll go ahead and disclose that I have stopped and will never get back into mining because of lack of capital, but I think everyone who is in this Bitcoin "economy" should be able to participate and reach a conclusion just as much as the people with the most "capital".

Big time miners seem to have these solutions that will never "fail", but the reality is is that we all don't know what to do in tackling this... and all of what is being proposed to fix the block size is "theoretical" and "philosophical" in a sense.  People forget that this is still a new project that everyone should be a part of, not a fixed system that should be "governed" by the most powerful people in terms of wealth in BTC. 

[Lauda]

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed. 

It wasn't and the rich people can't really force anything. There is no central authority. I've updated my post.

This is really not a good way to explain it. There is no voting whatsoever. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty. People (who run full nodes) can't be coerced into accepting a rule violation except economically.

but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

The industry is trying to work with the developers to find the best solutions. What exactly do you want here? Random aliases on the forums and reddit deciding? They aren't changing any fundamental rules, nor would the users agree on it.