Consensus Reached

[chopstick]

Consensus gets rid of these diseases.

Consensus my ass. There has never been more uncertainty in the Bitcoin space than there is right now.

Calling Classic a 'disease' is foolish. There are very real concerns surrounding the Blockstream people, and very real conflicts of interest which could be very detrimental to bitcoin in the long run.

[Quickseller]

I am somewhat skeptical. Especially considering that the "promise" of core devs to only implement a HF that contains a larger maximum block size with "strong community support". Although I do not disagree that any HF needs to have strong community support to be implemented, however in my eyes it is the core devs that are preventing an immediate increase in the maximum block size today, and if they were to only half-heartedly (or not at all) support the HF then the community would not back it.

I am also confused as to why it would take so long to code a HF whose only change is to increase the maximum block size. I would think this would only involve changing a few lines of code, and see little reason why this code could not be released tomorrow

[Amph]

i dunno but consensus reached by few people it's not so different than a council in the senate deciding about a new law

i don't like it at all it look like a centralized consensus mechanics...but as long as it increase the capacity in some way i'm fine with it

[hv_]

Always knew that the bitcoin community would reach a consensus,  i love Game Theory.   

Game of Thrones ?

[Denker]

i dunno but consensus reached by few people it's not so different than a council in the senate deciding about a new law

i don't like it at all it look like a centralized consensus mechanics...but as long as it increase the capacity in some way i'm fine with it

Let me quote brg444 for what he wrote an hour ago on reddit.
That is what it's all about.

It's important to point out:

It's been specifically mentionned by Core representative that this is preliminary talk and that all they can agree on is a proposal to submit to the community who then form its own consensus around it.

Now let's continue to work together to achieve it.

[chopstick]

I hate to say it but it's not looking good for Bitcoin right now. You have a bunch of trojan horses at blockstream core controlling the direction of Bitcoin's development, the type of folks who only care about extracting as much profit from it as possible. It also appears that they are purposely hamstringing bitcoin so it will never be able to compete with mastercard/visa in terms of overall transaction volume.

Furthermore, they appear to be engaging in outright deception and even some intimidation tactics to get their way... which is incredibly childish & sinister behavior.

Not good anyway you slice it.

[Lauda]

You have provided no data and no calculations eighter, thus your argument has no merit as well by your logic.

Here's the data that I've read a month ago (albeit somewhat outdated by now I assume).

          p2pkh           2-of-2 msig
now     100%            100%
segwit  166%-173%       197%-204%
becomes:
segwit    174%-181%       197%-204%

Far from '1.5 MB at best' and closer to '2MB'.

I am somewhat skeptical. Especially considering that the "promise" of core devs to only implement a HF that contains a larger maximum block size with "strong community support". Although I do not disagree that any HF needs to have strong community support to be implemented, however in my eyes it is the core devs that are preventing an immediate increase in the maximum block size today, and if they were to only half-heartedly (or not at all) support the HF then the community would not back it.

They aren't. Not everyone wants one, especially not when you have Segwit around the corner.

I am also confused as to why it would take so long to code a HF whose only change is to increase the maximum block size. I would think this would only involve changing a few lines of code, and see little reason why this code could not be released tomorrow

Because they might want to address other issues while the opportunity is here? You will see why soon enough though.

[BitcoinAddicts]

[chopstick]

I'm copying/pasting this comment from r/bitcoin, because I believe it is truthful and relevant.

The CEO of a VC-backed private corporation, and a handful of Chinese miners, just unilaterally decided the future of Bitcoin. And they have the gall to call it consensus.

This is bad, really bad.

Editing this comment to respond in one place to the army of throwaway accounts jumping down my throat:

What would consensus look like? In my view there are five main groups that would need to agree on changes to Bitcoin to achieve consensus: The developers (the code), the miners (the hashpower), the nodes (the network), the exchanges and payment processors (the economic majority), and of course the users (Bitcoin early adopters). The users don't really steer the ship, they just vote by deciding to use/hold Bitcoin, and they'll vote by buying alt-coins if they don't agree with the direction the other four take.

At this meeting there are only representatives of two of those groups; the code and the hashpower. Missing from the developers are extremely important people like Gavin Andresen (Bitcoin's chief scientist), and Jeff Garzik. Missing from the hashpower is the single biggest pool Antpool and other pools like Slush, who have decided a hard fork to 2 MB needs to happen urgently, not years from now.

Calling this tiny meeting consensus? Laughable.

As to VC-backed Blockstream taking control of the Bitcoin protocol, they have a fiduciary duty to create a return for their investors. Their business plan is to profit from protocols built on top of Bitcoin, protocols that benefit from a crippled Bitcoin layer usable only for settlement. All their actions so far show they have a laser-like focus on enabling features in Bitcoin that will benefit the Lightning Network, while restricting the throughput of the Bitcoin network as much as possible until their product is ready to sell.

This will backfire, the users and the economic majority will move to a network that functions correctly.

[Quickseller]

I am also confused as to why it would take so long to code a HF whose only change is to increase the maximum block size. I would think this would only involve changing a few lines of code, and see little reason why this code could not be released tomorrow

Because they might want to address other issues while the opportunity is here? You will see why soon enough though.

This is the loophole. If core blockstream proposes a HF that includes controversial changes along with an increase in the maximum block size then such HF will not get adopted.

You will see why soon enough though.

Do you have any actual information that is not public or are you just speculating?

[adamstgBit]

I'm copying/pasting this comment from r/bitcoin, because I believe it is truthful and relevant.

The CEO of a VC-backed private corporation, and a handful of Chinese miners, just unilaterally decided the future of Bitcoin. And they have the gall to call it consensus.

This is bad, really bad.

Editing this comment to respond in one place to the army of throwaway accounts jumping down my throat:

What would consensus look like? In my view there are five main groups that would need to agree on changes to Bitcoin to achieve consensus: The developers (the code), the miners (the hashpower), the nodes (the network), the exchanges and payment processors (the economic majority), and of course the users (Bitcoin early adopters). The users don't really steer the ship, they just vote by deciding to use/hold Bitcoin, and they'll vote by buying alt-coins if they don't agree with the direction the other four take.

At this meeting there are only representatives of two of those groups; the code and the hashpower. Missing from the developers are extremely important people like Gavin Andresen (Bitcoin's chief scientist), and Jeff Garzik. Missing from the hashpower is the single biggest pool Antpool and other pools like Slush, who have decided a hard fork to 2 MB needs to happen urgently, not years from now.

Calling this tiny meeting consensus? Laughable.

As to VC-backed Blockstream taking control of the Bitcoin protocol, they have a fiduciary duty to create a return for their investors. Their business plan is to profit from protocols built on top of Bitcoin, protocols that benefit from a crippled Bitcoin layer usable only for settlement. All their actions so far show they have a laser-like focus on enabling features in Bitcoin that will benefit the Lightning Network, while restricting the throughput of the Bitcoin network as much as possible until their product is ready to sell.

This will backfire, the users and the economic majority will move to a network that functions correctly.

oh come on

the meeting started off with chinese miners saying they will fork to classic if they can't find some agreement.

this agreement ( which i believe to be  segwit + 2MB  few months later ) is the way forward.

who is this guy?

[Laosai]

I'm surprised to see so many people worried or skeptical about this consensus. Maybe I'm just a little too optimistic though ^^'

[chopstick]

I'm copying/pasting this comment from r/bitcoin, because I believe it is truthful and relevant.

The CEO of a VC-backed private corporation, and a handful of Chinese miners, just unilaterally decided the future of Bitcoin. And they have the gall to call it consensus.

This is bad, really bad.

Editing this comment to respond in one place to the army of throwaway accounts jumping down my throat:

What would consensus look like? In my view there are five main groups that would need to agree on changes to Bitcoin to achieve consensus: The developers (the code), the miners (the hashpower), the nodes (the network), the exchanges and payment processors (the economic majority), and of course the users (Bitcoin early adopters). The users don't really steer the ship, they just vote by deciding to use/hold Bitcoin, and they'll vote by buying alt-coins if they don't agree with the direction the other four take.

At this meeting there are only representatives of two of those groups; the code and the hashpower. Missing from the developers are extremely important people like Gavin Andresen (Bitcoin's chief scientist), and Jeff Garzik. Missing from the hashpower is the single biggest pool Antpool and other pools like Slush, who have decided a hard fork to 2 MB needs to happen urgently, not years from now.

Calling this tiny meeting consensus? Laughable.

As to VC-backed Blockstream taking control of the Bitcoin protocol, they have a fiduciary duty to create a return for their investors. Their business plan is to profit from protocols built on top of Bitcoin, protocols that benefit from a crippled Bitcoin layer usable only for settlement. All their actions so far show they have a laser-like focus on enabling features in Bitcoin that will benefit the Lightning Network, while restricting the throughput of the Bitcoin network as much as possible until their product is ready to sell.

This will backfire, the users and the economic majority will move to a network that functions correctly.

oh come on

the meeting started off with chinese miners saying they will fork to classic if they can't find some agreement.

this agreement ( which i believe to be  segwit + 2MB  few months later ) is the way forward.

who is this guy?

Hey, if you disagree with the guy, I'd love to hear your reasoning. But it seemed to me he made some good points. I could be wrong. I just don't want to see bitcoin taken over by special interest groups.

[Lauda]

I'm copying/pasting this comment from r/bitcoin, because I believe it is truthful and relevant.
-snipped nonsense-

Here is another shill that is spreading FUD (whoever that was on reddit). So far we have had two situations:
1) No consensus -> Core is evil because of Blockstream.
2) Consensus reached -> Core is evil because it reached consensus with miners and Blockstream.
There is no solution that would satisfy these people. Some people are either really mentally limited (unfortunately) or paid to act like this.

This is the loophole. If core blockstream proposes a HF that includes controversial changes along with an increase in the maximum block size then such HF will not get adopted.

Not controversial features, fixes I'd say. Fixes that might be needed (e.g. Time-warp attack).

Do you have any actual information that is not public or are you just speculating?

I've suggested a HF in 2017 a month ago. I will say no more.

I'd love to hear your reasoning. But it seemed to me he made some good points. I could be wrong. I just don't want to see bitcoin taken over by special interest groups.

There's no need to waste time with "Blockstream is evil" nonsense, especially not people who claim that Blockstream will profit from LN (which is free to use (aside from TX fees)).
Official statement is here. Time to pop the champagne?

[partysaurus]

this is not a 100% sure right? or is it official?

[Lauda]

this is not a 100% sure right? or is it official?

Read before posting. I've posted the official statement above.

[bankingbtc]

nothing new has been reached, they decided to increase the block size only after year, so thats just speculation once again, im a bit disappointed right now by the whole meeting thing as it was kinda pointless

[Lauda]

Their business plan is to profit from protocols built on top of Bitcoin, protocols that benefit from a crippled Bitcoin layer usable only for settlement. All their actions so far show they have a laser-like focus on enabling features in Bitcoin that will benefit the Lightning Network, while restricting the throughput of the Bitcoin network as much as possible until their product is ready to sell.

And what business plan is that? Keeping Bitcoin from becoming a massive piece of shit so they don't lose a ton of money?

Just found it on Reddit. It is in their best interest for Bitcoin to become as large as possible. If they "artificially restrict" it and whatever the 'forkers' are whining about, Blockstream stands to lose everything.

nothing new has been reached, they decided to increase the block size only after year, so thats just speculation once again, im a bit disappointed right now by the whole meeting thing as it was kinda pointless

No. This is not speculation. They have to deliver Segwit in April and they have to propose a hard fork by July. If Core doesn't fulfill these conditions then they will lose their respect and trust.

[bitbitch]

all i see is a PR release designed to try to keep the market calm as the whales try to pump the price on the back of the halving expectations of the hopeful. Psychological operations.

[adamstgBit]

all i see is a PR release designed to try to keep the market calm as the whales try to pump the price on the back of the halving expectations of the hopeful. Psychological operations.

boy are poeple gonna be fucking pissed off if this turn out to be the case.