Consensus Reached

[sadasa]

It does not matter too much is the Coinbase run Classic. If no more than 75% of the miners run the classic, it will still be Core.

[Karartma1]

Let's see it in the code this consensus! Before then I am greatly skeptical even though if the miners majority reached this that says it all.
Hope to see some improvements after all the talking.
Btc is not politics but it works sadly the same way

[iCEBREAKER]

Wow Brian Armstrong is such a jerk!

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.4usja7jrj

To me it's looking like he's telling everyone to not agree with consensus simply because he feels it doesn't meet his requirements.
Coinbase is a bank!Let's face it!
And imo Core's roadmap is threatening his business model. That guy is against Lightning Network and especially against confidential transactions as this could hinder Coinbase's ability to track bitcoin uses and therefore to comply to AML regulations.

Brian Strongarm, CEO of CoinBank.

Fuck you!

[Lauda]

Let's see it in the code this consensus! Before then I am greatly skeptical even though if the miners majority reached this that says it all.
Hope to see some improvements after all the talking.
Btc is not politics but it works sadly the same way

The Segwit code can already be found in Github and there's a test-net for it. They're actively working on it as fast as they can towards the April release. The code for the HF will be available sometime between April and July.

It does not matter too much is the Coinbase run Classic. If no more than 75% of the miners run the classic, it will still be Core.

Nobody should really care anymore about what Brian says.

As an investor I would wait for another few years before I'd put any serious money into Bitcoin, just to see if Bitcoin will not be torn apart by its users before 2018.

If Bitcoin fails, so do all the other (little) experiments.

[Laosai]

Wow Brian Armstrong is such a jerk!

To me it's looking like he's telling everyone to not agree with consensus simply because he feels it doesn't meet his requirements.
Coinbase is a bank!Let's face it!
And imo Core's roadmap is threatening his business model. That guy is against Lightning Network and especially against confidential transactions as this could hinder Coinbase's ability to track bitcoin uses and therefore to comply to AML regulations.

Coinbase has never been on the same side of Bitcoin nor decentralization as the majority. I've always suspected this, but the strong push from Armstrong towards another implementation just suggests that he is unable to push his own agenda. Even his CTO signed various statements supporting Core roadmaps and whatnot. He does not have adequate knowledge to be able to state that, Segwit as the first solution, would be a mistake (what would he base his opinion on, bias?). He's still trying to push forward the joke that does not even have a proper team of developers. However, this post might cause something similar to this:

Never used Coinbase so can't say much about their practices.
But one thing is sure, being against the flow isn't a bad thing. Refusing a small& consensus isn't exactly a bad thing neither. But not being able to accept a decision taken by the majority isn't normal... At least one's should expect to be let on the side of the road...

[pereira4]

All Coinbase has ever done is spy on people's transactions and kill the magic of using Bitcoin by downloading a wallet and instantly sending/receiving transactions, so of course they would be pro-Bitcoin Classic which is a fork to help goverment spy on your Bitcoins.
Pretty disgusting behavior by this guy, you recognize a loser when he can't take a loss.

[Laosai]

All Coinbase has ever done is spy on people's transactions and kill the magic of using Bitcoin by downloading a wallet and instantly sending/receiving transactions, so of course they would be pro-Bitcoin Classic which is a fork to help goverment spy on your Bitcoins.
Pretty disgusting behavior by this guy, you recognize a loser when he can't take a loss.

Seems it's hard yeah. Don't like what I hears of coinbase anyway.
It'll get less and less used no?
It can't go against the flow until the end of the time!

[BitcoinPC]

whats is the benefit to us if the Consensus Reached ?

[Searing]

whats is the benefit to us if the Consensus Reached ?

well it was looking good...now I see this is in the news...man a guy can't get a break from all the FUD on all this. IMHO use the frigging 'consensus' roadmap for now and then use
consensus on the hard fork. I mean if the big boys can't play nice and at least point in one direction w/o getting slam'd for it ...this is all just one big cluster**** and btc is doomed

sheesh agree on something to vote it down would be an improvement imho ....rather then just running around saying 'my way or the highway"

link below on the FUD part of all this

http://bitcoinist.net/core-devs-and-classic-adopters-alike-disagree-with-roundtable-resolutions/

[Lauda]

whats is the benefit to us if the Consensus Reached ?

There is less uncertainty now as we are sure what the way forward should be. This should have a positive effect overall (not just the price). However, there are still shill/sadists/other that are complaining on r/btc/.

link below on the FUD part of all this

http://bitcoinist.net/core-devs-and-classic-adopters-alike-disagree-with-roundtable-resolutions/

FUD indeed, misleading article at best. Brian should be ignored, but Mark has a point though. This shows us the following: Core is not equal to Blockstream; Core is compromised of independent volunteers with different opinions, ergo conspiracies in regards to Blockstream are foolish at best. The people who took part in the meeting can't represent everyone from Core either, they represent themselves. Those who have reached consensus are to present a valid HF proposal between April and July. Mark (as an example) has every right to not participate in this (he can always just give input).

[Red-Apple]

whats is the benefit to us if the Consensus Reached ?

at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.

[Lauda]

at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.

Read the thread. It is unlikely that this is going to be the end. Do you think that the people behind the (well funded) campaign would just give up so easily?

[Laosai]

at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.

Read the thread. It is unlikely that this is going to be the end. Do you think that the people behind the (well funded) campaign would just give up so easily?

No. Especially not when you see al the FUD spreading.
Coinbase is not going to just let it go!

[Carlton Banks]

at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.

Read the thread. It is unlikely that this is going to be the end. Do you think that the people behind the (well funded) campaign would just give up so easily?

Bah, who in this thread is supposed to have a credible argument against SegWit? adamstgbit and QuickSeller?  This is terrifying propaganda, they'll be sicking Frankie1 on it next lol

The various campaigns against Bitcoin as seen by Wuille/Maxwell/Friedenbach etc always had a faint hint of desperation about them, because it was always going to be heavily reliant on success, at least on a 2nd attempt. They've failed many times now. The tactics will change, possibly very quickly.

[franky1]

are people still thinking that lauda is making any logical debate.

about a month ago Lauda wasnt even sure what language bitcoin was programmed in

20:24 Lauda: Bitcoin does not use Java right?

he has no clue about the code, he doesnt seem to read the code as if he even read just a few lines of it, he would know its not java.. and so this proves that he only looks at the glossy PR adverts and videos that summarize it all, which is normally biased in favour of the coders that made the features.

i have debunked nearly every possible excuse he could find to say 2mb wont work. by showing him it can work

i doubt he even runs a full node because there is even proof that he has no clue about how long it takes to initially sync up a node,
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453065740.0
and it seems if he ever set up a node he would not run it on his own computer but on a VPS
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453065539.0

so i am not sure why people even interact with lauda. he does not know the code and is endlessly getting things wrong

as for carlton and icebreaker.
they just love drama. they know deep down that the code can be implemented into any version, that includes core too.. but to them its never been about code, its been about trying to accuse people of wanting to be in a band camp of gavin to attempt to say its a bad idea just on that.

when they realise that the 2mb desire is nothing about gavin and is about code that can be implemented by anyone they will grow up and stop doing the gavin vs back cries.. and realise that its a 1mb vs 2mb debate.

[Lauda]

Bah, who in this thread is supposed to have a credible argument against SegWit? adamstgbit and QuickSeller?  

I did not say that they'd create a credible argument against it. What I meant was if the poster read the thread he'd know that this would not stop here (I don't expect it to either).

This is terrifying propaganda, they'll be sicking Frankie1 on it next lol

Apparently he came right after you called. Luckily I have such doltish people on ignore and don't have to bother.

The various campaigns against Bitcoin as seen by Wuille/Maxwell/Friedenbach etc always had a faint hint of desperation about them, because it was always going to be heavily reliant on success, at least on a 2nd attempt. They've failed many times now. The tactics will change, possibly very quickly.

Divide et impera. After their 'technical' and 'political' arguments lose their ground they resort to attacking the people on the other side to discredit them. However, that doesn't seem to be working either. I wonder what is next?

[LeonBlack222]

I'm a bit clueless about all of this to be honest but trying to make sense of it. This seems like on the whole it will be good for the BTC price in the short-term at least yeah? Too hard to speculate on how that affects the long term price though I guess?

[adamstgBit]

at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.

Read the thread. It is unlikely that this is going to be the end. Do you think that the people behind the (well funded) campaign would just give up so easily?

Bah, who in this thread is supposed to have a credible argument against SegWit? adamstgbit and QuickSeller?   This is terrifying propaganda, they'll be sicking Frankie1 on it next lol

The various campaigns against Bitcoin as seen by Wuille/Maxwell/Friedenbach etc always had a faint hint of desperation about them, because it was always going to be heavily reliant on success, at least on a 2nd attempt. They've failed many times now. The tactics will change, possibly very quickly.

hold the phone.

I am for segwit, i loudly supported it when it first came out, i may have expressed some concerns about its complexity, but i'm all for segwit, and praised Core for delivering on their promise of taking more time to come up with a better solution than simply bumping the limit. I got pissed a bit when i heard peter todd's interview suggesting that segwit was as good as it gets and core will never touch blocksizelimit. But now I am quite happy with the consensus reached, I feel this whole processes had lead to a very good solution / plan. as painful as it was it was worth it.

I will now continue to loudly support the new agreement that core and miners hashed out.

[Blawpaw]

finally we have a breath of fresh air.
A new era of stability seems to be coming to bitcoin. This will strengthen the currency and the community

[Quickseller]

...

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).

But if they wanted to, they could put controversial features in a HF, right?

What you are arguing could be a possibility, but hopefully they have worked out those terms as well.

In your opinion, what could be added to the July 2016 HF proposal that would be a deal breaker or be seen as bad faith?

I lack the technical knowledge to give all the possibilities that could be included in a HF that would essentially make the 2 MB HF a deal breaker, however one possibility is that the mining algo is changed in a way so that current ASICs cannot continue to mine (note: changing the mining algo is currently on the Hardfork Wishlist).

From the looks of it however, it appears that several blockstream core devs are already opposed to the HF (that currently only has changing the maximum block size to 2 MB in what is changing), so even if there are no controversial features in the HF, it is possible there will be significant resistance to the HF from the blockstream devs.

I think it probably would have been more sensible for the agreement to state that a consensus for a HF must be delivered by x date and then there could be a soft fork that allows for SegWit. This would essentially close the loophole of blockstream devs who did not attend the roundtable of torpedoing any HF that increases the maximum block size