Satoshi Roundtable Retreat - 70 top Techies & CEOs - What should be covered?

[BruceFenton]

This weekend, 70 leaders in the Bitcoin and blockchain industry are meeting for a retreat.

What do you think should be covered?

What is the best use of the time and having this group in one room?

What would you like to see come out of this meeting?  / What document(s) would be a good goal?

What are some goals you think sensible for the meeting?

Other thoughts?

Thanks


Confirmed attendee list for Satoshi Roundtable II taking place this weekend (alphabetical order):

Gabriel Abed, CEO Bitt
Gavin Andresen  MIT / Bitcoin Foundation
Adam Back, President, Blockstream
David Bailey, CEO, yBitcoins
Patrick Byrne, CEO, Overstock
Michael Cao, CEO, zoomhash
Dave Carlson, CEO, Mega Big Power
Daniel Castagnoli, CCO Exodus
Sam Cole, CEO, KNC Miner
Matt Corallo,  Core Dev
Luke Dashjr,  Core Dev
Anthony Di Iorio,  CDO-Toronto Stock Exchange, Founder-Ethereum/Decentral/Kryptokit
Joe Disorbo, CEO, Webgistix
Jason Dorsett, Early Adopter
Evan Duffield, Founder/Lead Scientist, Dash
Bruce Fenton, Atlantic Financial  
Andrew Flilipowski, Partner, Tally Capital
Thomas France, Founder, Ledger
Jeff Garzik, Founder, Bloq
David Johnston, Chairman, Factom
Alyse Killeen, Partner, (new fund)
Jason King, Founder, Unsung
Mike Komaransky,  Cumberland Mining
Peter Kroll, Founder, bitaddress.org
Bobby Lee, CEO BTC China / Board member Bitcoin Foundation
Charlie Lee, Director of Engineering Coinbase/Litecoin
Eric Lombrozo, FOunder, Ciphrex Corp
Marshall Long, CTO Final Hash
Matt Luongo, CEO Fold
Raj Mehta, Founder Kilowatt Capital
Halsey Minor, CEO Uphold
Neha Narula, Director of the DCI, MIT
Dawn Newton, Co-Founder, COO, Netki
Justin Newton, Founder  CEO, Netki
Stephen Pair, Co-Founder/CEO, BitPay Inc.
Michael Perklin, President, CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium
Alexander Petrov, CIO, BitFury
Francis Pouliot, Director, Bitcoin Embassy, Board Member Bitcoin Foundation
JP Richardson, Chief Technical Officer, Exodus
Jamie Robinson,  QuickBt
Jez San, Angel Investor
Marco Santori Partner, Pillsbury
Scott Scalf, EVP/Head of Tech Team, Alpha Point
Craig Sellars CTO, Tether
Ryan Shea, Co-Founder One Name
Melanie Shapiro, CEO Choose Case
Greg Simon, CEO & Co-Founder Ribbit! Me / President,  Bitcoin Association
Ryan Singer,  Entreprenuer
Paul Snow, CEO Factom, Texas Bitcoin Conference
Riccardo Spagni,Monero
Nick Spanos, Founder Bitcoin Center NYC
Elizabeth Stark, Co-Founder & CEO, Lightning
Marco Streng, CEO Genesis Mining
Nick Sullivan, CEO ChangeTip
Paul Sztorc,  Truthcoin
Michael Terpin, CEO Transform Group
Peter Todd,  Core Developer
Joseph Vaughn Perling,  New Liberty Dollar
Roger Ver, CEO Memory Dealers
Shawn Wilkinson, Founder Storj
Micah Winkelspecht, CEO Gem

note to Bruce Fenton:

it might be worth when reading the posts to summerize the thoughts people have and then edit the OP

Great suggestion Franky

How about a livestream and/or recording of the whole meeting? Bitcoin should not be about closed meetings.

When people are playing for the media and social media they sometimes focus more on the need to win than compromise....some other benefits of privacy include ability to speak more frankly about industry concerns, competitors etc....see full answer in thread.

ways to make Bitcoin more user friendly and accessible for the nontechnical average user before more VC money is lost backing overzealous inexperienced kids.

the 2mb code  inplace in aprils release with a 70 day trigger (10,000 blocks instead of 1000) and a 6 month grace period.
giving atleast 8 months before active. rather then 16month core has proposed(july2016 code and atleast july 2017 active)

sidechains and liquids.. no premine. so the altcoins are created at the swap into.. and destroyed at the swap out
the only time they are not destroyed is in private trades between 2 people..

1) a detailed plan, of how to proceed with the agreement reached of how Exactly it will be rolled out.

2) incentives, can we somehow increase the incentives to run a full node?

3) Make peace, it's obvious  we need a competing impl. ,the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page. BIPS

I'll make every effort to share these at the meeting

[pereira4]

Retreat... more like paid CIA agents trying to push their Bitcoin Classic agenda even after it already failed. The desperation for those incompetent idiots to take control of Bitcoin Core is astonishing. They have never demonstrated anything of value and they pretend as if they are worth being the lead developers of Bitcoin's full node. Anyone supporting this is out of their mind or is profiting from it.
I hope that Adam Back and co don't get trolled by Gavin and co and can prove how wrong they are and hopefully someone records it.

Edit: Im sorry if this sounds too harsh but im tired at this point, i just doubt they will simply sign something together to work on the same direction. I predict some sort of troll statements by them to keep the altfork agenda going.

[BruceFenton]

Retreat... more like paid CIA agents trying to push their Bitcoin Classic agenda even after it already failed. The desperation for those incompetent idiots to take control of Bitcoin Core is astonishing. They have never demonstrated anything of value and they pretend as if they are worth being the lead developers of Bitcoin's full node. Anyone supporting this is out of their mind or is profiting from it.

No, take a look at the list -- this is definitely not a pro-Classic agenda--  its neutral

[pereira4]

Retreat... more like paid CIA agents trying to push their Bitcoin Classic agenda even after it already failed. The desperation for those incompetent idiots to take control of Bitcoin Core is astonishing. They have never demonstrated anything of value and they pretend as if they are worth being the lead developers of Bitcoin's full node. Anyone supporting this is out of their mind or is profiting from it.

No, take a look at the list -- this is definitely not a pro-Classic agenda--  its neutral

Yeah, that's why I added that I hope the Core guys school the Classic guys and hopefully someone records the whole thing and uploads it to Youtube. Im just so tired of people playing the good ol "divide and conquer" tactic instead of actually doing something useful for Bitcoin.
Now that things are starting to move and the price is going up I predict someone from the Classic guys will come up with some sort of troll FUD statement try to crash the uptrend.

[QuestionAuthority]

These major investors should be talking about ways to make Bitcoin more user friendly and accessible for the nontechnical average user before more VC money is lost backing overzealous inexperienced kids.

[bargainbin]

Retreat... more like paid CIA agents trying to push their Bitcoin Classic agenda even after it already failed. ...

#notparanoidschizophrenic

[BruceFenton]

Agree to meet in Davos next year to form a global government so we can get on with our Star Wars Future already!

Bitcoin to the moon!

We don't go to Davos....Davos comes to us.

[Redrose]

A written contract that confirm that you all agree for a same direction, handsigned by everyone would a good idea I think. I least we would know that tommorow another new idea will pop up and create again a big mess.

[franky1]

one thing to talk about could be:

the 2mb consensus code put inplace in aprils release with a 70 day trigger (10,000 blocks instead of 1000) and a 6 month grace period.
giving atleast 8 months before active. rather then 16month core has proposed(july2016 code and atleast july 2017 active)

why oh why do they think its ok to release code in march, again in april and then again in july.. (4 months 3 upgrades). if they then argue anything less than 12 months grace period is super bad.

atleast 8 months rollout from april with less updates needed (no july 2016 update) is better then delaying the inevitable. especially if the malleability code is suppose to be fixed in april. there wont be a problem with a 2mb buffer being active by christmas

another thing to talk about:
sidechains and liquids.. no premine. so the altcoins are created at the swap into.. and destroyed at the swap out

the only time they are not destroyed is in private trades between 2 people..

this atleast ensures there are not 21mill premined X coins instantly valued at the pegged value of bitcoin and 21million Y coins instantly valued at a pegged bitcoin price. and so on for however many sidechains there would be.

[Jet Cash]

Look at the 10 minute block time restriction. Whatever you do with SegWit ( which is brilliant ), or with blocksize changes, you will still be looking at up to 30 minutes for a confirmation. That's a long time for an on-line service these days.

[franky1]

Look at the 10 minute block time restriction. Whatever you do with SegWit ( which is brilliant ), or with blocksize changes, you will still be looking at up to 30 minutes for a confirmation. That's a long time for an on-line service these days.

that would ruin alot of other outside economic and logistical aspects. by messing with difficulty and also the rewards.
think about it.. if long term investors see that blockstream hav messed around with the fundimental scarcity rule of the block rewards.. they will not trust that it wont be changed again later. thus losing any credibility that bitcoin is scarce.

let alone blockstream trying to be the defacto sole source of bitcoin changes, which is another issue that gets people annoyed about the promise of decentralized trustless code becoming not so decentralized because core want dominance


 10 minutes is fine for larger purchases like a car or a house. LN wold solve the micro-instant online service demands

[bargainbin]

A written contract that confirm that you all agree for a same direction, handsigned by everyone would a good idea I think. I least we would know that tommorow another new idea will pop up and create again a big mess.

But look at what was "signed": do you see any points in that list that could be construed as legally binding? Other than block size limit won't be > 4MB when/if it happens?

[Redrose]

Look at the 10 minute block time restriction. Whatever you do with SegWit ( which is brilliant ), or with blocksize changes, you will still be looking at up to 30 minutes for a confirmation. That's a long time for an on-line service these days.

The 10 minutes blocktime is good. Segregated Witness, if this is ever combined with the 2 MB blocksize increase, will greatly improve confirmation times. Even alone it could greatly help us.

[franky1]

Look at the 10 minute block time restriction. Whatever you do with SegWit ( which is brilliant ), or with blocksize changes, you will still be looking at up to 30 minutes for a confirmation. That's a long time for an on-line service these days.

The 10 minutes blocktime is good. Segregated Witness, if this is ever combined with the 2 MB blocksize increase, will greatly improve confirmation times. Even alone it could greatly help us.

i agree 2mb+segwit would be great. but a 16 month rollout period.. not so great

[onlinedragon]

That's a big list with important people in the Bitcoin world. I wonder what there will change after they have done there meeting.

[Lauda]

How about a livestream and/or recording of the whole meeting? Bitcoin should not be about closed meetings.

A written contract that confirm that you all agree for a same direction, handsigned by everyone would a good idea I think. I least we would know that tommorow another new idea will pop up and create again a big mess.

I'm pretty sure that it would be very hard to reach an agreement with 70 parties involved (in a limited amount of time), especially when there is some support for the other side of the argument (political debate - power grab).

Look at the 10 minute block time restriction. Whatever you do with SegWit ( which is brilliant ), or with blocksize changes, you will still be looking at up to 30 minutes for a confirmation. That's a long time for an on-line service these days.

Wrong, this does not usually happen. My transactions have never taken more than 10 minutes to confirm, unless there was unusual block timing.

[Kprawn]

Where is Wladimir J. van der Laan and Pieter Wuille ? ..... These guys has contributed the most to the code and they not there? ... What am I missing?

These meetings behind closed doors again... like the Island weekend? The exclusion of vital Core developers when Bitcoin stuff is discussed is something we

should worry about?  
 

[Karartma1]

Where are the twins? Did they get a ticket?
There's Micah Winkelspecht but the list misses Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. too bad

[BruceFenton]

do you see any points in that list that could be construed as legally binding? Other than block size limit won't be > 4MB when/if it happens?

I don't think any legally binding agreement is likely or even possible.

What we can do is work on things with broad industry buy in and can self enforce them.

For example -- if we agree to a code of conduct that agrees to not trash other tech opinions in the press and some a does....that violator can expect a call from half a dozen other participants saying "whoa, hold on, that's not what we agreed on" .... repeated and willful violations could result in many members of the industry working to reduce the influence of the violator 

[LiteCoinGuy]

Look at the 10 minute block time restriction. Whatever you do with SegWit ( which is brilliant ), or with blocksize changes, you will still be looking at up to 30 minutes for a confirmation. That's a long time for an on-line service these days.

The 10 minutes blocktime is good. Segregated Witness, if this is ever combined with the 2 MB blocksize increase, will greatly improve confirmation times. Even alone it could greatly help us.

i agree 2mb+segwit would be great. but a 16 month rollout period.. not so great

they talked about bigger than 2MB but smaller than 4MB blocks. maybe we have 3mb+segwit in the end. but i agree with you, they should distribute the patch faster.