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

[BruceFenton]

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

When meetings are covered by media then people tend to play to the press -- they also often focus more on "winning" looking good or will avoid saying things that they can say privately.

Examples:

"Hey, I suggest John Doe could lead this project."
In private someone could say "No way, that guy is a scammer" -- one might resist saying an accusation in public because they don't want the fight or are not 100% sure

In private I can say "Hey, Jane, you've really upset a lot of the developers with the tweets you made accusing BIP 200 of being of bad intent...lets talk about your concerns now and try to avoid that in the future"
In private I may not want to embarrass Jane or may want to avoid an unproductive flame war

In private a CEO can say "If XYZ doesn't change in the code we are going to have to pivot and fire 14 employees and focus on project 123 instead."
Saying so in public can cause employee panic etc.

People have concerns with investors, potential partners and so on.
Just like private conversations in a hallway...lots of advantages of privacy.

[VeritasSapere]

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.

I am seriously starting to question your knowledge of Bitcoin. Transactions never take longer then ten minutes to confirm? How often do you even use Bitcoin? Most people with some experience or at least some theoretical knowledge of Bitcoin should know that this is not true.

[bargainbin]

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  

I'm talking about the wording of what was "signed." And how it's completely open to interpretation.
In other words, going down the list, point-by-point, starting with the first:

--We understand that SegWit continues to be developed actively as a soft-fork and is likely to proceed towards release over the next two months, as originally scheduled.

How can this be construed as ....well, anything? As long as it's "likely" that Core changes readme.txt once in a while, everything's copacetic.
I mean, it doesn't say anything about Core actually releasing anything in two months, merely "proceed towards release over the next two months."

Go down the whole list, and you'll find that there is nothing in it that anyone could ever say "whoa, hold on, that's not what we agreed on" to

[Lauda]

When meetings are covered by media then people tend to play to the press -- they also often focus more on "winning" looking good or will avoid saying things that they can say privately.

-snip-

People have concerns with investors, potential partners and so on.
Just like private conversations in a hallway...lots of advantages of privacy.

I understand. What about some public statements, or live-tweets of what is currently being discussed? You don't have to go in-depth though.

My transactions have never taken more than 10 minutes to confirm, unless there was unusual block timing.

I am seriously starting to question your knowledge of Bitcoin. Transactions never take longer then ten minutes to confirm? How often do you even use Bitcoin? Most people with some experience or at least some theoretical knowledge of Bitcoin should know that this is not true.

Either you are trying to attack me (in a polite way) or a unable to properly read what was written. Unless there is unusual block timing (i.e. no blocks in the last 10 minutes), a confirmation has never taken me more than 10 minutes. This is because I include a higher fee than unusual. This is true and you can't change that. This is off-topic, stop thread hijacking.

[BruceFenton]

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?  
 

They were both invited and unfortunately did not even reply.

I hear through the grapevine that they want to avoid "politics" - no idea if this is the case, I don't know either of them...but, if so, there is nothing noble about avoiding politics when an important key discussion is going on.

Leaders in this space should not abdicate - everyone should either be working on bringing people together and increasing understand or should be working on explaining their position to others.

[BruceFenton]

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

Yes, they were invited, said they would have liked to attend but have a commitment and thanked us for the invite and asked to be invited next time

[Jet Cash]

Oh well - it looks as if my 5 minute block interval suggestion is a bummer.

[franky1]

When meetings are covered by media then people tend to play to the press -- they also often focus more on "winning" looking good or will avoid saying things that they can say privately.

-snip-

People have concerns with investors, potential partners and so on.
Just like private conversations in a hallway...lots of advantages of privacy.

I understand. What about some public statements, or live-tweets of what is currently being discussed? You don't have to go in-depth though.

My transactions have never taken more than 10 minutes to confirm, unless there was unusual block timing.

I am seriously starting to question your knowledge of Bitcoin. Transactions never take longer then ten minutes to confirm? How often do you even use Bitcoin? Most people with some experience or at least some theoretical knowledge of Bitcoin should know that this is not true.

Either you are trying to attack me (in a polite way) or a unable to properly read what was written. Unless there is unusual block timing (i.e. no blocks in the last 10 minutes), a confirmation has never taken me more than 10 minutes. This is because I include a higher fee than unusual. This is true and you can't change that. This is off-topic, stop thread hijacking.

lesson 1.
lets say block 400,000 has just been solved at 12:00:00
you send a transaction at 12:04:00..now then due to your generous fee, you are now added to the very next available block..
but guess what.. its not going to be included in 400,0001 because thats in the middle of being hashed, your too late for that boat.
so 400,001 gets solved at 12:10:00
woo hoo now your tx is part of 400,002..
so 400,0012 gets solved at 12:20:00

so you have waited 16 minutes.. even though your high fee promised you to get into the very next block.. there is no logical physical or theoretical way that you would have got into 400,001..

secondly. there are people that pay a huge fee that are still not promised into the very next block. so paying a fee is not a guarantee, its just a no strings attached bribe with the hopes that the miner will make room for you

[franky1]

Oh well - it looks as if my 5 minute block interval suggestion is a bummer.

good in theory of speed and customer experience.. bad in practical, logic and economics

even i thought about the same thing as you a couple years ago, but the more i played with it in scenarios and weighed up the pros and cons the more reality persuaded me that its not a great idea

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716819.msg8188336#msg8188336

[Jet Cash]

Oh well - it looks as if my 5 minute block interval suggestion is a bummer.

good in theory of speed and customer experience.. bad in practical, logic and economics

Bit like 2Mb blocks then.

[BruceFenton]

Go down the whole list, and you'll find that there is nothing in it that anyone could ever say "whoa, hold on, that's not what we agreed on" to

Just to be clear there are two different roundtables.....the one earlier this week and the one coming up this weekend.
They have different organizers.
The one a few days ago wrote the letter.
The one coming up hasn't written anything yet.

[bargainbin]

...
Just to be clear there are two different roundtables.....the one earlier this week and the one coming up this weekend.
...

Ah, my apologies. Two Round Tables. Perhaps a snappier moniker? Satoshi's Last Supper?

[adamstgBit]

1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter 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. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.

the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.

[franky1]

1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter 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. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.

the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.

bips should not be a core controlled thing.. for instance gavin recently made a bip that ANYONE core/xt/bu/bitcoinj could all implement .. by having individual bips for individual companies will just cause more debates and make bip 100001 something we would see soon..

bips should be something ANYONE can implement and not be branded/copywrited/limited to a company.
bips should be in draftform and tweaked and improved on and then finalised.. rather then making 100000 different bips until one of them sticks

[franky1]

note to Bruce Fenton:

it might be worth when reading the posts to summerize the thoughts people have and then edit the OP to add brief summary of idea's that way people who jst skim read topics can see from the main post what suggestions have already been made

EG

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

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

[adamstgBit]

1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter 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. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.

the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.

bips should not be a core controlled thing.. for instance gavin recently made a bip that ANYONE core/xt/bu/bitcoinj could all implement .. by having individual bips for individual companies will just cause more debates and make bip 100001 something we would see soon..

bips should be something ANYONE can implement and not be branded/copywrited/limited to a company.
bips should be in draftform and tweaked and improved on and then finalised.. rather then making 100000 different bips until one of them sticks

fully agree,

i'm just saying, there's alot of work to be done, split up the work, and review each other's work when done.

maybe the work isn't related to a BIP, say we need to research how effective the gossip network is. one team can be looking at that area running test, coming up with good numbers, while the other team works on somthing else.

both teams would agree to share all data they collect.

[Gleb Gamow]

Is it common practice to invite serial liars to the retreat, or did Marshall Long promised to take a bath, hopefully not in the ocean surrounding the island endangering any endangered species?

[thejaytiesto]

Every effort ever now should be put into the Lightning Network and how to get it operative as fast as possible and enhance and fine tune it as good as possible, all other efforts to try to scale Bitcoin worldwide are a massive waste of time, this should be our first priority now, once we get this working we can start going full time on sidechains, after that is just moon time.

[RoseMann]

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

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

[adamstgBit]

note to Bruce Fenton:

it might be worth when reading the posts to summerize the thoughts people have and then edit the OP to add brief summary of idea's that way people who jst skim read topics can see from the main post what suggestions have already been made

EG

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

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, make sure everyone agrees with the consensus reached, and talk about exactly how will it be rolled out.

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

3) Make peace,  can Core and Classic not only coexist but work together?

not a bad start