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

[Minecache]

People still utter the words 'Bitcoin' and 'moon' in the same sentence?

[franky1]

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?

ultimate question for bruce to bring up at the round table..

"Mr Marshall Long, where are peoples coins. either release the funds or we are not releasing you from this room.. officers, arrest this man"

[franky1]

can Core and Classic not only coexist but work together?

thats an empty question.. can they... yes... will they... well thats not the question you asked. and so that question will be left empty even if its the real answer you were looking for.

blockstream are known to being vague and giving half answers that can be assumed to have 2 meanings. allowing them a get out clause to pretend its not what they said

maybe best the summerized question u proposed removes the "can" and replaces it with "will". that way blockstream cant give a vague answer

[adamstgBit]

can Core and Classic not only coexist but work together?

thats an empty question.. can they... yes... will they... well thats not the question you asked. and so that question will be left empty even if its the real answer you were looking for.

blockstream are known to being vague and giving half answers that can be assumed to have 2 meanings. allowing them a get out clause to pretend its not what they said

can they  will they, such quibbling over semantics.

i have no comment on the blockstream bit.

[franky1]

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

well segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

however instead of 16 months. we suggest 8 months.. then thats an acceptable amount.. i would have said 5 months because core thinks its ok to make a release in november one in march and another in april, so 4-5months seems ok to core.. but due to it being a hard fork, 8 seems more gracious.. and definetly better than 16

[BruceFenton]

Thanks Franky for the summary suggestion!

[franky1]

another suggestion

to all the attendees that are more about the learning and experience of bitcoin
for example
MIT, bitcoin foundation, DCI, CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium, transform group

is there going to be a big push to sort out the learning and information of bitcoin from a multisource collaboration
so that there is pretty much everything from pseudocode of the basic thought process of the bitcoin processes, to indepth courses that can award qualifications. and other things like organizing the conferences and having a place where people can learn through video's and advertisments (images/leaflets)

another suggestion
can the miners attending make it formally known that they are not after doomsday scenarios of 1.999mb blocks right from the kickoff, but are logically going to make minimal increases when comfortable to avoid risking too much processing time(which loses them the fastest first game), to instead increase naturally at a slow cmfortable pace knwing there is enough buffer to grow without hitting limits often.. thus debunking some peoples doomsday theories of big maximum size blocks non stop
(yea i know im now being picky but alot of people seem to be scared of increasing the buffer and not accepting its a buffer at all and instead a nuke to bloat the chain to the max)

[Karartma1]

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

Mmm ok. If they are to invest in btc I simply don't get why not attending this. Thanks for the answer by the way

[franky1]

Mmm ok. If they are to invest in btc I simply don't get why not attending this. Thanks for the answer by the way

as investors. i see no point in them turning up just because they hold coin. as they cannot do much to improve bitcoin just by holding it.
but if their ETF was actually going to become a reality soon and they wanted some collaboration to help improve the trading platform using LN or liquid.. then there may be a reason to attend, where they can suggest what some of the features should do be actually useful to the outside financial world

[Karartma1]

Mmm ok. If they are to invest in btc I simply don't get why not attending this. Thanks for the answer by the way

but if their ETF was actually going to become a reality soon and they wanted some collaboration to help improve the trading platform using LN or liquid.. then there may be a reason to attend, where they can suggest what some of the features should do be actually useful to the outside financial world

Basically that's what I wanted to say. Probably they have their good reason but I still don't get why not showing up (it could have been only one of them to attend!!) in this kind of meeting

[capcher]

Isn't Brian Armstrong a strong advocate for Bitcoin Classic? I'm surprised that he's not attending this event.

[Denker]

Isn't Brian Armstrong a strong advocate for Bitcoin Classic? I'm surprised that he's not attending this event.

Adam Back asked him on twitter if he would like to join.
Fair move I would say although I'm not a big friend of Mr. Armstrong.
But I think it's important to have as much parties as possible on this table.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/701971156790718469

[Fatman3001]

A pillow fight and a round of truth or dare

[JayJuanGee]

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

Actually, along these lines, bibs should not have terms that force an issue and change consensus terms that appear to be forced on the Bitcoin community. I'm talking about apparent hard forking terms in xt and classic.

Yes I realize that there has been a lot bandied about regarding what is consensus and what does it take to achieve it, and there may be some practical difficulties getting agreement about what is consensus and what it takes to achieve it.

Accordingly,  attempts at imposing hard forks, seems to cause unnecessary contentiousness, but really if bibs are submitted and they are allowed to be reviewed and commented upon by Bitcoin stakeholders, then they shouldn't cause contentiousness if they don't attempt to force new rules.

No matter what, there is some value in providing some road maps regarding what are the meanings and application of consensus based decisions and whether and under what terms would a hard fork be imposed (would it be contentious or not if there are ways to accomplish with broader levels of support rather than appearing to be imposed)

Finally, I have frequently understood that changes to Bitcoin take a conservative approach and the bip process puts the Burden of persuasion and production on anyone proposing to implement changes to Bitcoin. To me,. Such process does not seem broken, because the status quo should deserve the benefit of the doubt and burdens of persuasion and burdens of producing evidence should exist on any party proposing changes and to convince a sufficient number of other stakeholders that a change is warranted and necessary but frequently such process receives a lot of hype, as if it were broken, so in that regard there may be additional value in clarifying the process too in order that people can have easy reference sources to understand that Bitcoin, it's process and its governance (to the extent there is governance) is not broken.

Edit:  one more point. Frequently, it seems to me that I see suggestions in various Bitcoin discussions and even assumptions that some of the changes "have to be" accomplished via hard fork, and that just seems to be erroneous thinking. I personally am of the belief that a hard fork is neither needed nor necessary unless there is either near unanimous agreement that something has to be fixed, is actually broken or the solution is nearly completely noncontentious (which would make hardforking non contentious by default not something that is imposed by either 75 or 90%, but am I too pie in the sky to believe that we can achieve nearly unanimous agreements in the Bitcoin space?)

[bargainbin]

... but really if bibs are submitted and they are allowed to be reviewed ...

+1
Spit up conundrum resolved without  "unnecessary contentiousness"

[aztecminer]

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
AztecMiner, founder & CEO BitcoinPure & Bitcoin2Genuine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------- CONSENSUS REACHED

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

fixed for you... be sure to have your recording camera setup and ready to roll at least ten minutes before scheduled speech since i will start immediately.. following the speech will be served refreshments and margaritas for all as we celebrate Bitcoin2Genuine reaching consensus with the mega-blocks of lightening chains bitcoin hardfork happening next tuesday .

[aztecminer]

A pillow fight and a round of truth or dare

are u saying they are doing sleep with pillows in their face ceremonies ?? if you die while sleeping with a pillow in your face then you must be replaced in the round table . #TheSupremePillowTable

[franky1]

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

Actually, along these lines, bibs should not have terms that force an issue and change consensus terms that appear to be forced on the Bitcoin community. I'm talking about apparent hard forking terms in xt and classic.

totally agree. thats why i said no one should control and have veto rights over bitcoin to force anything.
bips are the first step (idea).. which when finalised its then moved into a code github where its put into a test client and checked for bugs and stuff.
so a bip is not forcing anything. its just an 'ideahouse' that should be utilised more
and when a bip is created should not just be one bip for companyA, one bip for companyB, etc... its instead a draft that all ABCDEF, etc all get involved in tweaking and developing and getting to an agreement. and then if its useful, finalized... or leaving if as draft if they cannot agree or find it not useful.

that way instead of having bip 101,102,103,104,105... there is just one bip eg 101 that has gone through 4 tweaks and decisions until there is a final bip 101 that the majority agree with..

which over the last year of the latest debates by organising things better we could have resulted as a bip 10X stating a 2mb with a 3-6month grace period
rather than 101,102,103,104,105 that has no collaboration at all and no tweaking and settling differences within just 1 number.

the current way bips are used is like throwing 5 lumps of dogs mess at a wall and seeing which one will stick, rather than being more involved and discussed and tweaked/refined.

Yes I realize that there has been a lot bandied about regarding what is consensus and what does it take to achieve it, and there may be some practical difficulties getting agreement about what is consensus and what it takes to achieve it.

that is because the current system is to have 5 pieces of dogs mess and then say lets throw it and see which sticks..
again if they instead worked on just one piece and tweaked it to make it the stickiest and least smelly version they can find. and then it would be easier to throw it at the wall knowing that there is less hit and miss

[JayJuanGee]

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

Actually, along these lines, bibs should not have terms that force an issue and change consensus terms that appear to be forced on the Bitcoin community. I'm talking about apparent hard forking terms in xt and classic.

totally agree. thats why i said no one should control and have veto rights over bitcoin to force anything.
bips are the first step (idea).. which when finalised its then moved into a code github where its put into a test client and checked for bugs and stuff.
so a bip is not forcing anything. its just an 'ideahouse' that should be utilised more
and when a bip is created should not just be one bip for companyA, one bip for companyB, etc... its instead a draft that all ABCDEF, etc all get involved in tweaking and developing and getting to an agreement. and then if its useful, finalized... or leaving if as draft if they cannot agree or find it not useful.

that way instead of having bip 101,102,103,104,105... there is just one bip eg 101 that has gone through 4 tweaks and decisions until there is a final bip 101 that the majority agree with..

which over the last year of the latest debates by organising things better we could have resulted as a bip 10X stating a 2mb with a 3-6month grace period
rather than 101,102,103,104,105 that has no collaboration at all and no tweaking and settling differences within just 1 number.

the current way bips are used is like throwing 5 lumps of dogs mess at a wall and seeing which one will stick, rather than being more involved and discussed and tweaked/refined.

Yes I realize that there has been a lot bandied about regarding what is consensus and what does it take to achieve it, and there may be some practical difficulties getting agreement about what is consensus and what it takes to achieve it.

that is because the current system is to have 5 pieces of dogs mess and then say lets throw it and see which sticks..
again if they instead worked on just one piece and tweaked it to make it the stickiest and least smelly version they can find. and then it would be easier to throw it at the wall knowing that there is less hit and miss

I don't have a problem with various competing BIPs - at least when the initial drafts are proposed - yet I agree with you, that likely there needs to be some attempts at combining the bips in order to find mutual agreements among the bips, to the extent that collaboration and consolidation is possible.  So, for example, if someone or a group proposes a BIP that is very similar to another BIP, then there should be some discussion within the new BIP concerning why a new BIP was needed, rather than working on improving and/or attempting to amend the previous related bip.  

So maybe there could be some clarification and/or fixing of this BIP process, if it seems that in practice the current bip process is not achieving some of its apparent original intended outcomes... that is collaboration and improvement and ultimately attempts at consensus building, to the extent possible.

[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?

ultimate question for bruce to bring up at the round table..

"Mr Marshall Long, where are peoples coins. either release the funds or we are not releasing you from this room.. officers, arrest this man"

Thank you, Frank. I've opted to not comment much in this thread for fear of derailing Bruce's noble efforts. That said, I'll poke him here to see if he's had time to respond on his TBF thread.