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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You mean this guy?

[Carlton Banks]

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.

No Bruce, what's happening is that Pieter and Wladimir are writing the code, and there's nothing that you and that illegitimate list of stakeholders can do about it. Your "Roundtable" has zero authority in Bitcoin. The fact that the outcome of the meeting is identical to the direction that the Core team is taking is entirely incidental.

Do you understand this concept, Bruce, whereby you and your friends have no influence over this situation?
Get used to it.
Satoshi has slapped that sort of nonsense back into the 20th century, where it belongs. And that's where your "Roundtable" euphemism will end: looking like it came straight out of last century

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

No Bruce, what's happening is that Pieter and Wladimir are writing the code, and there's nothing that you and that illegitimate list of stakeholders can do about it. Your "Roundtable" has zero authority in Bitcoin. The fact that the outcome of the meeting is identical to the direction that the Core team is taking is entirely incidental.

Do you understand this concept, Bruce, whereby you and your friends have no influence over this situation?
Get used to it.
Satoshi has slapped that sort of nonsense back into the 20th century, where it belongs. And that's where your "Roundtable" euphemism will end: looking like it came straight out of last century

You don't think a consensus among the human actors is important?

[Gleb Gamow]

https://www.facebook.com/blakeeb



https://www.facebook.com/blakeeb

You know what? I have second thoughts about Marshall "Loose Pig" Long attending the meetup. I'd say he may be good for the event. I mean, maybe he does have a bunch of miners scattered across the globe paid for with moneys from who-knows-where.

On a side note, does anybody else think it's odd that the former Houstonian Blake Benthall's Facebook page is still live? Hmmm!

This PSA brought to you by the same dude who exposed Curtis Green on this forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1045937.0 (you'll love the part where he claimed to have fucked his daughter).

[BruceFenton]

No Bruce, what's happening is that Pieter and Wladimir are writing the code, and there's nothing that you and that illegitimate list of stakeholders can do about it. Your "Roundtable" has zero authority in Bitcoin. The fact that the outcome of the meeting is identical to the direction that the Core team is taking is entirely incidental.

Do you understand this concept, Bruce, whereby you and your friends have no influence over this situation?
Get used to it.
Satoshi has slapped that sort of nonsense back into the 20th century, where it belongs. And that's where your "Roundtable" euphemism will end: looking like it came straight out of last century

So you are saying no humans have any influence or matter?  That's not what the white paper says.
Or is it just these specific people?  If so, can you suggest a better list or who is missing?

As for writing code, that's great and the contributions are huge and important of course.  In addition to code and a technical issue we have a human one and it makes sense to bring people together to discuss.  Would you prefer there is no meeting?

[BruceFenton]

On a side note, does anybody else think it's odd that the former Houstonian Blake Benthall's Facebook page is still live? Hmmm!

So (dare I ask ) who's this Blake person?

Also, I asked about the foundation funds -- it doesn't appear that specific coins were tracked after received in a segregated way...they were all bundled together in one accounting balance called Bitcoin.  The KNC donation came in and was added to the other Coins and eventually sold on Coinbase. Hope that helps.  B

[capcher]

Holy shit, what happened to this thread?

[watashi-kokoto]

Holy shit, what happened to this thread?

What do you mean?

[JayJuanGee]

No Bruce, what's happening is that Pieter and Wladimir are writing the code, and there's nothing that you and that illegitimate list of stakeholders can do about it. Your "Roundtable" has zero authority in Bitcoin. The fact that the outcome of the meeting is identical to the direction that the Core team is taking is entirely incidental.

Do you understand this concept, Bruce, whereby you and your friends have no influence over this situation?
Get used to it.
Satoshi has slapped that sort of nonsense back into the 20th century, where it belongs. And that's where your "Roundtable" euphemism will end: looking like it came straight out of last century

So you are saying no humans have any influence or matter?  That's not what the white paper says.
Or is it just these specific people?  If so, can you suggest a better list or who is missing?

As for writing code, that's great and the contributions are huge and important of course.  In addition to code and a technical issue we have a human one and it makes sense to bring people together to discuss.  Would you prefer there is no meeting?

Yes, I believe that significant changes to bitcoin, or even reviewing whether bitcoin is achieving various purposes as described in the initial white paper should be monitored and reviewed by actual people and stakeholders... in other words, it would probably be inhumane to attempt to completely remove human input from the equation.

Accordingly, I thought that my couple of above posts from two days ago were attempts to ask well-meaning questions regarding process, consensus, hardforks and whether clarification can be considered at the upcoming meeting. 

So far, my above posts have neither been acknowledged, responded to nor referenced by you, and I'm a human.   

[Carlton Banks]

No Bruce, what's happening is that Pieter and Wladimir are writing the code, and there's nothing that you and that illegitimate list of stakeholders can do about it. Your "Roundtable" has zero authority in Bitcoin. The fact that the outcome of the meeting is identical to the direction that the Core team is taking is entirely incidental.

Do you understand this concept, Bruce, whereby you and your friends have no influence over this situation?
Get used to it.
Satoshi has slapped that sort of nonsense back into the 20th century, where it belongs. And that's where your "Roundtable" euphemism will end: looking like it came straight out of last century

So you are saying no humans have any influence or matter?  That's not what the white paper says.
Or is it just these specific people?  If so, can you suggest a better list or who is missing?

As for writing code, that's great and the contributions are huge and important of course.  In addition to code and a technical issue we have a human one and it makes sense to bring people together to discuss.  Would you prefer there is no meeting?

Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.

Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.

[BruceFenton]

Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.

Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.

You seem very negative.   I really don't even know what you are proposing.  No meetings of any kind?  No conferences?   Only top 10 devs are allowed to show up, no one else?

Didn't say people did want to talk to me.  Clearly they want to attend the event, because they are.

Gangsters?  So you consider several tops devs, almost all the top CEOs and leading voices on both sides of blocksize to be "gangsters, non-entities and nobodies"?   Um.  Okay.  Disagree with that and likely 99% of users and people doing things in this industry would as well.

If you don't think that miners, and developers, and CEOs who represent the majority of users and early adopters and holders have no influence then I disagree and we are probably so far away from each other in thinking that it's not worth talking.

[JayJuanGee]

Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.

Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.

You seem very negative.   I really don't even know what you are proposing.  No meetings of any kind?  No conferences?   Only top 10 devs are allowed to show up, no one else?

Didn't say people did want to talk to me.  Clearly they want to attend the event, because they are.

Gangsters?  So you consider several tops devs, almost all the top CEOs and leading voices on both sides of blocksize to be "gangsters, non-entities and nobodies"?   Um.  Okay.  Disagree with that and likely 99% of users and people doing things in this industry would as well.

If you don't think that miners, and developers, and CEOs who represent the majority of users and early adopters and holders have no influence then I disagree and we are probably so far away from each other in thinking that it's not worth talking.

It's always worth talking as long as people can attempt to stay on the topic and try not to take things too personally, and sometimes that will involve some level of ad hominem attacks.

Surely, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate, but sometimes "humans" have difficulties controlling their emotions and they feel that they need to vent.  But, that would not mean that you discontinue the conversation if the conversation can get back on track to attempt to address some of the more important substantive issues.

[Gleb Gamow]

On a side note, does anybody else think it's odd that the former Houstonian Blake Benthall's Facebook page is still live? Hmmm!

So (dare I ask ) who's this Blake person?

Also, I asked about the foundation funds -- it doesn't appear that specific coins were tracked after received in a segregated way...they were all bundled together in one accounting balance called Bitcoin.  The KNC donation came in and was added to the other Coins and eventually sold on Coinbase. Hope that helps.  B

http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/blake-benthall/

I'll migrate the second part of your response to your TBF thread.

[QuestionAuthority]

On a side note, does anybody else think it's odd that the former Houstonian Blake Benthall's Facebook page is still live? Hmmm!

So (dare I ask ) who's this Blake person?

Also, I asked about the foundation funds -- it doesn't appear that specific coins were tracked after received in a segregated way...they were all bundled together in one accounting balance called Bitcoin.  The KNC donation came in and was added to the other Coins and eventually sold on Coinbase. Hope that helps.  B

http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/blake-benthall/

I'll migrate the second part of your response to your TBF thread.

Great article Bruno! So that's how their doing it, buy up the relays sit and wait for bad guys to expose themselves. Well, that should be the end of TOR. You can't use it if you can't trust the relays.

That concept will eventually make Bitcoin just another government controlled financial tool. Just buy up most of the equipment and own the system. For a government, the cost would be negligible. Are we absolutely certain the Chinese government hasn't already done that? The Chinese were taking a hardline stance against Bitcoin then suddenly most mining farms are in China? In what world does that make any sense?

[Gleb Gamow]

On a side note, does anybody else think it's odd that the former Houstonian Blake Benthall's Facebook page is still live? Hmmm!

So (dare I ask ) who's this Blake person?

Also, I asked about the foundation funds -- it doesn't appear that specific coins were tracked after received in a segregated way...they were all bundled together in one accounting balance called Bitcoin.  The KNC donation came in and was added to the other Coins and eventually sold on Coinbase. Hope that helps.  B

http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/blake-benthall/

I'll migrate the second part of your response to your TBF thread.

Great article Bruno! So that's how their doing it, buy up the relays sit and wait for bad guys to expose themselves. Well, that should be the end of TOR. You can't use it if you can't trust the relays.

That concept will eventually make Bitcoin just another government controlled financial tool. Just buy up most of the equipment and own the system. For a government, the cost would be negligible. Are we absolutely certain the Chinese government hasn't already done that? The Chinese were taking a hardline stance against Bitcoin then suddenly most mining farms are in China? In what world does that make any sense?

I was alluding to something else, but thanks nonetheless, CBH.

[Carlton Banks]

Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.

Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.

You seem very negative.   I really don't even know what you are proposing.  No meetings of any kind?  No conferences?   Only top 10 devs are allowed to show up, no one else?

Didn't say people did want to talk to me.  Clearly they want to attend the event, because they are.

Gangsters?  So you consider several tops devs, almost all the top CEOs and leading voices on both sides of blocksize to be "gangsters, non-entities and nobodies"?   Um.  Okay.  Disagree with that and likely 99% of users and people doing things in this industry would as well.

If you don't think that miners, and developers, and CEOs who represent the majority of users and early adopters and holders have no influence then I disagree and we are probably so far away from each other in thinking that it's not worth talking.

which direction


It's always worth talking as long as people can attempt to stay on the topic and try not to take things too personally, and sometimes that will involve some level of ad hominem attacks.

Surely, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate, but sometimes "humans" have difficulties controlling their emotions and they feel that they need to vent.  But, that would not mean that you discontinue the conversation if the conversation can get back on track to attempt to address some of the more important substantive issues.

So, referring to Bruce and his control freak organisation as gangsters is ad hominem? Ad hominem has to be slanderous, Bruce's gangster background is a fact, that he freely admits to. Of course, I'm sure he would defend himself by saying that he's a "gangster of geometry", or similar garbage, but that's to be expected from a member of an organisation that defends it's members and their secrets at any cost, lying is instinctive to these people.


Bruce Fenton is a self-confessed member of essentially the most pernicious organisation in history, and "gangster" doesn't even begin to cover it. May I suggest that people think more carefully before validating this man's attempt to gain a position in the community, he has done nothing to warrant it, and everything to suggest he should not be trusted or engaged. (i.e. presiding over hilariously extravagant expense claims at the corrupt Bitcoin Foundation).


So yeah, Bruce, I'm negative. About you. The only people who want Bruce Fenton and his corrupt friends involved in Bitcoin are Bruce Fenton and his corrupt friends. No-one has succeeded in strong-arming the Core devs up to now, and it's not going to happen as a result of this latest illegitimate organisation either.

[JayJuanGee]

Humans can choose to either use it or not. Period. You and your friends have got zero influence, and you're not going to gain influence by making the "right" friends, so there is no "better" list, Bruce.

Actual Bitcoin innovators don't really want to talk to you, Bruce (Matt and Luke turned up as a sop, be honest). So say goodbye, as is befitting when you're not welcome. You and your thinly disguised gangster friends are non-entities and nobodies.

You seem very negative.   I really don't even know what you are proposing.  No meetings of any kind?  No conferences?   Only top 10 devs are allowed to show up, no one else?

Didn't say people did want to talk to me.  Clearly they want to attend the event, because they are.

Gangsters?  So you consider several tops devs, almost all the top CEOs and leading voices on both sides of blocksize to be "gangsters, non-entities and nobodies"?   Um.  Okay.  Disagree with that and likely 99% of users and people doing things in this industry would as well.

If you don't think that miners, and developers, and CEOs who represent the majority of users and early adopters and holders have no influence then I disagree and we are probably so far away from each other in thinking that it's not worth talking.

which direction


It's always worth talking as long as people can attempt to stay on the topic and try not to take things too personally, and sometimes that will involve some level of ad hominem attacks.

Surely, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate, but sometimes "humans" have difficulties controlling their emotions and they feel that they need to vent.  But, that would not mean that you discontinue the conversation if the conversation can get back on track to attempt to address some of the more important substantive issues.

So, referring to Bruce and his control freak organisation as gangsters is ad hominem? Ad hominem has to be slanderous, Bruce's gangster background is a fact, that he freely admits to. Of course, I'm sure he would defend himself by saying that he's a "gangster of geometry", or similar garbage, but that's to be expected from a member of an organisation that defends it's members and their secrets at any cost, lying is instinctive to these people.

Seems like it is a bit much what you are saying, and doesn't seem like it is on topic...   

If someone is bias or corrupt, then that is relevant, but it is not really the topic of this thread, from what I can see. 

Therefore it seems to be unnecessary and irrelevant ad hominem.. because it is not the topic at hand.

Bruce Fenton is a self-confessed member of essentially the most pernicious organisation in history, and "gangster" doesn't even begin to cover it. May I suggest that people think more carefully before validating this man's attempt to gain a position in the community, he has done nothing to warrant it, and everything to suggest he should not be trusted or engaged. (i.e. presiding over hilariously extravagant expense claims at the corrupt Bitcoin Foundation).

O.k... maybe some or all of this is true, but it is not the topic of this thread.

also, maybe if everything that you say is true, then it would discredit, but still seems that it is far from proven, and it is not part of this thread topic.  If there is a thread about such, you could link to it, for people who may want to engage about those alleged items.

So yeah, Bruce, I'm negative. About you. The only people who want Bruce Fenton and his corrupt friends involved in Bitcoin are Bruce Fenton and his corrupt friends. No-one has succeeded in strong-arming the Core devs up to now, and it's not going to happen as a result of this latest illegitimate organisation either.

I've already addressed this part. see above.

[Carlton Banks]

The reputation of the organiser is off-topic? In a topic about the organisation? I see.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The reputation of the organiser is off-topic? In a topic about the organisation? I see.

Do you know something about Bruce that we don't? He already (sort of) passed the troll test. What do you know?

[Carlton Banks]

Bruce Fenton freely admits to being a member of the No. 1 most corrupt and depraved organisation of all time. There's not much else to say, other than that Bruce should be only too happy to confirm the fact (although he will of course chicane that discussion into geometry or perhaps some mystical/religious nonsense). Take it away, Bruce.