We won the fight against censorship and aritificial limits - consensus is near

[LiteCoinGuy]

It seems that we finally have reached consensus with 2-3MB blocks + segwit + LN and much more.

Some months ago everyone who spoke about these things was banned by clueless mods (Theymos and friends) and called a persona non grata. Finally some devs opend their eyes and woke up. They understood the concerns of the other side and changed their view.  The industry and a majority of users wanted bigger blocks - core devs want a maximum of decentralsation - all moved to reached the goal : consensus!

Thanks!  

[1715360316]

1715360316

[1715360316]

1715360316

[1715360316]

1715360316

[Denker]

It seems that we finally have reached consensus with 2-3MB blocks + segwit + LN and much more.

Some months ago everyone who spoke about these things was banned by clueless mods (Theymos and friends) and called a persona non grata. Finally some devs opend their eyes and woke up. They understood the concerns of the other side and changed their view.  The industry and a majority of users wanted bigger blocks - core devs want a maximum of decentralsation - all moved to reached the goal : consensus!

Thanks!  

I agree that this sounds good so far and all the weekend I was following this topic and the HK meeting on twitter.
BUT this was just an agreement between the participants.Consensus has to be done by the community.
And I'm pretty sure that Gavin and the Coinbase idiot will come up with another few attempts to takeover Bitcoin.
This is not about scaling anymore.That has become a political debate of what Bitcoin shall become in future.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too 

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

[bargainbin]

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too  

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

At this point I don't particularly care.
Our Mechanical Turk has lost its cybernetic charm, now that everyone knows it ain't backed by maths and sciences. People have seen its inner workings -- turns out it's controlled by a bunch of cantankerous sweaty midgets

[LiteCoinGuy]

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too  

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

At this point I don't particularly care.
Our Mechanical Turk has lost its cybernetic charm, now that everyone knows it ain't backed by maths and sciences. People have seen its inner workings -- turns out it's controlled by a bunch of cantankerous sweaty midgets

...or maybe they just have a different view?

[Amph]

theymos ban were targetting classic and xt, i don't remember him banning anything related to segwit/2mb/core, LN not sure....

[bargainbin]

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too  

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

At this point I don't particularly care.
Our Mechanical Turk has lost its cybernetic charm, now that everyone knows it ain't backed by maths and sciences. People have seen its inner workings -- turns out it's controlled by a bunch of cantankerous sweaty midgets

...or maybe they just have a different view?

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.
Same dirt, same accusations of corruption, same stalemates due to shittily defined terms. Same shit, different wrapper.*also unsure if the Mechanical Turk bit is misleading, since it means "Amazon" to most people nowadays. The mechanical Turk was a fake chess playing robot.

[youdamushi]

It is indeed truly refreashing to see such a consensus coming.

But I'm not sure the effect will be so strong. Network is still a bit full and it's not gonna change quicky.
Lots of things can happen yet! I don't trust this consensus as long as I haven't seen it by my own eyes

[Lauda]

OP it seems that you have completely misunderstood that meeeting. The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals. There is no guarantee that their HF proposal will reach consensus among the developers, users nor miners. The statement does require them to submit a proposal and code between April and July.

[BellaBitBit]

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too 

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

What, if anything, does this do to my coinbase wallet if they are rejecting the hard fork before and after it happens?

[youdamushi]

OP it seems that you have completely misunderstood that meeeting. The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals. There is no guarantee that their HF proposal will reach consensus among the developers, users nor miners. The statement does require them to submit a proposal and code between April and July.

No but that's a good working base.

If all political parties agree on a law proposal, it's a good sign.
Even if after you gotta put the proposal to a referendum and that in the end, the people will still have to vote

[thejaytiesto]

It's still stupid to hardfork to 2MB but I guess it's a good compromise to make the people calm down and stop bothering the devs, but I don't like this idea of the devs giving up to demands by clueless people just because some of them are really noisy on internet forums, but I guess some of the miners and so on (which are also clueless but happen to run big mining businesses) wanted at least some block size increase so whatever, it's still better than having Classic taking over.

[crazywack]

Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too 

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

What, if anything, does this do to my coinbase wallet if they are rejecting the hard fork before and after it happens?

Then they are left in the dust. They will be required to update or loose millions of $ and thousands of customers.

They are just expressing their view.

[pawel7777]

We won the fight against censorship and aritificial limits - consensus is near

What makes you think that Core devs changed their minds regarding artificial limits (aka fee market). It's either this or scaling via block increase.

The fact they agreed to release 2mb code doesn't mean that much really. I'm glad they showed some flexibility and willingness to compromise tho. Small step in the right direction, hopefully buys more time for more open and civilised discussion on BTC future.

[Lauda]

No but that's a good working base.

If all political parties agree on a law proposal, it's a good sign.
Even if after you gotta put the proposal to a referendum and that in the end, the people will still have to vote

Yes. Either you have not read the statement or you have not understood it properly. The people who attended there (e.g. Matt) can't represent all of the people contributing to Core. There isn't a guarantee that the proposal will be accepted by any group.

The fact they agreed to release 2mb code doesn't mean that much really.

Nobody mentioned anything about '2 MB code'.

Then they are left in the dust. They will be required to update or loose millions of $ and thousands of customers.

They are just expressing their view.

They can't do much anyhow.

It's still stupid to hardfork to 2MB but I guess it's a good compromise to make the people calm down and stop bothering the devs, but I don't like this idea of the devs giving up to demands by clueless people just because some of them are really noisy on internet forums, but I guess some of the miners and so on (which are also clueless but happen to run big mining businesses) wanted at least some block size increase so whatever, it's still better than having Classic taking over.

Exactly. These clueless people really need to stop bothering the people doing to work. It's one thing to ask questions && discuss technicalities, making baseless demands and accusations is another.

[LiteCoinGuy]

OP it seems that you have completely misunderstood that meeeting. The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals. There is no guarantee that their HF proposal will reach consensus among the developers, users nor miners. The statement does require them to submit a proposal and code between April and July.

call be optimistic but i guess that 80% of hashing power and the core of devs and industry leaders is a good start 

[Lauda]

The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals.

call be optimistic but i guess that 80% of hashing power and the core of devs and industry leaders is a good start  

If you think that everyone from Core was represented here, there is something wrong with your comprehension skills (how many times does one have to tell you this?). There is zero guarantee of anything aside from a proposal and code (if they don't want to ruin their reputation and trust). I've even seen people running around and stating that the HF will come as soon as the miners adopt it, ergo people need to do less talking and more reading.

[Minecache]

The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals.

call be optimistic but i guess that 80% of hashing power and the core of devs and industry leaders is a good start  

If you think that everyone from Core was represented here, there is something wrong with your comprehension skills (how many times does one have to tell you this?). There is zero guarantee of anything aside from a proposal and code (if they don't want to ruin their reputation and trust). I've even seen people running around and stating that the HF will come as soon as the miners adopt it, ergo people need to do less talking and more reading.

You also weren't there so cannot talk on authority of what was or wasn't represented and by whom.

[Lauda]

You also weren't there so cannot talk on authority of what was or wasn't represented and by whom.

I didn't have to be there. This was said several times by several people, you just have to do an adequate amount of reading. There are also developers who have voiced disagreement over the meeting (e.g. maaku). You're free to ask these people directly on IRC, but you will get the same answer. Just because person X is part of Core and person X signed a statement, that does not mean Core (as a group, i.e. everyone) signed the statement. However, the chances of the proposal being rejected by the developers themselves are slim (unless they add more changes aside from the block size increase).

[Minecache]

You also weren't there so cannot talk on authority of what was or wasn't represented and by whom.

I didn't have to be there. This was said several times by several people, you just have to do an adequate amount of reading. There are also developers who have voiced disagreement over the meeting (e.g. maaku). You're free to ask these people directly on IRC, but you will get the same answer. Just because person X is part of Core and person X signed a statement, that does not mean Core (as a group, i.e. everyone) signed the statement. However, the chances of the proposal being rejected by the developers themselves are slim (unless they add more changes aside from the block size increase).

No, to talk with authority you HAVE TO be there. And you are trying to talk with authority over others. You have the same zero percentage proof to back up your argument.