Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

[adamstgBit]

yesterday we got some chilling news and the wall thread has been buzzing ever since.

is it true, is blockstream trying to veto the consensus reached at the roundtable last weekend?



links that sparked rumors that the roundtable consensus was falling apart

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13993733#msg13993733  <- Adam Back ( president of blockstream ) cannot speak on behalf of blockstream, f2pool is outraged.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

" Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."~ maaku7

<- confirmation that blockstream is not onboard with the agreement

[1714833335]

1714833335

[1714833335]

1714833335

[1714833335]

1714833335

[1714833335]

1714833335

[1714833335]

1714833335

[Lauda]

How about you list some sources? Hopefully these aren't some baseless accusations from /r/btc or rumors.

[adamstgBit]

How about you list some sources? Hopefully these aren't some baseless accusations from /r/btc or rumors.

AFAIK these are rumors
the point of this thread would be to try and figure out if these rumors are true.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13993733#msg13993733  <- the Adam Back ( president of blockstream ) cannot speak on behalf of blockstream


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

" Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."~ maaku7

question is do they have the power to veto the change and will they?

[Lauda]

-snip-

question is do they have the power to veto the change and will they?

Okay people are really confused about this meeting and the statement. They are also confused on how Blockstream works. If you work there you are allowed to express your views even if they are completely different which is a good thing. Now as far as the meeting is concerned, the agreement was that between April and July the developers that signed it would have to create a proposal and present code for a HF in 2017. This does not mean that Core agreed to adopt it. Blockstream can't do anything here because the process is going to be somewhat like this:
1) Segwit in April
2) Presentation of the proposal and code between April and July.

Now after this, one of the following:
1) There is consensus among everyone (e.g. developers, users) and the code gets merged.
2) There isn't consensus among one or multiple parties, proposal gets rejected.

Remember Blockstream employees signed a pledge indicating that their primary allegiance is to Bitcoin before themselves or Blockstream, Adam Back being listed as an individual makes sense in context:
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702288186265903104

[pawel7777]

I guess this could be related:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376633.0

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

I don't quite get his problem. It's pretty clear that A. Back change it to avoid controversy, but they all new very well (or should have) who is Adam Back and who he represents. So what difference does it make for f2pool?

[adamstgBit]

I guess this could be related:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376633.0

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

I don't quite get his problem. It's pretty clear that A. Back change it to avoid controversy, but they all new very well (or should have) who is Adam Back and who he represents. So what difference does it make for f2pool?

Adam Back is president of blockstream.
they thought he was signing as "president of blockstream."
implying that the blockstream group was onboard, and all they needed now was consensus from OTHER groups for the HF
but thats not how its playing out, and the agreement makes it seem as tho blockstream has veto power over the HF part of the agreement, and looking at maaku7 comment, it looks like blockstream will use the veto card when the time come.

of course f2pool is outraged by this...

[pawel7777]

I guess this could be related:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376633.0

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

I don't quite get his problem. It's pretty clear that A. Back change it to avoid controversy, but they all new very well (or should have) who is Adam Back and who he represents. So what difference does it make for f2pool?

Adam Back is president of blockstream.
they thought he was signing as "president of blockstream."
implying that the blockstream group was onboard, and all they needed now was consensus from OTHER groups for the HF
but thats not how its playing out, and the agreement makes it seem as tho blockstream has veto power over the HF part of the agreement, and looking at maaku7 comment, it looks like blockstream will use the veto card when the time come.

of course f2pool is outraged by this...

That would make some sense. I didn't realise that maaku7 (Mark Friedenbach) was also on Blockstream's payroll.

This shit is getting entertaining.

[Fatman3001]

"Sir Humphrey: The head of state must greet a head of state even if he's not here as the head of state.
Bernard: It's all a matter of hats, Minister.
Jim: Hats?
Bernard: Yes you see, he is coming here wearing his head of government hat, he is the head of state too, but it's not a state visit because he's not wearing his head of state hat protocol demands that even though he's wearing his head of government hat, he must still be met by the crown." - Yes, Minister: The Official Visit

[Lauda]

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit.

The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.

FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.

Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.

The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).

[adamstgBit]

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit.

The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.

FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.

Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.

The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).

<sarcasm>
so it was all a misunderstanding then
Adam will talk with other blockstream devs and then sign the agreement  as "Blockstream President"
</sarcasm>

[JayJuanGee]

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit.

The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.

FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.

Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.

The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).

<sarcasm>
so it was all a misunderstanding then
Adam will talk with other blockstream devs and then sign the agreement  as "Blockstream President"
</sarcasm>

I think that it is o.k. to hold people's feet to the fire and to get clarification when there is some ambiguity; however, at the same time, we all should admit that there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole and scare mongering regarding a lot of topics, and my understanding is that bitcoin is not centralized, and that no one has veto power... but sometimes we do need reminders about the process that is being followed and whether various stakeholders and meeting participants are adhering to some kind of clear process.

I had attempted to ask for some of this clarification, too, and so far, I am not receiving any real response.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373481.msg13983412#msg13983412

On the other hand, we also know that in the real world, some stakeholders have more bargaining power than others based on a variety of factors.

[adamstgBit]

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

[capcher]

"Adam Back, Individual" got changed back into "Adam Back, President, Blockstream" in the Medium letter.

So no, I don't think Blockstream is going to veto the roundtable consensus. Not that they were going to veto it before. From what I understand, there just wasn't consensus among Blockstream employees to support the consensus.

[adamstgBit]

"Adam Back, Individual" got changed back into "Adam Back, President, Blockstream" in the Medium letter.

So no, I don't think Blockstream is going to veto the roundtable consensus. Not that they were going to veto it before. From what I understand, there just wasn't consensus among Blockstream employees to support the consensus.

thank you.

now if we could just confirm that blockstream is onboard, the wall thread might calm the f down a bit.

[JayJuanGee]

"Adam Back, Individual" got changed back into "Adam Back, President, Blockstream" in the Medium letter.

So no, I don't think Blockstream is going to veto the roundtable consensus. Not that they were going to veto it before. From what I understand, there just wasn't consensus among Blockstream employees to support the consensus.

thank you.

now if we could just confirm that blockstream is onboard, the wall thread might calm the f down a bit.

I like the part above that I highlighted... hahahahhahahaha..


That fucking wall thread is so un fucking calm at the moment.   

[adamstgBit]

"Adam Back, Individual" got changed back into "Adam Back, President, Blockstream" in the Medium letter.

So no, I don't think Blockstream is going to veto the roundtable consensus. Not that they were going to veto it before. From what I understand, there just wasn't consensus among Blockstream employees to support the consensus.

thank you.

now if we could just confirm that blockstream is onboard, the wall thread might calm the f down a bit.

I like the part above that I highlighted... hahahahhahahaha..


That fucking wall thread is so un fucking calm at the moment.  

ya, its all pitchforks and torches over there, it's getting ugly.  

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

[adamstgBit]

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

no one needs to create drama, this is bitcoin!

[Kakmakr]

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

Mike Hearn did the same thing with his temper tantrums when he realized he was not the King on the Hill. No wonder some of the people says, they do not want to get involved with the politics and showboating.

[Lauda]

well the question remains...

Did ( or will? ) Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

I've explained it to you already. They can't do that (as a company).

I share your frustration buddy. Every time I think we are going forward, someone throws a spanner into the works to create confusion and panic, and then we go three steps backwards. I doubt if this is pure price manipulation, but rather some ego trip by some people to show they have influence in the community.

That's the whole point of this. Divide Bitcoin internally and try to crush it, because the cryptography that it currently uses is not breakable.