Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

[Fatman3001]

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.

Who? Who's these shadows lurking in the dark? Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Try to keep it specific please.

[Lauda]

Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Certain people stand to lose a lot if Bitcoin succeeds to become mainstream. This has nothing to do with the 2 MB block size limit. You need to look at the bigger picture. However, this is off-topic here. There are other places where you might find relevant information.

[alani123]

If I'm not mistaken, it was requested to attend as individuals and not representing Blockstream. Consensus becomes a tangled  web this way though, makes it seem like an agreement can't even be reached among Blockstream's peers, which are the same organisation.

[Fatman3001]

Why do they want to destroy Bitcoin? And how would a 2MB block size accomplish that?

Certain people stand to lose a lot if Bitcoin succeeds to become mainstream. This has nothing to do with the 2 MB block size limit. You need to look at the bigger picture. However, this is off-topic here. There are other places where you might find relevant information.

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

[Lauda]

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

If I'm not mistaken, it was requested to attend as individuals and not representing Blockstream. Consensus becomes a tangled  web this way though, makes it seem like an agreement can't even be reached among Blockstream's peers, which are the same organisation.

Exactly. Apparently everyone overreacted due to the small amount of confusion that this caused. The ecosystem is 'kind of' in a state of mess right now when it comes to the community and consensus. This is stalling development and wasting people's time. Additionally it does not help at all when people make blind accusations against each other.
Update: You continue to ignore advice and derail the thread; nothing surprising. This has nothing to do with FUD. There is relevant information in other places.

[vilain]

"Exactly. Apparently everyone overreacted due to the small amount of confusion that this caused. The ecosystem is 'kind of' in a state of mess right now when it comes to the community and consensus."

I tottaly agree with you here, there' s a lot of confusion in the air currently.

I'm really surprise the price is still rising despite all that.

 

[Fatman3001]

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

[JayJuanGee]

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

Why would it be fud to indicate that non specific others want to undermine Bitcoin.

We all know that and we don't need to name names. There are status quote financial and banks and governments that can lose a lot of money in their various undermining efforts and still make out better if they can keep Bitcoin down for as long as they can.

It's implicitly spreading FUD to suggest that these entities and persons do not exist and to attempt supporting ways to undermine consensus by pushing for xt and classic that are both admittedly more than block size limits but instead aimed at undermining Bitcoin governance in part through creating internal controversy .

[adamstgBit]

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.

well they need to.

they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR
the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

so as i understand it

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

[adamstgBit]

Dear Vladimir,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJscrxxl_Bg

act like a Fing leader  O_O

[Fatman3001]

"Certain people" is not specific. Are you afraid to name names or are you just full of crap and spreading FUD?

Some information is not for everyone. I'm giving you a friendly warning once again, stop derailing the thread as this is off-topic. I will not respond further on this subject in this thread.

This is weak, you brought it up. Either stop spreading this crap or give us something specific.

I'll just have to assume it's an attempt to feed us more FUD then.

Why would it be fud to indicate that non specific others want to undermine Bitcoin.

Because there is no information there. It's just something you say to create fear, uncertainty and doubt.

We all know that and we don't need to name names. There are status quote financial and banks and governments that can lose a lot of money in their various undermining efforts and still make out better if they can keep Bitcoin down for as long as they can.

Name one and show me evidence that they are using this debate in the manner implied to damage Bitcoin.

It's implicitly spreading FUD to suggest that these entities and persons do not exist and to attempt supporting ways to undermine consensus by pushing for xt and classic that are both admittedly more than block size limits but instead aimed at undermining Bitcoin governance in part through creating internal controversy .

No, you might think I am misleading you or that I am wrong, but I am not spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

[adamstgBit]

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).

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"

so why did they change it back?

[Fatman3001]

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).

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"

so why did they change it back?

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

[ATguy]

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked. Next time miners should request signature of all Bitcoin Core developers over hashed text before providing their signatures. The number of Bitcoin Core developers saying no hard fork possible and for example luke-jr, one who signed this deal encouraging others on reddit post to create website to sum reasons why hard fork is dangerous for Bitcoin clearly shows even luke-jr intentions are not to make the deal happen (first SegWit then 2MB hard fork activated in July 2017).

[Lauda]

well they need to.
they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

They don't need to talk to Blockstream. Blockstream does not have control over the development.

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

Because when you are part of Blockstream you are free to express your own views, which is exactly what some did (e.g. maaku).

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked.

Nope. Anyone who thought that a few Core developers could represent a whole decentralized (voluntary) group at the meeting was acting foolish at best. Nobody was tricked. There was zero guarantee that the HF proposal is going to be implemented. The statement says that a proposal has to be presented along with code before July. Patience people.

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"
so why did they change it back?

I've posted an explanation from Peter on the first page. Have you even read anything that was posted?

[adamstgBit]

well they need to.
they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR the Fing president can call the shots???

another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.

They don't need to talk to Blockstream. Blockstream does not have control over the development.

the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.

why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.

Because when you are part of Blockstream you are free to express your own views, which is exactly what some did (e.g. maaku).

The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?

Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked.

Nope. Anyone who thought that a few Core developers could represent a whole decentralized (voluntary) group at the meeting was acting foolish at best. Nobody was tricked. There was zero guarantee that the HF proposal is going to be implemented. The statement says that a proposal has to be presented along with code before July. Patience people.

thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"
so why did they change it back?

I've posted an explanation from Peter on the first page. Have you even read anything that was posted?

what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )

[Lauda]

what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )

Nonsense. Show me the list of developers that support 2 MB blocks, then show me the list of developers that support Segwit. You will see a huge difference in numbers there. It is either one or the other, you can't have both right now.

[adamstgBit]

what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )

Nonsense. Show me the list of developers that support 2 MB blocks, then show me the list of developers that support Segwit. You will see a huge difference in numbers there. It is either one or the other, you can't have both right now.

O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!

i'm done with you

[Lauda]

O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!

i'm done with you

You apparently have some comprehension deficits. Either get educated or go away with your random nonsense. It is Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. You can't have both right now, and that is causing this issue.

[adamstgBit]

O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!

i'm done with you

You apparently have some comprehension deficits. Either get educated or go away with your random nonsense. It is Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. You can't have both right now, and that is causing this issue.

why are you saying this i never said anything about getting  Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first.

i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus? who is not loving it?