Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

[Lauda]

i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus?

You're asking me something like: Why do some people do bad things? Why doesn't everyone want world piece?. These are questions that nobody can answer for everyone. People have different views about scaling Bitcoin in addition to there being sadists and possibly a paid campaign. There are a lot of sides, views, different personalities.

who is not loving it?

Pretty much every Classic supporter.

[1714783074]

1714783074

[1714783074]

1714783074

[adamstgBit]

i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus?

You're asking me something like: Why do some people do bad things? Why doesn't everyone want world piece?. These are questions that nobody can answer for everyone. People have different views about scaling Bitcoin in addition to there being sadists and possibly a paid campaign. There are a lot of sides, views, different personalities.

who is not loving it?

Pretty much every Classic supporter.

sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt  to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.

you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?

i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream

[Lauda]

sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt  to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.

Okay, I don't think you realize the meaning of the words "right now". You can have both in 2017 for sure, but not within the next 6 months. Either we implement Segwit first, or we implement 2 MB block size limit (with the sigops workaround).

you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?

i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...

There are a lot of people (or shills) for which anything from Core isn't acceptable because it is Core. These people should be ignored at all cost (including people for which anything from the other side isn't acceptable for the same reason).

[adamstgBit]

sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt  to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.

Okay, I don't think you realize the meaning of the words "right now". You can have both in 2017 for sure, but not within the next 6 months. Either we implement Segwit first, or we implement 2 MB block size limit (with the sigops workaround).

you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?

i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...

There are a lot of people (or shills) for which anything from Core isn't acceptable because it is Core. These people should be ignored at all cost (including people for which anything from the other side isn't acceptable for the same reason).

i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.


lets not count the shills....

[adamstgBit]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

[Fatman3001]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

[adamstgBit]

how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective  block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
 

[Fatman3001]

how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective  block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!

[adamstgBit]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

while i would prefer an unlimited block limit and let miners risk getting orphaned if they broadcast a block that is too big ...

i'm not on any side in particular, i will go along with any "consensus" that looks to increase effective block size ASAP

short of "consensus"  and off to "war" we go, my support falls with gavin...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

 

[Fatman3001]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

 

You heard me

[Lauda]

i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....

It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs.

how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective  block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!

Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core.
[1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).

[adamstgBit]

i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....

It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs.

how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective  block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!

Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core.
[1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).

[adamstgBit]

lmao, all hope is lost.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

 

You heard me

In the final months of the Second World War, Canadian forces were given the important and deadly task of liberating the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. I'd suggest you recognize.

[Lauda]

-snip-

Why are you asking me to do something about it? Tell the precious 'leader' mister Gavin, who refuses to listen to pretty much every Core developer and the miners. BIP109 would be better (for example) if the grace period was a minimum of 6 months and it had a consensus threshold of 90-95%. You can create your own fork and apply a modified BIP109, I just couldn't bother.

[Fatman3001]

i should rename the thread to

Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?

 

Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.

 

You heard me

In the final months of the Second World War, Canadian forces were given the important and deadly task of liberating the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. I'd suggest you recognize.

Makes sense. Less french people there. Less chance of you switching sides.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

My feels. They hurt.

[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.

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

I think from the totality of my post, I already indicated that you seem to be the FUDster, rather than Lauda.

Lauda provided you a sufficiently specific response, and I elaborated a bit on it in order to more specifically outline the general dynamics and the kinds of folks that are against bitcoin being successful.  No more specifics are needed, and if you are requesting specifics, either you are trolling, or you are quasi-retarded.... The trolling part seems more likely, but surely it is possible that you are not too smart, yet I doubt that you are retarded... but what the fuck do I know?

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.

There's no need you fucking goofball - there's all kinds of information out there regarding plots to undermine bitcoin, but o.k... let me play along for a little bit in order to entertain your seemingly bullshit attempts at trolling... Have you ever heard of the USA government (surely the US govt is not a monolithic entity, but there are various policing forces and financial branches that consider bitcoin to be a threat to the USA government in terms of finances and in terms of population control)?  Have you ever heard of JP Morgan?  We don't really need to go into any more details... it's not necessary to outline each and every anti-bitcoin organization (or individual) that is considerably motivated to spend resources to undermine 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.

More or less, I already said it.  Ether you are being a goofball, you are a goofball or you are trolling for information that is not really necessary to explain further. 

[JayJuanGee]

Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core.
[1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).

I think that these are very important points that are explained in a fairly easy to understand way.

In essence BIP 109 - (referring to classic, right?), is attempting to undermine bitcoin with at least the couple of unacceptable terms that you highlighted above - 1) too short of a "grace period"  and 2) too low of a threshold for consensus.

I don't understand the point about the "quadratic validation" problem, but the first two issues of undermining consensus seem sufficient in order to cause the proposal to be totally and completely unacceptable.