Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?

[JayJuanGee]

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).

This is exactly the point that so many people miss, and they cannot wrap their heads around the logic.

The burden is not on the status quo to provide the road map, but instead it is on the presenter of the proposed change to both show proof that the change is needed and that their proposal adequately addresses the described problem.  It appears quite clear that BIP 109 does not meet either the burden of persuasion or the burden of production.

[JayJuanGee]

-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.

Yes, exactly... if there are deficiencies with the proposal, then the burden is on the presenter to amend it in ways in order to make it acceptable.

[adamstgBit]

lets try to get back on track here.

Questions...

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

or maybe a better question, did the roundtable have any effect on anything or anyone? has anything changed due to the roundtable?

[Lauda]

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.

Validation time is quadratic. This means that somebody could construct a transaction (at 2 MB) that would take too long to validate (over 10 minutes). BIP109 does not solve this, but adds a limit to the size of transactions. Segwit on the other hand scales down the validation time making it linear.

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

Again, you didn't understand the roundtable at all. The people who were present there (some Core developers) have to present a HF proposal and code between April and July. This does imply that this proposal will be implemented/accepted by either developers/miners/community (i.e. no guarantee). You first have to wait for the actual proposal. How many times do I have to tell you this?

[Fatman3001]

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.

Validation time is quadratic. This means that somebody could construct a transaction (at 2 MB) that would take too long to validate (over 10 minutes). BIP109 does not solve this, but adds a limit to the size of transactions. Segwit on the other hand scales down the validation time making it linear.

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

Again, you didn't understand the roundtable at all. The people who were present there (some Core developers) have to present a HF proposal and code between April and July. This does imply that this proposal will be implemented/accepted by either developers/miners/community (i.e. no guarantee). You first have to wait for the actual proposal. How many times do I have to tell you this?

You're either being naive or disingenuous.

[capcher]

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

From the consensus letter

The Bitcoin Core contributors present at the Bitcoin Roundtable will have an implementation of such a hard-fork available as a recommendation to Bitcoin Core within three months after the release of SegWit

It is possible for Bitcoin Core to reject the HF recommendation.

This hard-fork is ... will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community

So, I read this as saying that nothing is set in stone yet, i.e. a HF is not guaranteed to happen.

[Lauda]

It is possible for Bitcoin Core to reject the HF recommendation.

This hard-fork is ... will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community

So, I read this as saying that nothing is set in stone yet, i.e. a HF is not guaranteed to happen.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to tell a few people but they are unable to comprehend it apparently. There is no guarantee that the HF is going to be accepted/going to happen. Also anybody can write their own BIP (proposal) for a HF. With this agreement the developers who signed it have to make a proposal and code it before July (if they fail to do so, then the agreement is done and they lose trust && reputation).

[bargainbin]

lets try to get back on track here.

Questions...

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

or maybe a better question, did the roundtable have any effect on anything or anyone? has anything changed due to the roundtable?

TL;DR:
Satoshi's Round Table Classic (the original) reaffirmed the spirit of cooperation and innovation.
Satoshi's Round Table: The Last Supper (the one below) will re-reaffirm the spirit of cooperation and innovation.

This weekend, 70 leaders in the Bitcoin and blockchain industry are meeting for a retreat.
[...]

"Unflinching fun for the whole family. I laughed, I cried."--Charles Manson
"Uncompromisingly transgressive"--David Koresh

[adamstgBit]

Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)

From the consensus letter

The Bitcoin Core contributors present at the Bitcoin Roundtable will have an implementation of such a hard-fork available as a recommendation to Bitcoin Core within three months after the release of SegWit

It is possible for Bitcoin Core to reject the HF recommendation.

This hard-fork is ... will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community

So, I read this as saying that nothing is set in stone yet, i.e. a HF is not guaranteed to happen.

i understand it's not guaranteed, i would however like some kind of statement that Core devs at least wants to go ahead with 2MB limit.
if i go by what i'm hearing its almost guaranteed that they will simply say "decentralization", "dangerous HF" and then call it off THEMSELVES.
are they genuinely backing the 2MB proposal? or did they simply agree to shoot it down again next year?
this is more of a rant than anything else... not worth responding to:
Vladimir said "I'm all for it" thats a start, but  Vladimir is another one of these leaders with no balls like Adam of blockstream, at least that what it SEEMS like. If you can't speak on behalf of your team and or make the tough calls when your team members can't agree your not a leader.

[CasioK]

Proposal reached at the round table consensus was a success for Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin classic.
It will proof to be beneficial in the long term.

[alani123]

I like how some conspiracy theorists are correlating the Bilderberg Group with Blockstream...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/

[chopstick]

I like how some conspiracy theorists are correlating the Bilderberg Group with Blockstream...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/

Labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid especially when it happens to be true.

The CEO of AXA strategic investments, a primary investor in Blockstream, just so happens to be a chairman of the Bilderberg meetings and also an HSBC banking boardmember.

I will have to do some more research to see if it's true but so far it's looking like it is.

[Lauda]

Labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid especially when it happens to be true.

What is wrong with you people? You've become completely obsessed with Blockstream. How can a claim "is now controlled by" be valid when this is just one of many investors? Quite strange.

I like how some conspiracy theorists are correlating the Bilderberg Group with Blockstream...

Wasting everyone's time as always.

Proposal reached at the round table consensus was a success for Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin classic.

Apparently it isn't for people who are supportive of Classic.

i understand it's not guaranteed, i would however like some kind of statement that Core devs at least wants to go ahead with 2MB limit.

Core is not a centralized group. It would be hard to get a statement signed by all of the developers (many different views/approaches). Besides, there was no mentioned of '2 MB' in the statement, was there?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid especially when it happens to be true.

What is wrong with you people? You've become completely obsessed with Blockstream.

We're Bitcoiners. They're in bed with banksters. How is it not obvious?

[Lauda]

We're Bitcoiners. They're in bed with banksters. How is it not obvious?

Actually let me rephrase this: If it was about 'banksters' wouldn't Armstrong (i.e. Coinbase) be supportive of Core, not Classic?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

We're Bitcoiners. They're in bed with banksters. How is it not obvious?

Actually let me rephrase this: If it was about 'banksters' wouldn't Armstrong (i.e. Coinbase) be supportive of Core, not Classic?

The guy that tried to patent Hot Wallet doesn't impress us much either. Surprise.