f2pool not supporting roundtable was Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com

[gabridome]

@macbook-air
Personally, I think that you should stop trusting anyone by default (even me), and start to try to hear every voices/opinions ...

I don't trust your statement about not trusting you...

[DutchDemon]

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 dont know what u guys thought while preparing this so called consensus. Neither do I understand, what is written in Chinese. But, in English it is clearly written...

1. This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the non-witness data to be around 2 MB, with the total size no more than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community.

2. If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.

But, maaku7 of BlockStream has already expressed his discontent to this Consensus - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

So, whether Adam Back signs as an individual or as BlockStream president, broad support across the entire Bitcoin community is still absent. Hence 2mb is not happening.

[Adrian-x]

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.

Blockstream have a conflict of interest, their business is greatly enhanced by limited block space. The conflict is they control the majority of developers set the addenda and direction for the development of the Core the dominant Bitcoin Client, and are pushing to limit block space.  

Arguably GMax has already resigned from assigning BIP's and contributing to the developer’s mailing list as a result of the conflict of interest.

Adam Back, changed his designation for one of 2 meager reasons, lesser reasons may be given.

1) He implied to prioritize benefits his employers (the shareholders) would not commit too.

or

2) He wanted to avoid punting Blockstream in the position of a conflict of interest.

Interestingly other Blockstream employees didn't identify as Blockstream employees.



somewhat troubling is the pretense of Han Solo - a reported Litecoin Miner dictating and deciding the future of Bitcoin in a closed door meeting.

@ the Bitcoin Chinese community it’s worth noting Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to Gavin to maintain, under Gavin's lead bitcoin has grown up. Adam Back is a late comer to bitcoin dismissing it as insignificant for the first few years of Bitcoins existence.  

He claimed to have almost invented Bitcoin but didn't recognize it as significant until it traded over $1000 years after launch while under Gavins lead. Blockstream have taken control away from the steward who brought it to where it is today. Following Blockstreams lead blindly disadvantages us all, you need to act in your best interest not Blockstreams to maintain decentralized consensus.

Fees don’t halve, and they won’t go up in value, (people will just use other competitive fee solutions like Litecoin) you need economics of scale to maximize revenue.  

[cafucafucafu]

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.

According to Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream developer:

"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."

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

[canth]

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.

According to Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream developer:

"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."

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

I think it's great that Blockstream employees are given independence, but that doesn't stop Blockstream the company from having an official position. Charlie Lee has different opinions than Brian Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that Coinbase can't have an official stance.

Mark's no compromise attitude is genuine and is probably shared by a number of core contributors. It's part of the reason that there is a swell of support for alternative Bitcoin implementations and if not for a compromise, we'd see the continue tug of war in the community eventually expressed in PoW longest accepted chain.

Like it or not, the community can ultimately override any individual or minority group's wishes. Today that minority is Classic. Tomorrow that minority could be stubborn Core contributors.

[Adrian-x]

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.

According to Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream developer:

"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."

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

I think it's great that Blockstream employees are given independence, but that doesn't stop Blockstream the company from having an official position. Charlie Lee has different opinions than Brian Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that Coinbase can't have an official stance.

Mark's no compromise attitude is genuine and is probably shared by a number of core contributors. It's part of the reason that there is a swell of support for alternative Bitcoin implementations and if not for a compromise, we'd see the continue tug of war in the community eventually expressed in PoW longest accepted chain.

Like it or not, the community can ultimately override any individual or minority group's wishes. Today that minority is Classic. Tomorrow that minority could be stubborn Core contributors.

That bold statement underlined was written after Adam asked his credentials be removed and he be represented as an individual, rather conveniently.
still relevant is the host thought he was more than an individual off the street.

the statement is intended to give credit to the decentralized decision making process that resulted in a consensus for a delayed increase independently of Blockstream.

It's a joke given the reality of the situation, the authors commenting history and the control Blockstream exsert over Core. Your using it out of context and overlooking its intended meaning.

political consensus defining majority rule using censorship and closed door meeting is not going to benefit bitcoin in the long run.  

[adamstgBit]

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.

More BS:

" 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

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

dose he want segwit or not?

WTF is wrong with these poeple.

ok lets do it, i'm with you

lets move on.

[ImI]

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.

More BS:

" 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

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

dose he want segwit or not?

WTF is wrong with these poeple.

ok lets do it, i'm with you

lets move on.

i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on!

[windpath]

i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on!

Consensus = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Really?  This is what we're getting all upset about today in Bitcoinland?   

You owe Adam an apology for assuming he was responsible for the change in title, instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt and seeking clarification.

The whole "zomg y u cheat me" thing is such a third world negotiating tactic.  It's really tacky.

You've been looking and reaching for things to get offended about for days.  And this is the best you can do?

Really?  A discrepancy between draft revisions, one of which was released prematurely (without permission?) is no reason to get all whiny.

Why don't you just rage quit like Mike Hearn, if your feelings are so hurt and fragile trust so grievously wounded?

SHA3 is looking better everyday we have to watch the ASIC miner tail struggle to wag the Bitcoin dog.

[ImI]

i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on!

Consensus = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

yes, and with this definition of consensus you won't be able to do ANY progress at all. you would also need 100% miners agreement for example to call it a true consensus. that means that only ONE miner could potentially block any change you make to the protocol. because, hey its not consensus if not everybody agrees right?

true consensus is utopian.

[sgbett]

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.

Really?  This is what we're getting all upset about today in Bitcoinland?  

You owe Adam an apology for assuming he was responsible for the change in title, instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt and seeking clarification.

The whole "zomg y u cheat me" thing is such a third world negotiating tactic.  It's really tacky.

You've been looking and reaching for things to get offended about for days.  And this is the best you can do?

Really?  A discrepancy between draft revisions, one of which was released prematurely (without permission?) is no reason to get all whiny.

Why don't you just rage quit like Mike Hearn, if your feelings are so hurt and fragile trust so grievously wounded?

SHA3 is looking better everyday we have to watch the ASIC miner tail struggle to wag the Bitcoin dog.

People are waking up iB..

Tick tock.

[canth]

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.

SHA3 is looking better everyday we have to watch the ASIC miner tail struggle to wag the Bitcoin dog.

Resetting to SHA3 just weakens bitcoin hashing power temporarily and then maybe permanently. I say permanently since miners may discount their profits by taking into the possibility that the greater bitcoin community will make their investments worth zero at any time.

While a PoW hash reset could be used in the event of a mining attack, don't kid yourself - no one is seriously pushing for a beyond-controversial PoW change at this time.

[iCEBREAKER]

People are waking up iB..

Tick tock.

I missed the part where you defend macbook's overwrought poutrage and hurt fee-fees over basically nothing.

You can do better than an appeal to popularity followed by some vague reference to a time bomb.

[iCEBREAKER]

While a PoW hash reset could be used in the event of a mining attack, don't kid yourself - no one is seriously pushing for a beyond-controversial PoW change at this time.

No one except Guy Corem and his co-signers at https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

Resetting to SHA3 just weakens bitcoin hashing power temporarily and then maybe permanently as miners have to discount their profits by taking into the possibility that the mining community will make their investments worth zero at any time.

[canth]

While a PoW hash reset could be used in the event of a mining attack, don't kid yourself - no one is seriously pushing for a beyond-controversial PoW change at this time.

No one except Guy Corem and his co-signers at https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

Resetting to SHA3 just weakens bitcoin hashing power temporarily and then maybe permanently as miners have to discount their profits by taking into the possibility that the mining community will make their investments worth zero at any time.

<snip>

Talk is cheap. Answering a semi-controversial 1M->2M HF with an uber-controversial SHA2->SHA3 HF in which the miners are automatically opposed to the change - near insanity. Best of luck with that one!

I think that the joker burning the money is probably about as appropriate as you get!

[iCEBREAKER]

Talk is cheap. Answering a semi-controversial 1M->2M HF with an uber-controversial SHA2->SHA3 HF in which the miners are automatically opposed to the change - near insanity. Best of luck with that one!

I think that the joker burning the money is probably about as appropriate as you get!

It's not about the money.  It's about sending a message.

[-ck]

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.

Given this a thread for f2pool in the mining section and macbook-air has brought up this discussion I'll leave it up to him to decide whether the direction the discussion is taking is on topic or not for the thread. In my eyes this thread has been derailed with yet another core vs *other discussion that is no longer on topic for f2pool but if macbook-air is happy for this discussion to continue then I'll leave it be. Otherwise I'll delete the last two pages of derailed discussion.

[gmaxwell]

I for one think the posts are an example unprofessional practices on the part of F2Pool, and are of topical interest to miners considering using the pool. I hope history isn't whitewashed through their removal.

[-ck]

I for one think the posts are an example unprofessional practices on the part of F2Pool, and are of topical interest to miners considering using the pool. I hope history isn't whitewashed through their removal.

Splitting off is always an option instead of deleting.