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

[BitUsher]

Already Resolved-

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?

Hello - CoinCadence

The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.

[1713575004]

1713575004

[1713575004]

1713575004

[1713575004]

1713575004

[1713575004]

1713575004

[1713575004]

1713575004

[1713575004]

1713575004

[sickpig]

Already Resolved-

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?

The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.

serious question: anybody knows the reason why Adam Back's title was changed in the first place (from president of BS to individual)?

[canth]

Already Resolved-

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?

The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.

>90% of core contributors haven't signed that doc. Code will be delivered, but there's zero assurance that it makes it into Bitcoin Core.

[canth]

Already Resolved-

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?

The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.

serious question: anybody knows the reason why Adam Back's title was changed in the first place (from president of BS to individual)?

I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?

[BitUsher]

I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?

This... but the reversal signals that blockstream is now behind this statement as a company.

[windpath]

I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?

This... but the reversal signals that blockstream is now behind this statement as a company.

Yes to the first quote, and no to the second I would say...

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3

[CanaryInTheMine]

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.

You are not negotiating from a position of power...
First you need to run classic. Then go the round table discussions.  Negotiate from a position of power.

[paulh691]

we already know we can't trust Block$tream so where's the issue - switch to classic

[YarkoL]

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

They might as well have pledged to put sustainable
development, world peace and mental health of rainforest insects
before themselves or their company.

Totally meaningless.

[canth]

Changed back to Blockstream this morning: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

Now that probably doesn't mean much because I don't see Adam compelling Blockstream employees to write code or support a HF they might be opposed to. It does go to show that those that attended the meeting have high expectations that the HF will take place. If it doesn't, expect Classic to gain steam...

[cypherdoc]

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-366#post-12890

[_mr_e]

Does appear a bit ridiculous... so Either there is some unmentioned other reason, some cultural difference, or just an excuse to back out... it really doesn't make much sense in context.

Ya because they realized they were duped into adopting SW in exchange for something they could do anyway without blockstream permission.

That is very insulting to the Chinese miners and f2pool... I seriously doubt they have remained ignorant of segwit and its implications that have been so openly discussed for months.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/476xgc/decoding_the_recent_consensus_a_recent_front_page/

"If you've worried bitcoin will end up with two different coins, leading to a market crash - you should rest assured. The major result of the meeting is: Core agreed to add 2MB hard fork in code, and in exchange, Chinese miners agree to continue to run core. There will be only one framework where we determine when and how to HF/SW. The risk of splitting is thus reduced greatly."

"To ensure core will release a version containing hard fork code, Chinese Miners will agree to deploy SW. In other words, if core refuses to deliver a HF version, or the software is with inadequate activation prerequisites (such as HF triggered only with 95% or more hashrate agree), our miners can refuse SW."

As you can see, core used a 2mb HF as a negotiating chip to get miners to adopt their SWSF, which is a requirement for their company building LN/SC in order to make a profit and pay back their 55 milion $ investors.

[hdbuck]

What? F2pool does not run their in-house bitcoin client? Watta joke...

[canth]

What? F2pool does not run their in-house bitcoin client? Watta joke...

They definitely do - all mining pools compile and tweak themselves. We know this since validationless mining isn't available in Core or Classic.

[billyjoeallen]

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.

dont trust blockstream, dont trust core, dont trust coinbase, dont trust classic, dont trust obama.

stop being the whiny little girl seeking for some daddy comfort, this is bitcoin.

IF this is accurate, it looks like consensus is falling apart.  Why the hell did Back do this? To give BlockStream a way out?  Perhaps they never intended to honor this agreement in the first place.

[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 Block stream anymore in the future.

Why does this even matter? I took the change to indicate that Adam was merely attempting to be humble and go into the meeting representing himself and his ideas rather than representing his company.

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

This being said, you should have a healthy level of skepticism with everyone.

it maybe a reaction to mark friedenbach and his attacks on the made consensus.

[ImI]

Changed back to Blockstream this morning: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

Now that probably doesn't mean much because I don't see Adam compelling Blockstream employees to write code or support a HF they might be opposed to. It does go to show that those that attended the meeting have high expectations that the HF will take place. If it doesn't, expect Classic to gain steam...

if it doesn't expect friedenbach to be kicked out

[klondike_bar]

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 Block stream anymore in the future.

Why does this even matter? I took the change to indicate that Adam was merely attempting to be humble and go into the meeting representing himself and his ideas rather than representing his company.

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

This being said, you should have a healthy level of skepticism with everyone.

Thats like saying "i pledge my allegiance to the flag/queen/country..." as if it means that you would therefore act 100% outside of your own personal interests, or the interests of the company you are president of

Its a painfully clear conflict of interest that core devs work for bitstream as defined by ethics, and as such the right thing to do is clearly acknowledge it and make sure systems or oversight is in place that it does not result in misuse. I think its great that some of the core devs found work at a company in the bitcoin industry (as they should), but it needs to be a clear and meditated approach so that the act in the interest of bitcoin rather than blockstream. simply hiding the "blockstream" label from people like Adam Back's signature is just shifty and looks like obfuscation

[Guy Corem]

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.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.th28ftnjh
Per Adam's request:
Adam Back President Blockstream
Now it's matching the Chinese version

[xDan]

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've been hodling since 2011 and for the first time I'm seriously diversifying a large % into altcoins. I guess it will take longer before the mainstream and non fanatics do this. But it will happen, if you miners don't get your shit together.

Maybe when your mining income gets to $0 you'll wake up?

No shit you've been cheated. Stop listening to God Emperor Adam Back and start forming your own opinions. Take some actions without permission. Grow a spine.