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

[Cconvert2G36]

inb4 deletion

Who cares if Adam Back signed as Blockstream President or not? It seemed pretty clear to everyone that this was a meeting for Blockstream and the top mining pools to come to an agreement. The bigger concern, for me, is that everyone signed on to a (maybe) HF capacity bump 1.5 years out into the future, while we are hitting new transaction records right now.

Bitcoin "consensus" doesn't/shouldn't happen at an 18hr meeting in HK organized by Samson Mow.

Hardforks, yes, even "contentious" ones, are the mechanism by which Bitcoin is to upgrade itself. The only consensus mechanism in Bitcoin was outlined by satoshi:



Yes, a "contentious" hard fork could be a scary time for the market, as it involves a large amount of uncertainty. But, for many of us, it is not more scary/dangerous than squandering our utility and first mover advantage in a cloud of paralysis, stalling, and indecision.

Once again, not surprised that threats of PoW change start getting tossed around when someone steps out of line... "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

[1713900786]

1713900786

[1713900786]

1713900786

[1713900786]

1713900786

[1713900786]

1713900786

[1713900786]

1713900786

[1713900786]

1713900786

[Peter R]

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.

Wait, the agreement was first signed "Adam Back, Blockstream" and then reverted to "Adam Back, Individual" (and finally back to "Adam Back, Blockstream"), and this is somehow F2Pool acting unprofessionally by calling them out?

My take is that people are catching on to Blockstream/Core's semantic trickery, and it's beginning to backfire in their faces.    

[cypherdoc]

don't delete or split this discussion -ck

[lemmyK]

We are testing Classic mining on stratum.f2xtpool.com at port 3333.
F2XTPool is currently powered by Bitcoin Core v0.12.0, with -mempoolreplacement=false, only block version is set to 0x30000000. We are not going to run Classic node in production, for the “foreseeable ”future.

[iCEBREAKER]

Who cares if Adam Back signed as Blockstream President or not?

That is an excellent point of inquiry upon which to expound.

Macbook is obviously reaching for any purported excuse, no matter how far-fetched, to find fault with Evil Adam Back.  This isn't a new trend; he's been at it all month.

His shitty negotiating tactic of eagerly leaping to a conclusion of bad faith, based on a Seinfeldesque misunderstanding over nothing, is merely a way to put Dr. Back on the defensive.

Most of us Bitcoiners are here for the revolutionary technology, but a few of us (mainly noobs) are more concerned with politics, status, and social grooming.

The concern troll fussiness over whether or not Dr. Back can order his Evil Blockstream subordinates to play nice with Classic hard forkers delineates the divide with a bright line.

For example:

people are catching on to Blockstream/Core's semantic trickery, and it's beginning to backfire in their faces

quod erat demonstrandum

[canth]

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.

Unprofessional how? I say this without malice. Greg, you're not much of an ambassador - leave the negotiations to someone else and stick with the tech explanations which you are very good at.

[-ck]

We are testing Classic mining on stratum.f2xtpool.com at port 3333.
F2XTPool is currently powered by Bitcoin Core v0.12.0, with -mempoolreplacement=false, only block version is set to 0x30000000. We are not going to run Classic node in production, for the “foreseeable ”future.

Are you a representative for f2pool?

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Unprofessional how?

Unprofessional because without Adam Back's HashCash, Bitcoin would not exist.

I don't give a wet fart about meeting the CEO of Blockstream anymore than the CEO of Coinbase.

OTOH it is a great honor to be in the presence of legendary cypherpunk Adam Back, no matter which hat he is or isn't wearing.

If you are too young or low-information to remember the crypto wars and PGP t-shirt, you may be forgiven for prioritizing titles over demonstrated expertise.

[canth]

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.

Unprofessional how?

Unprofessional because without Adam Back's HashCash, Bitcoin would not exist.

I don't give a wet fart about meeting the CEO of Blockstream anymore than the CEO of Coinbase.

OTOH it is a great honor to be in the presence of legendary cypherpunk Adam Back, no matter which hat he is or isn't wearing.

If you are too young or low-information to remember the crypto wars and PGP t-shirt, you may be forgiven for prioritizing titles over demonstrated expertise.

I think Adam's a great guy, obviously has lots of street cred. I agree that he and others in the community have earned more respect that they receive.

With that said, clearly Gavin has stewarded Bitcoin development well enough for 3-4 years after Satoshi took his hands off the wheel. How about you show some respect based on his past contributions too?

And now, this is totally off topic and I'm cluttering up F2Pool's thread. Bowing out.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Unprofessional how?

Unprofessional because without Adam Back's HashCash, Bitcoin would not exist.

I don't give a wet fart about meeting the CEO of Blockstream anymore than the CEO of Coinbase.

OTOH it is a great honor to be in the presence of legendary cypherpunk Adam Back, no matter which hat he is or isn't wearing.

If you are too young or low-information to remember the crypto wars and PGP t-shirt, you may be forgiven for prioritizing titles over demonstrated expertise.

I think Adam's a great guy, obviously has lots of street cred. I agree that he and others in the community have earned more respect that they receive.

With that said, clearly Gavin has stewarded Bitcoin development well enough for 3-4 years after Satoshi took his hands off the wheel. How about you show some respect based on his past contributions too?

Let's not change the subject to Gavin.

You asked what was "unprofessional" about macbook's posts, and I answered you in the form of explaining how astronomically churlish it is to whine about which titles somebody like Adam Back (who needs no such honorariums) does or does not deploy in a work-in-progress draft document.

Eagerly jumping to conclusions and making public accusations of bad faith based on a giant nothingburger is unprofessional.

Thanks for asking.  I'm glad we had the opportunity to cover that point in more detail.   

[gmaxwell]

Unprofessional how? I say this without malice. Greg, you're not much of an ambassador - leave the negotiations to someone else and stick with the tech explanations which you are very good at.

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47cjb5/f2pool_to_withdraw_support_from_round_table_due/d0byl5a

The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.

FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.

Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.

The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).

Since an earnest piece of confusion existed here the professional way to handle it would have been to first simply send an email "Hey, what happened here?"  Not to issue a public ultimatum; especially when the subject matter in question was a title on a on a document, and doubly so when the party being attacked didn't even have the technical ability to change it themselves. Even in the least charitable interpretation of the facts, F2Pool making a public fuss and threatening to change their operating behavior over this matter does not give me an impression of a thoughtfully managed organization.

Mistakes happen, however, and I do not think they should be vilified for it, but nor do I think it should be flushed from history.

Cheers.

[notabeliever]

Well not sure I understand everything here however I noticed F2pool isn't in the top 3 anymore in winning blocks since this change.

[_mr_e]

Unprofessional how? I say this without malice. Greg, you're not much of an ambassador - leave the negotiations to someone else and stick with the tech explanations which you are very good at.

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47cjb5/f2pool_to_withdraw_support_from_round_table_due/d0byl5a

The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.

FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.

Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.

The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).

Since an earnest piece of confusion existed here the professional way to handle it would have been to first simply send an email "Hey, what happened here?"  Not to issue a public ultimatum; especially when the subject matter in question was a title on a on a document, and doubly so when the party being attacked didn't even have the technical ability to change it themselves. Even in the least charitable interpretation of the facts, F2Pool making a public fuss and threatening to change their operating behavior over this matter does not give me an impression of a thoughtfully managed organization.

Mistakes happen, however, and I do not think they should be vilified for it, but nor do I think it should be flushed from history.

Cheers.

Too bad. No one cares what you think. It's clear that blockstream is fully of shady shit and subtle manipulation tactics like who signs as what are clearly important to your operandi. Miners are to do what is in their best interest, not what your shitty company tricks them into thinking is in their best interest. How does your own medicine taste?

[-ck]

Well not sure I understand everything here however I noticed F2pool isn't in the top 3 anymore in winning blocks since this change.

Can't see how it's related. All I see is a bad luck patch for f2pool.

[Fatman3001]

Unprofessional how? I say this without malice. Greg, you're not much of an ambassador - leave the negotiations to someone else and stick with the tech explanations which you are very good at.

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47cjb5/f2pool_to_withdraw_support_from_round_table_due/d0byl5a

The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.

FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.

Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.

The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).

Since an earnest piece of confusion existed here the professional way to handle it would have been to first simply send an email "Hey, what happened here?"  Not to issue a public ultimatum; especially when the subject matter in question was a title on a on a document, and doubly so when the party being attacked didn't even have the technical ability to change it themselves. Even in the least charitable interpretation of the facts, F2Pool making a public fuss and threatening to change their operating behavior over this matter does not give me an impression of a thoughtfully managed organization.

Mistakes happen, however, and I do not think they should be vilified for it, but nor do I think it should be flushed from history.

Cheers.

The miners gave a lot in this "consensus agreement". I doubt they did so in order for Adam to give them a BIP that would be dropped in a heartbeat. When Adam & co met they should have understood that the people on the other side of the table expected them to represent Core in a way that would lead to an enforceable agreement.

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.

The "cultural difference" is that they're done playing games. It takes two to tango, so you have to stick to the agreement as well. When one of the key signatories changes from "Blockstream/Core" to "bearded middle-aged man" after the agreement is reached, you broke the deal.

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.

If all the other miners on their pool left f2pool, the difference would be marginal. Their in-house HW would still be enough to effectively block anything you throw at them.

In short: If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the people who attended the meeting on behalf of Core and Blockstream without having the authority to represent neither.

[Lucko]

In short: If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the people who attended the meeting on behalf of Core and Blockstream without having the authority to represent neither.

Sound about right...

[kano]

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.

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

[hdbuck]

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.

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

Still, miners controlling bitcoin would be an overstatement.

Whether 51% or 75% attack they'd loose big if they try anything like that (probably all of us).

So nobody controls bitcoin. And that is good news.


But please proceed with the defiance, politics and cheap mainstreameries.

Bitcoin unaffected, if not strengthening, feasting on all that (negative) energy.

[Fatman3001]

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.

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

Wow!

If you're game it shouldn't be much of a problem. Much of the code should be easy to implement and as far as I can see it shouldn't be too hard to get at least something like 93% of the network to start running it fairly immediately. This way it will be Core +2MB without the politics. No dev war, less drama behind the scenes.

[GamerSg]

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

I think you are greatly overestimating miner importance.

If all of Bitcoin's miners started mining Dogecoin tomorrow, would that make Dogecoin the new Bitcoin?