Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts - Gavin Andresen

[pawel7777]

I'll just drop it here

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi-roundtable-thoughts

...
“Everybody who support that, raise your hand” : a dozen or so people, most of whom were part of that Hong Kong meeting, raise their hands.

“Everybody who does not support that, raise your hand” : everybody else (forty? fifty people?) raises their hands.
...

[chopstick]

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

[European Central Bank]

I think the 95% thing is gonna be a major problem. Look at how divided everyone is and they're getting more divided by the day.

If he saw this coming, and I guess anyone would, why didn't he do more when he was in the driving seat back in the day? It's obvious a change was gonna become harder as more people came on board. There shoulda been something in place in 2012/13.

[chopstick]

95% consensus is truly laughable. It's just a stall tactic, so any one person with an agenda can permanently delay a fork if they don't like a change. 75% is reasonable.

[franky1]

2mb was proposed as early as july 2015.

blockstream went on a political rally to say the proposals for 20mb, 8mb 4mb was too much.. totally over shadowing any talk of a 2mb.. then it started the next phase of politcal meandering. not talking about code at all but trash anyone that wants change and say they are corporations. while secretly it was blockstream that is the corporation with the controlled agenda after all.

we had debates about block size debunked because segwit+confidential pament codes would bloat blocks up to 4mb. so that blew blockstreams "2mb is bad" theory out of the water

we had debates about large blocks causing a dilution of full archival nodes debunked because in actual fact by blockstream offering no-witess mode and pruned mode many of the 6000 nodes wont be running in full archival mode.

we had the grace 5 month to implement code (february-july) theory debunked because blockstream released 3 different versions for core in 5 months so 1 version can easily be released in a couple months.

we had the grace period of 12 months debunked, because Luke JR (blockstream/core dev) and other devs thought it ok to put in a difficulty reduction hard fork with only 3 month grace(april-july).

so all in all there is no reason at all to not have the 2mb hard fork code in aprils release, with a 6month grace period.

if its there and people dont want it, it just wont get activated.. but if people want it and the code is not their, then its just a waste of time that will not benefit anyone. and if anyone was to make their own implementation that had it due to blockstream refusing it. then it would be blockstream causing a contention if the majority wanted to move to the 2mb buffer limit.

again having the code available but not activated allowing the community to decide if it activates or not is better then not having the code available and everyone begging the blockstream CEO to get his ass in gear

[RoadStress]

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

Yeah, let Coinbase governance us. The company that is actually making money as we speak. Blockstream isn't making any money and they already have agreed to a HF NEXT FUCKING YEAR! Let me repeat that: They aren't making any money right now and I can make a bet that they will not be making any money next year either! How would you agree to give the bitcoin governance towards a for-profit company with ZERO technical skills??? I don't get it!

[CarrollFilms]

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

Yeah, let Coinbase governance us. The company that is actually making money as we speak. Blockstream isn't making any money and they already have agreed to a HF NEXT FUCKING YEAR! Let me repeat that: They aren't making any money right now and I can make a bet that they will not be making any money next year either! How would you agree to give the bitcoin governance towards a for-profit company with ZERO technical skills??? I don't get it!

With the way Core is headed and the way the devs are acting, Bitcoin is headed more and more towards a centralized governance. Classic is what we need and that 2MB limit is what we(miners) need even more

[25hashcoin]

I'll just drop it here

Why?

[chopstick]

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

Yeah, let Coinbase governance us. The company that is actually making money as we speak. Blockstream isn't making any money and they already have agreed to a HF NEXT FUCKING YEAR! Let me repeat that: They aren't making any money right now and I can make a bet that they will not be making any money next year either! How would you agree to give the bitcoin governance towards a for-profit company with ZERO technical skills??? I don't get it!

Let coinbase govern us? Really? LOL. So Coinbase is the big boogieman now? Coinbase has no power over what wallet you decide to use, or even how you decide to use bitcoin. Not really anyway. Blockstream, on the other hand has achieved total centralization over the bitcoin development space, and it has been shown that some of their investors may very well have ulterior motives. Coupled with the constant ongoing DDoS attacks against Classic nodes (someone is spending hundreds of thousands on this)  and censorship attempts on this forum and r/bitcoin, it has become pretty clear what is really going on - any viable alternative to Core is being actively oppressed. On the plus side, these kinds of dirty tactics have a very high chance to backfire.

As for the rest of your argument, it's pointless. We need 2 mb now, and to buy us time to make more decisions. Next year around "maybe July 2017" is just too long. They are stalling and stalling and stalling. They are clearly opposed to a blocksize increase at all costs and some of them (luke-jr) even want to REDUCE the blocksize. They will eventually profit off side-chains in some capacity or another, which is clearly their ultimate goal - and not only that but they are trying to set up conditions to force us all to use*their* off-chain solutions. This is extremely dishonest. But I guess when you have a CEO like Austin Hill who made 100k scamming people in 3 months, things like ethics and morals don't really matter much huh?

Running Classic does not mean giving "governance" to coinbase. That is honestly just a really stupid, Low-IQ scare tactic. It means listening to the sensible arguments of Gavin and a blocksize increase which is clearly sorely needed.

[25hashcoin]

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

Yeah, let Coinbase governance us. The company that is actually making money as we speak. Blockstream isn't making any money and they already have agreed to a HF NEXT FUCKING YEAR! Let me repeat that: They aren't making any money right now and I can make a bet that they will not be making any money next year either! How would you agree to give the bitcoin governance towards a for-profit company with ZERO technical skills??? I don't get it!

Let coinbase govern us? Really? LOL. So Coinbase is the big boogieman now? Coinbase has no power over what wallet you decide to use, or even how you decide to use bitcoin. Not really anyway. Blockstream, on the other hand has achieved total centralization over the bitcoin development space, and it has been shown that some of their investors may very well have ulterior motives. Coupled with the constant ongoing DDoS attacks against Classic nodes (someone is spending hundreds of thousands on this)  and censorship attempts on this forum and r/bitcoin, it has become pretty clear what is really going on - any viable alternative to Core is being actively oppressed. On the plus side, these kinds of dirty tactics have a very high chance to backfire.

As for the rest of your argument, it's pointless. We need 2 mb now, and to buy us time to make more decisions. Next year around "maybe July 2017" is just too long. They are stalling and stalling and stalling. They are clearly opposed to a blocksize increase at all costs and some of them (luke-jr) even want to REDUCE the blocksize. They will eventually profit off side-chains in some capacity or another, which is clearly their ultimate goal - and not only that but they are trying to set up conditions to force us all to use*their* off-chain solutions. This is extremely dishonest. But I guess when you have a CEO like Austin Hill who made 100k scamming people in 3 months, things like ethics and morals don't really matter much huh?

Running Classic does not mean giving "governance" to coinbase. That is honestly just a really stupid, Low-IQ scare tactic. It means listening to the sensible arguments of Gavin and a blocksize increase which is clearly sorely needed.

Lol @ this Classicbase shill going around to every thread and sticking up for Classicbase.

[chopstick]

Lol @ this Classicbase shill going around to every thread and sticking up for Classicbase.

You're an idiot. That's all there is to it. You do not even have the basic intelligence required to refute a single one of my points.

If you want central banker settlement coin and make big bucks off sidechains, make your own coin like Ethereum, don't go for a hostile takeover of Bitcoin and force your shit onto the rest of us.

[SFR10]

Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.

[Kakmakr]

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

Yeah, let Coinbase governance us. The company that is actually making money as we speak. Blockstream isn't making any money and they already have agreed to a HF NEXT FUCKING YEAR! Let me repeat that: They aren't making any money right now and I can make a bet that they will not be making any money next year either! How would you agree to give the bitcoin governance towards a for-profit company with ZERO technical skills??? I don't get it!

Let coinbase govern us? Really? LOL. So Coinbase is the big boogieman now? Coinbase has no power over what wallet you decide to use, or even how you decide to use bitcoin.

Tell that to the millions of users in North America who signed up with them, because they are almost the only legal option in the USA to acquire and trade with Bitcoin. You try to buy Bitcoin anywhere else, let's say Localbitcoin and you get arrested and your money seized. Coinbase bend over to the government and accepted all the KYC and AML rules and regulations and effectively sold out the users privacy. Now they want to use that leverage < The high user base > to throw their weight around.

The sooner we see a lot more competition < Not just Ciircle> the better for all of us. The Americans should rid themselves from monopolies like that.

Raise you hand, if you think Gavin would have said anything good about the Core team. ^smile^

[Denker]

Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.

Core= aiming for several layers on top of a decentralized base to scale safe and properly and offer millions of users the possibilty of micropayments which will be incredible cheap and fast via LN and other implementations.Having the incredible huge majority of best skilled developers knowing and improving the network.

classic= 2 devs and a bunch of power greedy individuals and scammers who think just increasing blocksize again and again and again is the cure for everything.

[franky1]

Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.

Core= aiming for several layers on top of a decentralized base to scale safe and properly and offer millions of users the possibilty of micropayments which will be incredible cheap and fast via LN and other implementations.Having the incredible huge majority of best skilled developers knowing and improving the network.

classic= 2 devs and a bunch of power greedy individuals and scammers who think just increasing blocksize again and again and again is the cure for everything.

hey Mr. Shill its never been a debate about which band camp should control and veto code. its about a open community of bitcoin that all features and upgrades should be allowed as long as they work, that means all different implementations can include the code. it should never be a "follow core or die" philosophy, or a "follow classic or die philosophy".

2mb can be included in core... just like segwit can be included in classic.
heck, 2mb+segwit could be included in bitcoinj, and the other 12 branded bitcoin clients.

so stop turning a code debate into a political control debate

but core refuses because their payday from offchain solutions and sidechain solutions outweigh's the morals and ethics of doing what millions of people want.

[hv_]

Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.

Core= aiming for several layers on top of a decentralized base to scale safe and properly and offer millions of users the possibilty of micropayments which will be incredible cheap and fast via LN and other implementations.Having the incredible huge majority of best skilled developers knowing and improving the network.

classic= 2 devs and a bunch of power greedy individuals and scammers who think just increasing blocksize again and again and again is the cure for everything.

hey Mr. Shill its never been a debate about which band camp should control and veto code. its about a open community of bitcoin that all features and upgrades should be allowed as long as they work, that means all different implementations can include the code. it should never be a "follow core or die" philosophy, or a "follow classic or die philosophy".

2mb can be included in core... just like segwit can be included in classic.
heck, 2mb+segwit could be included in bitcoinj, and the other 12 branded bitcoin clients.

so stop turning a code debate into a political control debate

but core refuses because their payday from offchain solutions and sidechain solutions outweigh's the morals and ethics of doing what millions of people want.

Correct. And IMO devs should be payed by some BTC voting system.

[sgbett]

Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.

Core= aiming for several layers on top of a decentralized base to scale safe and properly and offer millions of users the possibilty of micropayments which will be incredible cheap and fast via LN and other implementations.Having the incredible huge majority of best skilled developers knowing and improving the network.

classic= 2 devs and a bunch of power greedy individuals and scammers who think just increasing blocksize again and again and again is the cure for everything.

Adam Back recently said on Twitter:
#Bitcoin "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" -David Clark, IETF

Which I thought was interesting because:

Segwit=not ready
2MB=deployed

One of them is a realistic solution right now to mitigate potentially stuck transactions/backlog and is moving towards establishing rough consensus.

[franky1]

Adam Back recently said on Twitter:
#Bitcoin "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" -David Clark, IETF

Which I thought was interesting because:

Segwit=not ready
2MB=deployed

One of them is a realistic solution right now to mitigate potentially stuck transactions/backlog and is moving towards establishing rough consensus.

also adam back is following idea's of his corporate consultants at PwC, not following the wishs of the bitcoiners.
so although we should not call PwC a king or president. we should call them a management company and borderline 'parliament'.

it makes me laugh that he claims to not want top ranking people controlling bitcoin. but put himself as the one with the main github keyholders aswell as having the title of CEO to a corporation.

[Kprawn]

Gavin likes to please the crowd, and plays that hand like a Pro. He also likes to use scare tactics to influence people e.g. " If the block size limit is not increased, we will see more off-chain solutions.

But they won’t be the Lightning Network– instead, we will see highly centralized “clearing” agreements between exchanges and miners and merchants or merging of miners and transactions creators."

You already have off-chain solutions like Xapo doing just that, with no real negative influence for the Blockchain. It depends what you expect from the Blockchain, which would dictate it's limitations. If

everyone in the world wants to use it to move micro amounts "eg. Buying Coffee", services like Xapo can handle that and do the validation of the final value transfer on-chain. Nothing wrong with that.   

[CIYAM]

Personally I find it very amusing that years ago when Gavin appeared on CNN (or CNBC - I forget which) with Amir and Amir was talking about Bitcoin being used for "micro-transactions" Gavin was very quick to interrupt Amir and say "no - Bitcoin is not suitable for that" (in fact I think that he basically spoke over Amir in order to "shut him up").

So when he was "the lead dev" it wasn't suitable for buying coffees but now that he lost his throne (which he abdicated btw) and wants it back suddenly we need to be buying coffees with Bitcoin (and if we can't buy our coffees for Bitcoin by the end of next month or so then the whole project will die).

Stop being sucked in by a narcissist guys (he still calls himself the "Chief Scientist" of Bitcoin for fuck's sake and he barely even contributes any code at all).

If Gavin would agree to retire and have nothing more to do with Bitcoin then maybe one could take the idea of a 2MB hard-fork as something other than a power grab (but until he does that then I am convinced he just wants to regain the control that he thinks he should have).

If Gavin thinks he is so talented then why doesn't he just have the balls to create an "alt" rather than trying to fuck up Bitcoin.