Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!

[giggidy23]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q6ryh?context=3

[–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 2 points 17 hours ago

HaoBTC, in the future, if you have concerns or questions that need clarification and/or answering, please just ask, rather than posting on a blog that we probably don't read and might not even notice...

Things that we tried to make clear both at the meeting itself, as well as afterward on social media:

    Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)
    There was no hardfork promised (not even all the Core dev team has authority to do that), only code that could be recommended for one. (This also was made VERY clear.)
    The hardfork proposal promised was not a "2 MB hardfork", but a hardfork that would include as one minor change, the ability to include up to 2 MB of current witness-included-in-txid (anyone-can-malleate) transactions.
    Miners have no leverage to make demands. If they attempt to hardfork without community consensus, they harm only themselves, while Bitcoin moves on without them. (At least for my part, my goal of the agreement was to end division and argumentation, which did not happen, admittedly not because of the fault of many of the agreement participants.)
    The July 2016 estimate was not part of the agreement, and certainly not a deadline. It was (at the time) a reasonable expectation based on the agreement terms.
    Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties).

Admittedly, both at the meeting and now, I consider the "SegWit delayed until HF is released in Core" position some miners took to be unviable, and that miners will be pressured to deploy it much sooner by the community. After all, not deploying segwit literally means they are preventing the block size increase. However, I understand the agreement places no such obligation on them.

Since the agreement was made:

    SegWit has still not yet been included in a release. Thus the three months deadline has not even begun "counting" yet. (I still aspire to have something by the end of July if possible, but I consider this to be above and beyond the agreed-on terms.)
    Discussions have revealed that the goal of expanding space for anyone-can-malleate transactions loses the necessary performance improvements included with SegWit to make larger blocks safer, thus cannot safely be done without ugly hacks to introduce new limits similar to BIP 109 which might become a nuisance to Bitcoin both today and in the future. This isn't a show-stopper to writing code, but it may make it difficult to come up with something that unbiased parties can recommend.
    Many third parties have expressed that they will under no conditions consent to a hardfork that comes out of this or any other political agreement. This won't block code nor recommentation, but it does guarantee such a proposal cannot be adopted.
    Some developer(s) have expressed concerns that doing a hardfork safely ("soft hardfork") is somehow "unethical" to them, and doing it unsafely will require even greater efforts on ensuring consensus is reached not only from the community, but also that there are no nodes accidentally left behind. This isn't a blocker, but it probably makes deployment much harder.

[thejaytiesto]

Miners don't know shit about bitcoin. They think that because they run a bunch of miners and keep expanding their mines, that automatically means they know how to scale a protocol worldwide.

[giggidy23]

Miners don't know shit about bitcoin. They think that because they run a bunch of miners and keep expanding their mines, that automatically means they know how to scale a protocol worldwide.

...and that's why it's perfectly OK to lie to them.

[Denker]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

[QuestionAuthority]

Most of them don't really care about bitcoins future, they want to earn lots of money without much effort and little maintenance/electricity fees.

Of course you realize that you just described everyone using and holding Bitcoin world wide.

[giggidy23]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

[AgentofCoin]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

[giggidy23]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

[DannyHamilton]

EDIT: I should know better than to get involved in nonsense like this.

[AgentofCoin]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

[rizzlarolla]

- snip -
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
- snip -

I read the quote.  I don't see the part where he says, "We Didn't Promise You Dick!"

Perhaps if you were less interested in FUD, you'd have used a Subject line more like:

"Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: I intend to uphold [my promise] as best I can"

That is at least something I can actually find in the quote.

Fair point.
Or maybe this,

"Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: Things that we tried to make clear... Miners have no leverage to make demands."

[giggidy23]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?
Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that 9frodulent) contract could be made less valid if I break some clause contained therein?

Also, explain to me what all this was about:

https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg

- snip -
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
- snip -

I read the quote.  I don't see the part where he says, "We Didn't Promise You Dick!"

Did you see quotation marks in the thread topic? Do you know how those work?
Do you feel that "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team" is not, in substance, equivalent to "we didn't promise you dick"?

[AgentofCoin]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

[giggidy23]

Instead of using a new, today created account you should have the balls to FUD with your general one.
This is ridiculous!

Ad hominem retorts are pretty much what you're left with when you can't rationally refute an argument.
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
Would it be any less frightening for you if I used a hero account? Would it cause you less anxiety & doubt?
Help me out here.

Can you provide the part that was the agreed upon term you are referring to,
and then place that next to what was the lukejr lie above?

My understanding is that the agreement doesn't even take effect until three
months after SegWit is within a Core release. Then after that, the 2MB raise is an
individualized lobbied position and pull request, not a confirmed implementation.

Luke Jr. is saying that the agreement is null and void, because "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)," so the details are irrelevant.

If you're simply curious, SegWit was promised us a couple of months ago. Are you suggesting that the letter of the (invalid) agreement is being adhered to, because Core also lied about SegWit?

That is not my reading of what he wrote.

1) Chinese mining farms that participated in the talks wanted a confirmed change in the protocol.
People who participated who were also Bitcoin Devs advised the miners that they do not control the Dev team
and do not represent Core, since that is impossible since no one can represent Core. For the Chinese miners
to request that 3 or 4 Bitcoin Devs that participated in the talks, to guarantee a 2MB HF, totally disregards
how our development system works. All they could do was promise to make the pull request and lobby for it.

2) The agreement becomes invalid if the chinese miners do not begin to run SegWit. According to the terms,
when the miners begin to run the SegWit code, the 3 or 4 Devs who participated in the talks will make a pull
request for 2MB and lobby in an attempt to get the other Bitcoin Devs to agree and make the raise confirmed.
If SegWit was late in its release by 1 or 2 months, does not invalidate the agreement since the agreement is
not date based, but stage/term based. SegWit has now left testing and reached the stage of release.

If there is lying going on, as you say, can you please post the terms of the agreement, next to the lies.

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media, yeah:

Bitcoin Core & Miners Agree on Scaling Roadmap: Hard Fork Code Comes July 2016, Activation in 2017

But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.


Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

[rizzlarolla]

Signed Luke jnr - Core dev.
or,
Signed Luke jnr - Sole trader.

How can a distinction possibly be made here?
Luke jnr sole trader should not have been negotiating.

[RawDog]

Miners don't know shit about bitcoin. They think that because they run a bunch of miners and keep expanding their mines, that automatically means they know how to scale a protocol worldwide.

...and that's why it's perfectly OK to lie to them.

Besides the fact that the are also stupid, young, Chinese, and totally without balls.  That is why Core/Blockstream owns their silly little yellow asses.  Core/Blockstream owns bitcoin.

[DannyHamilton]

EDIT: I should know better than to get involved in nonsense like this.

[franky1]

Not at all.

There is nothing equivalent about that at all.

If I promise to vote against BREXIT, and I promise to campaign against BREXIT, but I make it very clear to you that I do not get the final say all by myself, that my vote may be insufficient and that my campaigning may not sway enough people...

Is that equivalent to "I don't promise you dick"?

Perhaps you believe me to be influential enough that you value that promise from me.  As long as I fulfill my promise to the best of my ability, I've done my part. Even if BREXIT passes.

in short we should see an exact copy of bitcoin v0.13(having segwit) in the next few months, but then amended to also including the blocksize changes to, available to download via luke Jr's own github repo.
that way luke Jr forfils his commitment without having to worry about the "vote"

if luke doesnt release the code in his personal repo. then the last year of roundtables and agreements was complete waste of time and luke jr has failed

i do however look forward to seeing lukes version. even if a new "its an altcoin, luke JR should be disassociated from bitcoin, sack him, throw him to the wolves" rhetoric starts up again..
which has already been seen by anyone who has released and blocksize increase code in the past

[Lauda]

Another shill account created in order to spread FUD. Isn't this just classic?
Luke-jr handled the situation decently especially considering this part:

Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties).

Isn't it amusing how the /r/btc parade wants to burn luke-jr on a stake (even though he has done nothing wrong here) but ignores the fact that it was already violated by another party?

[AgentofCoin]

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media...

Doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is the terms of the contract or agreement.
Almost 100% of the time the media gets the story/issues wrong. No one should base their knowledge
of issues from bitcoin media (especially when they are constantly wrong and half the time paid to shill altcoins).

But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.

Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

I don't really understand the issue. If "Core" provides information on their site as to the roadmap or etc,
then "Core" takes an official stance and is attempting to comply/enforce/implement such a stance.
If a few Core contributors to the Bitcoin code make an agreement with anyone, even God himself,
descended from heaven, that does not bind the remaining Core Contributors (over 80 at least) to such
an agreement.

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.