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

[franky1]

2 pages of chatter waffled down to this summary opinion

1. miners were peed off with the push and pull arguments on github/mailinglist and so wanted to come face to face with the main people who can actually do something.
2. they did no invite random coders who just edited a couple words of the user guide, or the local sushi chef. they invited the main people who can actually do something.
3. the main people who can actually do something turned up. luke JR sat right next to adam back and others and they showed their opinions were united.
4. they did not sign the document "independent coder" they signed it "core contributor" emphasizing that their actions were to involve core
5. the commit access and control of the core github is not spread out evenly with hundreds of github users. but just select few(reference point 1 and 2)

but the "core contributors" are trying to pretend the agreement would be more effective if the chinese miners just asked their local sushi chefs to turn up and sign a document because luke, adam and the rest are pretending they are only as useful to core as a sushi chef.(basically saying they cant do it)

however we all know their abilities, their access privileges and their roles. so its obvious they can do it.. but simply wont.

now everyone should be up to date.

what to expect next.
Luke Jr SHOULD atleast release some code on his own personal repo(that way he cant blame core vetoing it). just to say he as an independent mind did forfill his independent obligations to produce code.
but then we will see the usual blockstream fanboys say that lukeJr's code release is just another altcoin and how lukeJr should be thrown to the wolves, just like any other dev that ended up releasing code on separate repos due to blockstream vetoing the changes.

but remember this folks. if a implementation links to bitcoins genesis block, stores, validates and relays bitcoins 7 year blockdata. its not an altcoin. so dont be fooled by the blockstream fanboys trying to scare people away with fake "altcoin doomsday" moments

[giggidy23]

but on whether someone's character or credibility is worthy of entering into. Do you trust them to hold their word?
Then it is like a Gentleman's Agreement.

I dunno, 10 billion bucks buys a lot of character and credibility.
Do I trust a bunch of mercenary, money-loving gentlemen from the other side of this planet with 10 billion dollars? Lessee... Lemme look, let me look at them again...
https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg

Nope, no I would not. Call me crazy.

The enforcement mechanism of this type of agreement is that if one of the parties does
not follow up on what they have signed off on, then that person has lost credibility within
the community and anything they say should be taken as garbage. Also, they should not
be trusted with any other future agreements or such. The only remedy to this type of
agreement is a social one, and not legal.

[platitude]

How well has this scheme worked in the past, in this here cryptosphere? All good, I take it?
How much less than a flying fuck do you think I would give if, for a few measly million worthless US dollars, some bro from Chian thought me a scumbag?

Conversely, how heartbroken would a Chinese gentlemen be, was he to learn how little some Amerifat on the other half of the globe thinks of his character and integrity? Taking into account that the other cup of the scales is weighed with a few million filthy US dollars, i.e. more than he's likely to make in a lifetime?

Take your time.

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

Not at all. I was not party to the negotiations, and can only guess re. the motivation and intent of the resultant "agreement." Placating you bit-villagers was suggested. You had pitchforks & the moat's been run dry, so sounds perfectly reasonable

I don't know what that even means.
The miners asked for a meeting and forced that agreement, was my understanding.

That means that the "agreement" kkept you hodling and buying, which served rational self-interests of the miners, the exchange owners, and the core developers.
Which is to say everyone's but yours.
If you got any more questions, you just go ahead and ask.

P.S. re. "When an individual signs a document with another individual(s)":
When an individual shakes hands with another individual, it's a gentlemen's agreement, expectations, etc., etc.
When an individual shakes hands with another individual(s) on camera and issues multiple press releases, it's probably something else.

[AgentofCoin]

but on whether someone's character or credibility is worthy of entering into. Do you trust them to hold their word?
Then it is like a Gentleman's Agreement.

I dunno, 10 billion bucks buys a lot of character and credibility.
Do I trust a bunch of mercenary, money-loving gentlemen from the other side of this planet with 10 billion dollars? Lessee... Lemme look, let me look at them again...



Nope, no I would not. Call me crazy.

The enforcement mechanism of this type of agreement is that if one of the parties does
not follow up on what they have signed off on, then that person has lost credibility within
the community and anything they say should be taken as garbage. Also, they should not
be trusted with any other future agreements or such. The only remedy to this type of
agreement is a social one, and not legal.

[platitude]

How well has this scheme worked in the past, in this here cryptosphere? All good, I take it?
How much less than a flying fuck do you think I would give if, for a few measly million worthless US dollars, some bro from Chian thought me a scumbag?

Conversely, how heartbroken would a Chinese gentlemen be, was he to learn how little some Amerifat on the other half of the globe thinks of his character and integrity? Taking into account that the other cup of the scales is weighed with a few million filthy US dollars, i.e. more than he's likely to make in a lifetime?

Take your time.

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

Not at all. I was not party to the negotiations, and can only guess re. the motivation and intent of the resultant "agreement." Placating you bit-villagers was suggested. You had pitchforks & the moat's been run dry, so sounds perfectly reasonable

I don't know what that even means.
The miners asked for a meeting and forced that agreement, was my understanding.

That means that the "agreement" kkept you hodling and buying, which served rational self-interests of the miners, the exchange owners, and the core developers.
Which is to say everyone's but yours.
If you got any more questions, you just go ahead and ask.

P.S. re. "When an individual signs a document with another individual(s)":
When an individual shakes hands with another individual, it's a gentlemen's agreement, expectations, etc., etc.
When an individual shakes hands with another individual(s) on camera and issues multiple press releases, it's probably something else.

I never said Gentleman's agreement is a good idea.
In fact, it sucks. But then the miner's would have never gotten their agreement.
Personally, no one should have signed anything or made any promises.
No matter what happened, there will be someone upset about something.

So what is it you want? Remedy?

[groll]

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.

Why is there so much fuss about mining bitcoins. Many debates are occuring about cores, production, maintenance etc. Why not let us all  work together for the future of bitcoins. all of us have already benefitted from bitcoins so we must also make some step to maintain it. Disagreement with each other does not increase the bitcoin supply. I bitcoin experts will unite to solve the problem right now then it will be helpful.

[giggidy23]

[]
I never said Gentleman's agreement is a good idea.
In fact, it sucks. But then the miner's would have never gotten their agreement.
Personally, no one should have signed anything or made any promises.
No matter what happened, there will be someone upset about something.

So what is it you want? Remedy?

So what you're telling me is that if not for the farce "gentleman's agreement," the miners would've got nothing, which is exactly what they got now?

No, of course no one should have signed anything, no one should have made any promises, no one should have lied and no one should have dicked around with an auto-tune.

But they did, because it served their ends. Or they thought it did. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don't'cha know that? And here you are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.

@groll, sounds good. Anything specific you'd like to contribute?

[giggidy23]

Bump.
Not sure re. credibility (probably more posturing), but this is what it would look like if the chickens come home to roost (to the luxurious Chinese chicken coops bitcoin data centers):

Wow, Chinese Miners Revolt and Announce Terminator Plan to Hard Fork to 2M, Big Fuck to Core (cross-post)

[Lauda]

Bump.
Not sure re. credibility (probably more posturing), but this is what it would look like if the chickens come home to roost (to the luxurious Chinese chicken coops bitcoin data centers):

Yet another failed FUD post on r/btc (they're talking about it like this is actually happening). You also don't even know how to properly attach URLs. Anyhow, that post is just a proposal (or extension?) made by a random nobody on that Chinese website. There is no sign of any big pools being behind this. How about we wait for some actual 'people' to voice their opinions before we jump to conclusions on this one?
Here's the proper link from r/Bitcoin.

[giggidy23]

Bump.
Not sure re. credibility (probably more posturing), but this is what it would look like if the chickens come home to roost (to the luxurious Chinese chicken coops bitcoin data centers):

Yet another failed FUD post on r/btc (they're talking about it like this is actually happening). You also don't even know how to properly attach URLs. Anyhow, that post is just a proposal (or extension?) made by a random nobody on that Chinese website. There is no sign of any big pools being behind this. How about we wait for some actual 'people' to voice their opinions before we jump to conclusions on this one?
Here's the proper link from r/Bitcoin.

Thanks for humbling me and correcting my link, Lauda. Your unmatched linking skills are unmatched, that's why you make big money.
That said, have you bothered reading before replying? Particularly this part: "Not sure re. credibility (probably more posturing), but this is what it would look like if[...]"?
Much like yourself, I do not find the linked material to be a credible threat.
Let's hope we're both right

[Lauda]

Thanks for humbling me and correcting my link, Lauda. Your unmatched linking skills are unmatched, that's why you make big money.

It took me a few years to become such an expert, but it was worth it!

That said, have you bothered reading before replying? Particularly this part: "Not sure re. credibility (probably more posturing), but this is what it would look like if[...]"?

Yes, I've read that. The reason that I've stated that it is a failed FUD post "at r/btc" is simply because the "people" there are talking about this like it was either signed by the big pools or already in effect.

Much like yourself, I do not find the linked material to be a credible threat.

It is not a credible threat of any kind at the moment. It seems more in the lines of a manipulative attempt at trolling. Let's see how this one plays out, shall we?

[giggidy23]

Let's see how this one plays out, shall we?

What's to play out, as far as you and I are concerned? If we're correct, nothing will come of this. If we're wrong, we're both wrong.
There's absolutely no need to view everyone as either your ally or your enemy, no need to view everyone as someone to toady up to or fight to the death.
This adversarial stance of yours plays right into the divide et impera maxim you paranoiacs attribute to Teh Man -- bitcoiners battle each other to the amusement of one and all, rendering circuses if not bread.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

In today’s edition of…  Everything begins to make sense:



The Core Repository has condemned the notion of separation of Repository and Protocol as heresy, and therefore
I know it to be evil and an abuse of power. The Protocol that disregards the Repository's authority is no better than the
average tx spammer who disregards the Protocol's authority as well. Error has no rights, and while there are circumstances
which may justify the Protocol's tolerance of false clients, in no case is it ever appropriate to defend their practice, or worse,
to treat them as equals with the True Client.

Miners are not Dev, and miners' rights are only ever derived from our obligations to Dev's projects and business. There is no
natural right to research, install, or run false clients; or to worship false protocols: those things are all wrong, and wrongs
can never be rights. The notion of miner rights independent from Dev, is nothing short of worship of miner (PoWism).

I do not however support theymocracy except in the special case of Consensus Code (in order to guarantee the Dev's independence
from foreign Miner authorities). The Devs should focus on technical affairs, while the Miner independently focuses on wiring
and cooling affairs. Not only is this more efficient, but it reduces the risk and harm of corruption, as well as reducing the burden
of responsibility placed on miners "hashing as a service" providers.

History has shown monarchy to be one of the most successful forms of government, and there seems to be reasonable
explanations why this is so.