Another closed door Core - Chinese miners meeting

[nydiacaskey01]

Is there a meeting? Why am I not invited?  Is this meeting related to the sudden drop of Bitcoin and the sudden climb of some alt coins? Those Chinese guys are up to something again, so what are they trying to copy now 

[1715286449]

1715286449

[1715286449]

1715286449

[1715286449]

1715286449

[1715286449]

1715286449

[1715286449]

1715286449

[franky1]

Is there a meeting? Why am I not invited?   Is this meeting related to the sudden drop of Bitcoin and the sudden climb of some alt coins? Those Chinese guys are up to something again, so what are they trying to copy now  

having a meeting about the price is silly..
bitcoins FIAT value is as relevant as the direction the karate kid paints a fence.
expect "upp, downn, upp downn" motions forever. bitcoin is not and should not be a stagnant fixed price coin

[sotoshihero]

Is there a meeting? Why am I not invited?  Is this meeting related to the sudden drop of Bitcoin and the sudden climb of some alt coins? Those Chinese guys are up to something again, so what are they trying to copy now 

Hope to join their group chat too LoL But the continuous drop of bitcoin is not alarming on my opinion.I do believe that it will recover soon but anything can happen so we have to watch out. I have no idea if theres any factor affecting the price drop? Chinese? Brexit?

[Lauda]

They came out to meet with many parties in the area, in fact. You just hear about it in this case.  The meeting was mostly social-- discussing our common passion (Bitcoin) and trying to improve communication.  

The community can't know that and they'd have to believe in someone's words which is what is worrisome here.

I think notes are going to be posted, in fact, because we're dweebs like that.

That would be beneficial indeed.

Is there a meeting? Why am I not invited?  

I hope that you're joking.

Is this meeting related to the sudden drop of Bitcoin and the sudden climb of some alt coins?

Random prices movements are pointless to waste time on, so the answer is no. Most people panicking about small movements in the Speculation section have nothing better to do with their lives.

[Liquid71]

well r/btc trolls want to organize a fork...I've seen how well that went with Ethereum so I'm out. Good job trolls, you rekt Bitcoin

[gmaxwell]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-and-developers-meet-in-california-to-improve-communications-1470158657

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Lol, like the problem was a lack of communication... that's all we've had.

The problem is the lack of willingness to pursue a reasonable compromise, and the resultant lack of any action that isn't on a whiteboard at Blockstream HQ.

Now we'll see if becoming unprofitable and facing threats from altered PoW spin-offs will wake up the miners.

[pawel7777]

well r/btc trolls want to organize a fork...I've seen how well that went with Ethereum so I'm out. Good job trolls, you rekt Bitcoin

wrong topic?

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-and-developers-meet-in-california-to-improve-communications-1470158657

Thanks for sharing

[rizzlarolla]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-and-developers-meet-in-california-to-improve-communications-1470158657

From link,

Bitcoin Core developer Greg Maxwell, who also attended the gathering, echoed this sentiment. “I thought it was really positive — and good to meet up with people face to face that I'd only talked with in email before,” he said in a post on bitcointalk.org.

“The Bitcoin industry seriously needs better communication — especially crossing language and cultural barriers — rather than hot comments on social media,” Maxwell said. “Improved communication will lead to fewer potential avenues for miscommunication and better cooperation in the future.”

And all you post here is a link to some shit magazine saying what you posted here earlier, "we need better communication"?
Pathetic.

Looks like you are just stalling, while you wait for the miner "announcement".

[yayayo]

the other flipside kprawn is that developers should not prevent hard forks if the community want them. and instead do all they can to allow open choice for the whole community.

developers restricting choice and causing controversy is just as bad for the community as a low consensus hard fork would be.

either way the core 2mb code should be released and then leave it for the community to download and show a high percentage node upgrade, then miners can start flagging their blocks to show their desire.. and if all shows promising numbers.. it happens.

prevention via dictatorship is cores method of doing things.
they have proven this by taking over the organizing of the meeting and changing the purpose of the meeting.

so far core has just wasted a year, irritating people purely to show they are a centralist power base.

What you're writing is simply delusional. Fact is that all the Gavinista bigblock-altcoin schemes failed miserably. The community chose to stay with the original, decentralized Bitcoin. And progress with Core development shows it was a smart choice.

Despite the doomsday scenarios widely circulated in the XT/ClassicCoin FUD campaign, the network is in a healthy state. There is no urgency to increase the maximum blocksize. Thanks to Segwit even a 1 MB limit offers significant of room for growth. (That doesn't mean that the blocksize should never be increased, it just must be done in a sensible way to preserve decentralization.)

Bitcoin Core developers are not dictating anything. They continue to build a better Bitcoin for all of us. The fact that they meet with miners for discussion shows that they try to incorporate their issues in the roadmap.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

What you're writing is simply delusional. Fact is that all the Gavinista bigblock-altcoin schemes failed miserably. The community chose to stay with the original, decentralized Bitcoin. And progress with Core development shows it was a smart choice.

ya.ya.yo!

you do realise that MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
is actually bitcoin-core (with segwit) version that allows 2mb base blocks.
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE is a variable utilized by bitcoin-core..

its got nothing to do with "gavinista" it has nothing to do with "big blocks" because the funny part is that "serialized" blocksize of bitcoin-core is 4mb..
here i will explain it in english
gavinista's want 2mb of total data..
core wants 4mb total data, but only 1mb baseblocks which means traditional transactions(old privkeys) are limited to the 1mb base block. and the other 3mb is for signatures of new style privkeys.

however MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; is still cores deemed safe 4mb bloat of total relay data but with 2mb base block size to allow those that dont want to use the new privkeys, to have extra buffer within the main block.

as for you saying that you are ignoring MULTIPLE different bitcoin implementations that exist currently and instead choose to go in the single direction of just one corporation.. because some how you think core is more decentralized than 12 other implementations (bitcoinj, bitcoin ruby, bitcoinBU, etc etc) is your delusion. and your misunderstanding of decentralization

anyway, ill digress and will ask you the same question other "streamers" are avoiding answering..

when luke JR, a bitcoin core dev releases a bitcoin-core version (with segwit) of MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
will you accept that the controversy is over and that decentralized choice can be regained and that core then gets back to being on a level playing ground of open choice of many implementations from many sources all offering 2mb instead of dictator control of one source trying to prevent expansion of the main(base) block buffer.
or
will you be part of a REKT campaign to push luke JR under the bus and get him removed from the main bitcoin github because you prefer the dictatorship preventing the expansion of the main(base) block buffer

all i really need to know and have you reply to is
1. "yes i will support MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; but only if there are no 'trojan'/bugs added elsewhere in the code"
2. "no i wont support MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; and will REKT Luke JR because its not the direction i want bitcoin to go in"

i have even numbered it to help you stay on point and reply with least effort and cost to your time.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

While the Chinese mining kings were over here, somebody was hacking Bitfinex over there.

Nice timing?

[Fatman3001]

They came out to meet with many parties in the area, in fact. You just hear about it in this case.  The meeting was mostly social-- discussing our common passion (Bitcoin) and trying to improve communication.   I think notes are going to be posted, in fact, because we're dweebs like that.

I thought it was really positive-- and good to meet up with people face to face that I'd only talked with in email before.

The Bitcoin industry seriously needs better communication-- especially crossing language and cultural barriers-- rather than hot comments on social media. Improved communication will lead to fewer potential avenues for miscommunication and better cooperation in the future.

Good stuff!

Don't buy into rbtc fud.

And you were doing so well.

[rizzlarolla]

I think notes are going to be posted, in fact, because we're dweebs like that.

Any links to those notes?

All I have found, barely readable,
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/cali2016/

Future outlook of Bitcoin
"A wild Bobmon has appeared in the room. It's very important to capture this pokemon."
Did anyone catch it?