The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[dinofelis]

https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/

Well if we're quoting Falkvinge on Segwit, we may as well reference his better work, such as his synopsis of Satoshi Roundtable:
http://falkvinge.net/2017/01/26/impressions-satoshi-roundtable-iii/


In a speaking slot of mine, I stood up and made the observation that we (people in the room) are acting like a Toyota boardroom who are trying to make a decision that every family should buy the latest Toyota model. “It doesn’t work like that”, I said. “We’re not the Soviet Politburo commanding a planned economy. The reality of the situation is that we’ve made the market an offer, and the market is rejecting our offer.” I made the point that thinking the market should behave differently, no matter how good your reasons, is not going to make the market behave differently in the slightest. The Toyota boardroom doesn’t get to decide what car a family should buy, and the present company does not get to decide what code miners run on their own machines. The world isn’t fair, but instead of complaining about it, play the cards you’ve got on your hand. Give your client what they want and you both benefit.

I think that quote nails this whole year-long agonizing about Segwit perfectly, and in hindsight will be the Bitcoin history books.

The third Satoshi Roundtable has just concluded in Cancún, Mexico. The Roundtable is a private gathering of 100 movers and shakers within the bitcoin industry, with no media present, and it’s held under Chatham House rules – meaning everybody can use the information shared at the meeting, but never disclose who said what or their affiliation.

Same as The Bilderberg Group. Secrecy can not be permitted in decentralised environment.

This right here bothers me severely! Why in the hell are we replicating the same power structures that we purportedly seek to destroy. *Sigh*

This illustrates the failed decentralization of bitcoin.  One shouldn't "complain" that people are having secret gatherings.  If those secret gatherings have any potential EFFECT, it means that bitcoin was prone to collusion (and hence wasn't decentralized) in the first place.

Complaining about this is a bit like complaining that you have a cryptographic protocol, but that there are people having secret meetings about how they can crack your cryptographic system.  If you are to be afraid about people trying secretly to crack your system, then it means that your crypto system is worthless.  If a system claimed to be decentralized has to fear the "secret gathering of a few hundreds of individuals", then it is not decentralized.

Just as with cryptography, one should say: "try to collude as much as you can, try to modify bitcoin to your hand, the more you do so, and the more you fail, the more you prove that our concept of our system is working correctly, because it was designed to resist exactly that".

The big failure of bitcoin is that its protocol is made such that it NEEDS to be modified, which can only be obtained by breaking its resistance to power (that is, the ability of some to change its rules).  So bitcoin will fail technically (because of block limit) unless it fails conceptually (because centralized and power structure).

[1715434961]

1715434961

[1715434961]

1715434961

[hv_]

https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/

Well if we're quoting Falkvinge on Segwit, we may as well reference his better work, such as his synopsis of Satoshi Roundtable:
http://falkvinge.net/2017/01/26/impressions-satoshi-roundtable-iii/


In a speaking slot of mine, I stood up and made the observation that we (people in the room) are acting like a Toyota boardroom who are trying to make a decision that every family should buy the latest Toyota model. “It doesn’t work like that”, I said. “We’re not the Soviet Politburo commanding a planned economy. The reality of the situation is that we’ve made the market an offer, and the market is rejecting our offer.” I made the point that thinking the market should behave differently, no matter how good your reasons, is not going to make the market behave differently in the slightest. The Toyota boardroom doesn’t get to decide what car a family should buy, and the present company does not get to decide what code miners run on their own machines. The world isn’t fair, but instead of complaining about it, play the cards you’ve got on your hand. Give your client what they want and you both benefit.

I think that quote nails this whole year-long agonizing about Segwit perfectly, and in hindsight will be the Bitcoin history books.

The third Satoshi Roundtable has just concluded in Cancún, Mexico. The Roundtable is a private gathering of 100 movers and shakers within the bitcoin industry, with no media present, and it’s held under Chatham House rules – meaning everybody can use the information shared at the meeting, but never disclose who said what or their affiliation.

Same as The Bilderberg Group. Secrecy can not be permitted in decentralised environment.

This right here bothers me severely! Why in the hell are we replicating the same power structures that we purportedly seek to destroy. *Sigh*

This illustrates the failed decentralization of bitcoin.  One shouldn't "complain" that people are having secret gatherings.  If those secret gatherings have any potential EFFECT, it means that bitcoin was prone to collusion (and hence wasn't decentralized) in the first place.

Complaining about this is a bit like complaining that you have a cryptographic protocol, but that there are people having secret meetings about how they can crack your cryptographic system.  If you are to be afraid about people trying secretly to crack your system, then it means that your crypto system is worthless.  If a system claimed to be decentralized has to fear the "secret gathering of a few hundreds of individuals", then it is not decentralized.

Just as with cryptography, one should say: "try to collude as much as you can, try to modify bitcoin to your hand, the more you do so, and the more you fail, the more you prove that our concept of our system is working correctly, because it was designed to resist exactly that".

The big failure of bitcoin is that its protocol is made such that it NEEDS to be modified, which can only be obtained by breaking its resistance to power (that is, the ability of some to change its rules).  So bitcoin will fail technically (because of block limit) unless it fails conceptually (because centralized and power structure).

I do not see why any meeting has an effect to the underlying Nash equilibrium at all? What would we all do when we detect the incoming  centrality? Buy more coins?

And I always think that a puristic prototcol and open client competition would solve lots the modification issues.

[awren]

Man I don't like how rushed this is at all, still waiting on production ready code 2 weeks prior to August 1. Arg

[The One]

Sadly I am not rich. My story is tragic and if you do some research you will find out why. I was into bitcoin almost from the very beginning. I am strong believer in the bitcoin dream but overall bitcoin has brought me a fair bit of sadness. But like your first love you never quite forget her nor completely erase her from your heart. Such is life and some of us just have bad luck and that's just the way it is. I prefer not to talk about it and just move on. Only small minds dwell on the past.

Instead of researching why... you might as well save as a lot of time and tell us.

[ibminer]

Sadly I am not rich. My story is tragic and if you do some research you will find out why. I was into bitcoin almost from the very beginning. I am strong believer in the bitcoin dream but overall bitcoin has brought me a fair bit of sadness. But like your first love you never quite forget her nor completely erase her from your heart. Such is life and some of us just have bad luck and that's just the way it is. I prefer not to talk about it and just move on. Only small minds dwell on the past.

Instead of researching why... you might as well save as a lot of time and tell us.

I would assume:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16457.0

[ComputerGenie]

♪♫ If I had a million dollars...
I'd be rich ♪♫

[The One]

https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/

Well if we're quoting Falkvinge on Segwit, we may as well reference his better work, such as his synopsis of Satoshi Roundtable:
http://falkvinge.net/2017/01/26/impressions-satoshi-roundtable-iii/


In a speaking slot of mine, I stood up and made the observation that we (people in the room) are acting like a Toyota boardroom who are trying to make a decision that every family should buy the latest Toyota model. “It doesn’t work like that”, I said. “We’re not the Soviet Politburo commanding a planned economy. The reality of the situation is that we’ve made the market an offer, and the market is rejecting our offer.” I made the point that thinking the market should behave differently, no matter how good your reasons, is not going to make the market behave differently in the slightest. The Toyota boardroom doesn’t get to decide what car a family should buy, and the present company does not get to decide what code miners run on their own machines. The world isn’t fair, but instead of complaining about it, play the cards you’ve got on your hand. Give your client what they want and you both benefit.

I think that quote nails this whole year-long agonizing about Segwit perfectly, and in hindsight will be the Bitcoin history books.

The third Satoshi Roundtable has just concluded in Cancún, Mexico. The Roundtable is a private gathering of 100 movers and shakers within the bitcoin industry, with no media present, and it’s held under Chatham House rules – meaning everybody can use the information shared at the meeting, but never disclose who said what or their affiliation.

Same as The Bilderberg Group. Secrecy can not be permitted in decentralised environment.

This right here bothers me severely! Why in the hell are we replicating the same power structures that we purportedly seek to destroy. *Sigh*

This illustrates the failed decentralization of bitcoin.  One shouldn't "complain" that people are having secret gatherings.  If those secret gatherings have any potential EFFECT, it means that bitcoin was prone to collusion (and hence wasn't decentralized) in the first place.

Complaining about this is a bit like complaining that you have a cryptographic protocol, but that there are people having secret meetings about how they can crack your cryptographic system.  If you are to be afraid about people trying secretly to crack your system, then it means that your crypto system is worthless.  If a system claimed to be decentralized has to fear the "secret gathering of a few hundreds of individuals", then it is not decentralized.

Just as with cryptography, one should say: "try to collude as much as you can, try to modify bitcoin to your hand, the more you do so, and the more you fail, the more you prove that our concept of our system is working correctly, because it was designed to resist exactly that".

The big failure of bitcoin is that its protocol is made such that it NEEDS to be modified, which can only be obtained by breaking its resistance to power (that is, the ability of some to change its rules).  So bitcoin will fail technically (because of block limit) unless it fails conceptually (because centralized and power structure).

The secret meeting isn't the problem but this is, "but never disclose who said what or their affiliation."

One of the rules.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham House’s reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.

Disciplinary action -  . What next disciplinary against against miners/users/developers. Who is going to be the judge and jury of dishing out disciplinary action in a decentralised environment. It's all rather comical.

[grermezter]

I got a bad feeling about this.

I do as well, the market is currently crashing, am afraid this is going to destabilize the currency in such a way that it may never or will take a long to recover. Not everyone is in agreement with the implementation.

[crazyivan]

OP, people like you always complain about BTC centralisation.

Well, whatever proposal it is in the end, it would have to be designed and implemented by someone, a group of people at best. So there s no other option but to make it centralised in a sense someone s got to provide it and make decision which option to choose. You cannot expect Satoshi himself to offer a solution for this or BTC community gets in charge of implementation. Similarly, there ll always be people against it, whatever soltution is the leading one.


I say, 90% of pools want it, these re the ones who invested millions into BTC infrastructure, it seems fair for them to make decisions about it.

[The One]

Sadly I am not rich. My story is tragic and if you do some research you will find out why. I was into bitcoin almost from the very beginning. I am strong believer in the bitcoin dream but overall bitcoin has brought me a fair bit of sadness. But like your first love you never quite forget her nor completely erase her from your heart. Such is life and some of us just have bad luck and that's just the way it is. I prefer not to talk about it and just move on. Only small minds dwell on the past.

Instead of researching why... you might as well save as a lot of time and tell us.

I would assume:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16457.0

Ouch. What is this Arron Barr character then?

[ComputerGenie]

...Disciplinary action -  . What next disciplinary against against miners/users/developers. Who is going to be the judge and jury of dishing out disciplinary action in a decentralised environment. It's all rather comical.

It's simple. It's by invite only; you show up, you talk about it, you don't get an invite to the next one.

The first rule of Fight Club is....

[ComputerGenie]

I got a bad feeling about this.

I do as well, the market is currently crashing, am afraid this is going to destabilize the currency in such a way that it may never or will take a long to recover. Not everyone is in agreement with the implementation.

Where by "crashing" is only 3x higher than it was 8 months ago (and only 5x higher than was 14 months ago). If only all of my investments sucked so badly.  

[The One]

and  btc goes under $2000 

[crazyivan]

Well, fucking FUDster have made it. Now u come here and ask again, OMG, what s gonna happen, we re all DOOMED!

There will be no fork, SegWit2x will be implemented and BTC price will bounce back. The only ones who ll lose money are re u panic pumpers. On the other hand, that should be the case. Ignorant idiots should be deprived of their money.

[Cryptogott]

Well, fucking FUDster have made it. Now u come here and ask again, OMG, what s gonna happen, we re all DOOMED!

There will be no fork, SegWit2x will be implemented and BTC price will bounce back. The only ones who ll lose money are re u panic pumpers. On the other hand, that should be the case. Ignorant idiots should be deprived of their money.

Segwit will be implemented indeed. Either before or on August 1. Not sure about the 2x part though.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Well, fucking FUDster have made it. Now u come here and ask again, OMG, what s gonna happen, we re all DOOMED!

There will be no fork, SegWit2x will be implemented and BTC price will bounce back. The only ones who ll lose money are re u panic pumpers. On the other hand, that should be the case. Ignorant idiots should be deprived of their money.

Maybe but still only twenty or so btc1 nodes on the network.

[JayJuanGee]

Sadly I am not rich. My story is tragic and if you do some research you will find out why. I was into bitcoin almost from the very beginning. I am strong believer in the bitcoin dream but overall bitcoin has brought me a fair bit of sadness. But like your first love you never quite forget her nor completely erase her from your heart. Such is life and some of us just have bad luck and that's just the way it is. I prefer not to talk about it and just move on. Only small minds dwell on the past.

Instead of researching why... you might as well save as a lot of time and tell us.

I would assume:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16457.0

O.k.  So I see why Allinvain may not be too inclined to talk more about his situation - even though I would think that the passage of 6 years, may allow for additional reflection about the matter, and maybe some thoughts from a more refined perspective..

We have to admit that there is a certain amount of bravery to put yourself out there during a time in which you have experienced considerable loss, and probably the update is that those coins have never been recovered.

These are interesting scenarios regarding what might have happened, but they might be fruitless mental pursuits, too?

Frequently, I consider what might have happened if I had found out about bitcoin earlier.  I started investing in late 2013 - but even when I started there were a lot of ways to get bitcoin that worked for me - but if I had found out about bitcoin earlier, I would have likely been a bit scared to wire money to Gox, for example... I bought most of my BTC through Coinbase, then Circle, then Uphold and then Gemini...   Yeah, largely traceable through banks.. and maybe some of us are pussies in that regard?  I don't know?  because, I only know what I know, and that is prior to late 2013, I had only heard about bitcoin as a passing concept. Like, I heard the word bitcoin, and I had flag it as something to research into.. but it was so far into my subconsciousness that I did not know what I did not know, and in late 2013, when a guy told me that his holdings had appreciated more than 10x.. that got a flame under my derrier   

[allinvain]

O.k.  So I see why Allinvain may not be too inclined to talk more about his situation - even though I would think that the passage of 6 years, may allow for additional reflection about the matter, and maybe some thoughts from a more refined perspective..

We have to admit that there is a certain amount of bravery to put yourself out there during a time in which you have experienced considerable loss, and probably the update is that those coins have never been recovered.

These are interesting scenarios regarding what might have happened, but they might be fruitless mental pursuits, too?

Frequently, I consider what might have happened if I had found out about bitcoin earlier.  I started investing in late 2013 - but even when I started there were a lot of ways to get bitcoin that worked for me - but if I had found out about bitcoin earlier, I would have likely been a bit scared to wire money to Gox, for example... I bought most of my BTC through Coinbase, then Circle, then Uphold and then Gemini...   Yeah, largely traceable through banks.. and maybe some of us are pussies in that regard?  I don't know?  because, I only know what I know, and that is prior to late 2013, I had only heard about bitcoin as a passing concept. Like, I heard the word bitcoin, and I had flag it as something to research into.. but it was so far into my subconsciousness that I did not know what I did not know, and in late 2013, when a guy told me that his holdings had appreciated more than 10x.. that got a flame under my derrier    

Any discussion on this is totally off-topic so that's one reason why there isn't much point to discussing it. The coins have never been recovered, nor do I know who it was that stole them. The only reflection on that matter that could be slightly relevant to this thread's theme is that had wallet encryption been a feature of bitcoin core (at the time it wasn't called bitcoin core) this theft would never had happened. So it kind of illustrates the value of proactive thinking.

[dinofelis]

The secret meeting isn't the problem but this is, "but never disclose who said what or their affiliation."

One of the rules.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham House’s reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.

Disciplinary action -  . What next disciplinary against against miners/users/developers. Who is going to be the judge and jury of dishing out disciplinary action in a decentralised environment. It's all rather comical.

My point was that if the decentralized system is well-designed, then entities meeting secretly/publicly under whatever conditions shouldn't matter because they wouldn't be able to do anything about the system.  If one is afraid that the "rules" laid out in certain meetings are "unfair" or dangerous, it means that one thinks that whatever happens in those meetings may have an influence on the system at hand.  But that simply means that the system's decentralization (and hence immutability) failed.
If the system were well-designed, no meeting or no collusion could ever have any influence on it, and all those meetings would be lost efforts.

Now, it might very well be that bitcoin HAS a stronger form of decentralization (and hence immutability) than we think, and that all these meetings ARE in vain.  That would be interesting to see.  However, then bitcoin faces another problem: the fact that its current (immutable) protocol is driving it into a wall with the block size limit.

So bitcoin is damned if such meetings can modify it, and is damned if they can't.

[hv_]

The secret meeting isn't the problem but this is, "but never disclose who said what or their affiliation."

One of the rules.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham House’s reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.

Disciplinary action -   . What next disciplinary against against miners/users/developers. Who is going to be the judge and jury of dishing out disciplinary action in a decentralised environment. It's all rather comical.

My point was that if the decentralized system is well-designed, then entities meeting secretly/publicly under whatever conditions shouldn't matter because they wouldn't be able to do anything about the system.  If one is afraid that the "rules" laid out in certain meetings are "unfair" or dangerous, it means that one thinks that whatever happens in those meetings may have an influence on the system at hand.  But that simply means that the system's decentralization (and hence immutability) failed.
If the system were well-designed, no meeting or no collusion could ever have any influence on it, and all those meetings would be lost efforts.

Now, it might very well be that bitcoin HAS a stronger form of decentralization (and hence immutability) than we think, and that all these meetings ARE in vain.  That would be interesting to see.  However, then bitcoin faces another problem: the fact that its current (immutable) protocol is driving it into a wall with the block size limit.

So bitcoin is damned if such meetings can modify it, and is damned if they can't.

Good point. Would you think, that all that drama and meetings werent completely needed if there never ever had been such 1MB limit in the top level consensus rules, but rather every entity hat to limit 'spam' or max size by own definition and duties keeping the Nash equilibrium up and running?