Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[79b79aa8]

@Justus Ranvier

but pools who sign that risk losing hashing power . . . the decision is not the pool owners' to make . . .

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@79b79aa8 The pools that sign onto that are also making themselves into a target unless they convince a majority of exchanges and other miners to sign on with them.

The reality is that if the exchanges, payment processors, wallets, etc. are on board with 2 MB blocks, then it only really takes a majority of the hashing power to fork.

If a fork happens and is accepted by an economic majority of the network, then the holdout miners lose 100% of their revenue.

 

[JVWVU]

Interesting


[doublepost=1455160487][/doublepost]I am glad to see Classic picking up steam but imo a fork should not take place until after the Satoshi Roundtable in a few weeks. If nothing is worked out then my Classic node will be engaged.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc:

To summarize, I

a) see absolutely no indication that Greg was involved in Bitcoin development before 2011.
b) see no reason to doubt the SVN importer, as I just redid the import myself and compared the first imported commits to a simple 'svn log' (a SVN-only command that doesn't rely on any git import). This is also consistent with the SVN-browser on sourceforge.

If you can dig something out where Greg himself asserts he was active, committing dev earlier than 2011, we should check that versus all available sources. I bet he wasn't.

 

[Richy_T]

Are we having another stalling conference?

 

[freetrader]

Samson's being so mysterious.
Who is pushing that letter then, those who signed this?

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a2cvcfoq8

 

[awemany]

@freetrader: Is there any indication that this letter is indeed real? For all I know, this could be a simple fake. Bitcoin Roundtable, that is who?

As someone noted on reddit, this also contradicts an earlier statement by BitFury on their twitter:


I go with the twitter, as that needs some login credentials.
[doublepost=1455180757,1455180087][/doublepost]

That linked discussion is less than a month old. I replied to Mike Hearn, correcting his misunderstanding.
I also now submitted a bug through the official channels:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7512

 

[freetrader]

@awemany: Yeah, it seems suspect to say the least. I also agree with reddit user aidenferon who observed:

Weird, the CEO of Coinbase is openly promoting Classic, while his CTO (C. Lee) signs on with this?

Definitely some clarifications needed...

 

[bluemoon]

My guess is the signatories are getting in a funk worrying about a new bout of DDoS attacks.

Unless the intention is to give Core hope while Classic installs itself.

 

[freetrader]

I think this may be the first round of FUD attacks against Classic.

Rumors (like a letter being instigated by Adam Back) and letters like these which may then be revealed as fake, and trying to blame this on Classic. I could see such tactics being used to sow uncertainty while the DDOS is being spun up.

Then again my paranoia sometimes gets the better of me, and it could turn out that these people actually support this statement.

 

[tynwald]

seems like re-arranging deck chairs time. next step would be for mining pools to start offering classic options and most of these folk would be behind the curve, trying to catch up with what users want.

 

[awemany]

@freetrader: Lets wait and see.

Meanwhile, Greg's commenting on the misattribution bug, citing an earlier github history.

Money quote:

20:18 < gmaxwell> in any case, I went and reserved all the other dotless names in the history. .. looks like it only lets a single github user claim them, first come first serve.

Obviously it doesn't change the content of git itself, just what the text on the website shows.

So:

- Greg knew about this since a while
- and he did willingly grab those commits (claimed intent: to prevent them from being taken by someone else)
- downplays the impact ('just what the text on the website shows')

What he could and should have done instead: Create an extra github user (such as 'unknown Bitcoin committer') and let that user claim the addresses of these commits.

He willingly made a mis-attribution to himself to supposedly prevent others from mis-attributing Bitcoin commit history.

This is pretty juicy.

 

[freetrader]

@awemany: Agreed on the wait-and-see.

It boggles my mind that these people wouldn't properly sign their statement with some form of irrefutable signature. All it would take is one person with a trusted key (acting as facilitator) to witness the other signatures.

Update:
Some retweets lending credence to signatures:
Samson Mow https://twitter.com/Excellion
BTCC https://twitter.com/YourBTCC

 

[freetrader]

next step would be for mining pools to start offering classic options

It's already happening:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/453fii/psa_for_small_miners_p2pool_runs_on_bitcoin/

I hope we'll see the first Classic block sometime soon!

 

[sickpig]

"A call for consensus":

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.8lzx4j87l

signed letter from quite a few of miners, (among all f2pool, bitfury and btcc), that reject Classic and embrace Core. They reject the very concept of using a hardfork as a mechanism to determine community dynamics.

 

[Bagatell]

@sickpig https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable

Looks like this is the only thing "bitcoinroundtable" have come up with!

 

[Fatman3002]

If there'll be no hard fork, what's the vision for Bitcoin Unlimited in light of Gavins suggestion to make it a pure client node?

 

[cypherdoc]

I'd ignore that letter for now. The Bitfury sigs are totally inconsistent from what they have been publicly saying not to mention talk is cheap. Just keep your head down and keep advocating and running Classic and it should activate eventually.

 

[solex]

@Fatman3002
If Classic's HF fails then this just means that BU is in for the long haul and mining support becomes a priority. Anyone can raise a BUIP to rip out the mining code, however I suggest that this only be considered when the majority of nodes are using emergent consensus for the block limit, and BU is not obviously going to be needed for mining.

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader: Lets wait and see.

Meanwhile, Greg's commenting on the misattribution bug, citing an earlier github history.

Money quote:



So:

- Greg knew about this since a while
- and he did willingly grab those commits (claimed intent: to prevent them from being taken by someone else)
- downplays the impact ('just what the text on the website shows')

What he could and should have done instead: Create an extra github user (such as 'unknown Bitcoin committer') and let that user claim the addresses of these commits.

He willingly made a mis-attribution to himself to supposedly prevent others from mis-attributing Bitcoin commit history.

This is pretty juicy.

Wait, so he willingly admits those 2009 commits are not his?