Looks like the market is absolutely thrilled by the Miner's decision (3 days ago) and Core's 0.12 release! (today)

[arnoudk]

https://twitter.com/olivierjanss/status ... 7481324545

[rogerver]

This whole event is heartbreaking for me to watch.

[LiteCoinGuy]

iam a bit more optimistic

It seems that we finally have reached consensus with 2-3MB blocks + segwit + LN and much more.

Some months ago everyone who spoke about these things was banned by clueless mods (Theymos and friends) and called a persona non grata. Finally some devs opend their eyes and woke up. They understood the concerns of the other side and changed their view. The industry and a majority of users wanted bigger blocks - core devs want a maximum of decentralsation - all moved to reach the goal - consensus.

We are close.

[arnoudk]

It seems that we finally have reached consensus with 2-3MB blocks + segwit + LN and much more.

I am not so optimistic.

What is your definition of consensus? Majority of hashing power? Then, why was there a closed door meeting, the miners could have voiced their opinion on the blockchain with actual votes.

You cannot reach agreement when there is no clear choice. Right now, there is no clear choice. The devil will be in the details, and SegWit and LN have not been fully released, have not been properly reviewed, and their claimed capacity increases have not been verified. It is a logical fallacy to compare something that exists to something that does not yet exist - the comparison is not equal. To believe that this something that does not yet exist, will spring into existence and be exactly what people had thought it would be is wishful thinking, at best.

Core was not fully represented. I can't quickly find the code, but there's a core dev saying something along the lines of "Great that you think there is an agreement, bro, but we're pretty much going to ignore it and do what we want because we are not bound to it.". I'm paraphrasing, If I find the quote I'll add it.

Miners are not fully convinced.

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.
F2Pool: Bitcoin and Litecoin mining pool

[source]

[arnoudk]

This is not the quote I was looking for, but interesting nonetheless

[–]maaku7Mark Friedenbach - Bitcoin Expert 56 points 3 days ago
Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome.

[source]

[arnoudk]

Ah, and Adam Back is now signing again as Blockstream

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

Question - how on earth do you CHANGE a document that was signed by people who were in a room, AFTER they all left that room, and publish it as the true document? This smells of document fraud to me.

How can he sign with Blockstream, when others at BS publicly claim his signature does not carry the weight of BS at all?

Is there a version, where there are actual SIGNATURES on this document? I'd like to see that one.

[arnoudk]

Core was not fully represented. I can't quickly find the code, but there's a core dev saying something along the lines of "Great that you think there is an agreement, bro, but we're pretty much going to ignore it and do what we want because we are not bound to it.". I'm paraphrasing, If I find the quote I'll add it.

Found it.
In response to this:
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/700997980527022080

[–]maaku7Mark Friedenbach - Bitcoin Expert 154 points 4 days ago
It's cool that you think that, bro.
The actual Bitcoin developers and community will proceed according to the existing process of working code, experimental data collection, and technical consensus.
I'm glad that your meaningless closed-door meeting made you feel better though.

[source]

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

iam a bit more optimistic

It seems that we finally have reached consensus with 2-3MB blocks + segwit + LN and much more.

Some months ago everyone who spoke about these things was banned by clueless mods (Theymos and friends) and called a persona non grata. Finally some devs opend their eyes and woke up. They understood the concerns of the other side and changed their view. The industry and a majority of users wanted bigger blocks - core devs want a maximum of decentralsation - all moved to reach the goal - consensus.

We are close.

Add me to your optimistic allies! I know that if enough people work together and we keep applying solutions to problems, everyone prospers. It's statistics!