Quote from: canth on February 24, 2016, 07:04:36 PM

Quote from: cafucafucafu on February 24, 2016, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: macbook-air on February 24, 2016, 01:02:11 PM

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21s 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 weve been cheated. I dont know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

According to Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream developer:

"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."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

I think it's great that Blockstream employees are given independence, but that doesn't stop Blockstream the company from having an official position. Charlie Lee has different opinions than Brian Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that Coinbase can't have an official stance.

Mark's no compromise attitude is genuine and is probably shared by a number of core contributors. It's part of the reason that there is a swell of support for alternative Bitcoin implementations and if not for a compromise, we'd see the continue tug of war in the community eventually expressed in PoW longest accepted chain.

Like it or not, the community can ultimately override any individual or minority group's wishes. Today that minority is Classic. Tomorrow that minority could be stubborn Core contributors.

That bold statement underlined was written after Adam asked his credentials be removed and he be represented as an individual, rather conveniently.
still relevant is the host thought he was more than an individual off the street.

the statement is intended to give credit to the decentralized decision making process that resulted in a consensus for a delayed increase independently of Blockstream.

It's a joke given the reality of the situation, the authors commenting history and the control Blockstream exsert over Core. Your using it out of context and overlooking its intended meaning.

political consensus defining majority rule using censorship and closed door meeting is not going to benefit bitcoin in the long run.