If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemens agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?
It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.
Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the agreement had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.
You might consider the reason why you think there is a Blockstream Circus is
because you dont really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.
I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it
agent...
by you pretending Gmax is not the chief tech officer (boss) of development
by you pretending luke does not moderate bips(along with gmax)
by you pretending they are as powerless as a highschool janitor..
is you failing to understand.
many many many people have had dynamic proposals rejected even at mailing list level(blockstream moderated)
and at bip level(blockstream moderated)
and then even when just grabbing core code and independently adding tweaks and asking the core devs to help out.
again blockstream devs REKT that too by saying "its not core, its an alt".
core are not independent. they are follow the leader of 10 paid devs and 100 unpaid interns staying loyal in hopes of getting a job with blockstream
the HK agreement was where people who CAN CODE and CAN direct their employees were invited to write code...
if the HK agreement thought open community effort was possible then .... oh wait, that was tried and REKT..
so the HK agreement wanted the guys that could code to get core to open its gates and do something to be on the same playing field as other diverse nodes.
but luke JR, etc just wanted to act like unskilled janitors/floor cleaners, just turning up for a free lunch before returning to mop and wax the floor, because gmax didnt want to go that route.
i find it funny that one day you praise blockstream devs as kings that own bitcoin and deserve control.
then the next day, pretend they are just floor sweeping janitors and there is no control.
so.
either
man up and be ok with diversity and decentralisation (true independence).
or
man up and admit your preference of core dominance and control in a centralised one codebase dependant group
Franky, we have talked on many occasions and we both understand that we believe
Bitcoin should go in different directions, but we both respect each other and know
that we both want what is best for Bitcoin. We are not paid shills who are trying to
make a mess, we both want to learn and discuss, even if we fight sometimes.
With that in mind, I disagree with you only because I don't think it is right to make
agreements with miners or exchanges or whatever, unless it is brought to the whole
development team and all agree or disagree and those devs then form a working
document publicly for the miners to sign at a personal event maybe. I think it is
important also for community response prior to writing that document.
In this case that did happened, a few Core devs and Back from Blockstream went
and they wrote something up to try to make everyone happy. But the problem is
that no one could ever be happy here, since it wasn't organized and done properly
from the beginning. The scaling issue is too big for a few devs in a small room.
You are arguing that the truth is that certain Core devs and Blockstream actually
control the whole Bitcoin development process and that they are purposefully
restricting and denying possible proposals that do not fit into the "Blockstream"
frame work or plan. I personally do not believe the "conspiracy theory" and think
the reality is that Core devs as a whole have agreed on a certain path and any
opposition to that path is seen as wasting peoples time since they have determined
that slow and steady is the path.
Respectfully Franky, I do not believe in the theory that the development process
is a scam and is fully controlled by a small handful. That would mean that if those
people wanted to scale to the moon tomorrow, then the others would follow. I don't
believe that. I think those other devs have their own opinions and would then disagree
unless they were given some new data or facts.
You know that I admit when I am wrong and I don't claim to know more than I do. I
truly tell you now, in my heart, I don't believe it is the way that you think it is. But if
you must force me to take a stand, I will stand with Core since I sincerely believe they
want Bitcoin to remain a decentralized network. I think bitcoin's greatest threat is
governmental regulation first. You know that, because I say that all the time. My
concern is whether Bitcoin will be able to survive to get to 50 years from now. My
concern centers on its future use in a more restrictive and oppressive world.
Once again we disagree Franky, but it is ok, because one day I believe a solution will
be found that will make us both happy, possibly reunite the tribes, and we can move
on to the next problem we will need to face in the future, which I think will be related
to adding more fungability into network.