[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Alpha Milestone

Adam, I don't think it's productive to get in another long one here -- we've all had enough of those, but I'll reply once more and let it drop. *Bitcoin companies serve users, and we should not lose track of that.* Of course we serve users. That's why we know the current situation is untenable and our collective inaction has done them a great dis-service. We've collected 100,000's (nearly a million) data points that show our users rate bitcoin for its fast, cheap and reliable transactions first and secondly (a close second), as a store of value. On these metrics, bitcoin has severely underperformed relative to its potential and the rest of the market for the last two years. I'd imagine Coinbase's data is quite similar, as is every other consumer service I've spoken with (nearly all of them fwiw). It is *because *our users that I feel we must act. If anything, I feel the weight of that responsibility heavily -- not listening to users is a luxury that I don't have, as opposed to some companies which do not have any actual bitcoin customers. *A number of polls say the opposite of what you are saying Peter* Polls on r/bitcoin, or within twitter clusters, which have 1,000< respondents are an *incredibly *poor measure of anything. When speaking with Core/Blockstream folks these last two years, it was "hash rate matters" -- remember flying to China too lobby miners against 8mb, later Classic plan? -- then it was economic nodes matter (well, 80%+ are on Segwit2x), -- now it is twitter polls matter? Most bitcoin users aren't on bitcoin twitter,* do not even speak english*, and just want the product too perform well. If I send you 100,000's of data points on this (and we use the best research platform money can buy), will you shift your view, or is there some other metric we should now measure support with? Did you know that in China, many think SW is the attempt of a western VC backed company to take control of Bitcoin? There is trivial support for USAF, but there is less so even from any market outside the US plus a tiny bit of EU, ie anyone that does not speak english. For what its worth, any actual analysis of the bitcoin twitter conversations show's that there are less than 100 significant accounts and the rest is mostly astroturfing, shills, and bots (on both sides). Most of the real social media conversation has moved too discussing Ethereum, ICOs, and DLT. *future contract who's price collapsed in the market: BTU on Bitfinex.* We aren't here too work on BU, we're here too work on SegWit2X. But past that, a terribly constructed forward contract, with little upside to the buyer and a tiny think market is another poor measure, albeit a great PR stunt. *We should not be looking for a fight, nor to override or bully but to be inclusive and hope to reach consensus.* We've been doing that for years, and we've come to a point that has: - A 2MB change that is well, well below the safety limits set down by academic researchers years ago (they say its probably higher now) - Inclusion of SW (which some lobbied hard for) - 80%+ miner support - 80%+ transactions or 'economic node' support - etc *The development is being done in public, the mailing list is public* (indeed, I'm responding here, in public, to your set of concerns about the project) and we're getting great feedback from across the industry and community, some of which is helpful and some of which is less so. This is quite good enough for me. *There are filter bubbles all around, eg there are no technical community members on this list, nor the slack * I think it's a real mistake too downplay the technical people at the companies that have built the vast majority of the software people around the world use too use bitcoin. We have all assigned our own resources to this and have Jeff, Sergio, and others as well. James Hilliard has been providing a lot of great input for one. I hope more will join in -- would you consider asking your employees at Blockstream to audit, even if its just to tell us all the way its rubbish? That would be great to be able to fix issues in advance. Sadly, I'm out of time. But I will say that in my defense, I am one of the few people here running a company that is truly bitcoin centered at this point. Most folks are selling DLT software, like yourself, to banks/FS groups, or investing more heavily in alts, ICOs, etc. We're different, but we're also less risk hedged that perhaps you are and have a high, high duty to our users to keep delivering a product that they find useful, love, and is competitive in the market. So, I'll firmly support a move forward. best, Peter PS -- Mike, I'm sorry for another distracting email on the list, I promise I'm done now! On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Dr Adam Back <adam at blockstream.com> wrote: > Bitcoin companies serve users, and we should not lose track of that. > A number of polls say the opposite of what you are saying Peter, > though of course it is hard to measure accurately, and the BU project > which has similar intent, and methodology of community engagement has > a future contract who's price collapsed in the market: BTU on > Bitfinex. It is not at all surprising to me that Bitcoin users would > tend to reject dictate from a small group of companies and miners, > think about the audience and the independent mindset that saw them > self-select to join Bitcoin in the first place. We should not be > looking for a fight, nor to override or bully but to be inclusive and > hope to reach consensus. > > Excluding key participants and the "we're doing this, get on the train > or be left behind" that brooks no review, nor concern that there be > ecosystem consensus, nor technical consensus is an anathema to > Bitcoin. > > There are filter bubbles all around, eg there are no technical > community members on this list, nor the slack (I am also not on the > slack). That allows people to self-vindicate and shields you from > peer review and public commentary. For example > https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_ > someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/divtc93/ > > A core developer was told he need not apply to join the (list/slack?) > unless he pre-agreed to the conclusion - that is not inviting review. > That sounds like BU pledge of allegiance and has no part in a FOSS p2p > currency. Even the forming of distinct and closed communication > channels is not inviting review. Why would this project be special in > needing to work in closed/controlled environments and not participate > openly like the 6 or so other implementations and hundreds of > developers across dozens of companies, institutions and individuals. > > To come back to the key point however, which I have made repeatedly, > is WHY do things in a self-sabotaging manner. Why is it so against > the grain for participants to use wording seeking community review and > hoping that the ecosystem will find consensus. It's like one sentence > and you guys cant bring yourself to say it? Why? > > Adam > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Peter Smith <peter at blockchain.com> wrote: > > where > > community and user consensus is not a consideration, I continue to > > think that is a mistake > > > > > > Adam, I think you are mistaking R/Bitcoin and certain twitter clusters > for > > the "community" and "users." > > > > More people log into our alone platform in a day than log in those > forums in > > a month. > > > > Even if it is inconvenient for you personally, or Blockstream > > professionally, the vast majority of Bitcoin users and community is > > represented by the people on this mailing list. > > > > If working with, and for, that community of users is important to you, > would > > you consider leading your company to supporting this upgrade on behalf of > > users? > > > > Sorry Mike for off topic. > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170615/22eb4110/attachment.html>