This comment was posted to reddit on Jan 27, 2016 at 5:13 pm and was deleted within 3 minutes.
BitFury Consensus Roundtable Recordings Here
HF Hard Fork SF Soft Fork EM Economic Majority. SW Segregated Witness
BF - BitFury Alex Petrov ML – Marshall Long LJ - Luke Jr
GA - Gavin Andresen OL – Olivie ? AB - Dr.Adam Back.
JR - Jerry or Gerry Fin Tech RV- Roger Ver PL :Philix
BD- BTCDrak
Is Hard fork bad ?
ML : Hard fork are not inherently bad if they are done the "right way". Given enough time and and built community concencus.
BF : HF are hard . On a related note it is expensive/ resource intensive to maintain alternate of bitcoin impl of bitcoin. E.g bitPay
BF : It will be better to separate different things that bitcoin software does . Example process blocks / process transaction.
BF : Core team is not clear what they are doing internally. Lack of Communication. Alex from BF calculation we are reaching block size limit by June 2016 and time is important to take decision on block size increase. We are already late.
BF : Amount of mempool varies from 2 MB to 25MB with peaks of 40MB during course of a day and we are reaching limit of the block size. Leaves transaction in mem pool. Give existing algo system gives Higher priority to certain TXN.
AB : What we are trying to do with bitcoin. Security Ethos and Scale 39:28
AB : Agress that BlockStream / core team can improve commutation. BIP and ITF and Scaling bitcoin workshop were efforts in that regard. Following the workshop technical work was done and SF was identified as way to implement SW.
JR : Agree with Adam WR to Scale and Ethos, But a little bitcoin is fundamentally different animal and A little bit centralization wont make it PayPal.
JR : There is Centralized entity that can be sued. Mining centralization is result of free market. If Gov attack then it will go decentralize.
JR : Mining is centralize now , In future it can decentralize. More tech detail for HF vs SF.
JR : SF are not always harder. SF are easier technically they require less majority of EM only need miners+dev ( potential to do more evil)
JR : SF are generally safe but there are nuances . SF only needs miners but they have moral hazard
JR : Exaple Compromised miner + develoeprs can force cencership on the rest. With HF that is not possible.
JR : "Evil SF" is not discussed enough.
AB : FSF are generally "Safer and easier to implement" (interesting back and forth between GA and AB) check 41:09 to 1:05 to 1:17
GA : Question for AB . Q1) Why is reliability not an Issue for Core . Q2) HF vs SF why not do both?
Interaction 1
Start https://youtu.be/PJMI928Ihsc?t=3947 end at https://youtu.be/PJMI928Ihsc?t=4634
AB: never got a chance to address the concerns raised.
BF: Audio was not clear to what something about how to build bridge with Bitcoin core and Bitcoin Classic.
AB : SF are less challenging in some ways. HF are hard are generally not easy. There is no data around with the scale bitcoin is at presently to know what is a “safe” way of doing HF
ML : Q for AB . If 99 % of people liked a certain implementation different (from core) do you see a scenario where people can work on that implementation?
BF : In future we should consider to implement separation of concerns at least ( Communication Team , Standardization Team Implementation team ) and perhaps Implementation team can be specialized .
(Not clear about the last point last point feel free to listen and correct correct)
1:20 – 1:30 Introduction
1:30 – 2:00 Lunch
2:00 – 2:10 Audio Issue
BF: Business should support core dev.
ML : Core ++ and Governance model of Core plus other voting platforms.
This is 2nd part worth listening between Dr. Dam back and Gavin
An interesting exchange between AB and GA High Noise in Bitcoin Vs limitation of existing BIP process
AB : Given the example of HF vs SF looking at in the present session can have people come to different point of views give their input assumptions. In bitcoin space these kinds of debates happen in public sphere create extra noise. Use of existing BIP process.
Interaction 2 - Interesting Point being made
https://youtu.be/PJMI928Ihsc?t=7991finish at
RV: Censorship of bitcoin forum and free flow of ideas. Appreciate todays session.
AB : Supports RV in the anti-censorship movement,
AB : Consensus process and need for competing Fork. It’s a mistake to push for a competitive fork in form of XT and now classic as it is an ethos erosion, has unintended consequences price / media coverage/ community splitting.
GA: Long term plans and road maps are great what needs to happen short term.
See full version
Interaction 3 Interesting interaction between AB and GA /ML and OL
starts at 2:26:01 https://youtu.be/PJMI928Ihsc?t=8772 end at https://youtu.be/PJMI928Ihsc?t=10080 2:48:21
OL: Q for AB Would core be willing to do a compromise? Is there a way we can find common ground.
AB: Some part of answer is missing -- Start a SW and then do a HF and
BF : No code verification. More layers of validation of what is being added . What is being changed and why it is being changed. We should have binary validation as well.
PL: Most tech issue should be solved by Tech people, but sometime political process can help reaching consensus. Due to different of belief of Tech people politics may have its place to move things along.
BD: There is a strict deterministic release process when it comes to binary distribution . Independent parties can go and validate the binaries and can check and sign and once done only then the binaries are available for download. No real way of tampering in that way.
BD: Lot of work goes in the background there is IRC chat and weekly every Monday minutes meeting .
PL: With Regards to SF vs HF 2010 Satoshi did the last HF , since then there is no hard data available. There seems to be increasing fear of HF. It is easier to do a HF on 5 Billion dollar project than to do on 50 or 500 Billion dollar project.
AB: It could be useful to gain experience using HF. We have more experience with SF. HF you can do code refactor or change formats. In future we may see frequent SF and an periodically scheduled HF. In principal people are not (or should not be) scared or against HF . HF is more democratic , but SF has a safer transition.
AB: Last 6 months are an exception to the above . it is done as a competitive HF and has resulted in the unintended consequence of Drama and risk.
HL: Last 6 months change is not a “complicated technical change “ .
This was not said --This was more of a political change due to technical stalemate as mentioned by multiple people on the call.