****////I won't reveal the names in Chinese/Foreign characters, but they are very well known and in combination hold the majority of hashpower. The other names should be familiar. Kang Xie is sort of unknown and a mystery to almost everyone. Highlights only, full logs at https://minerinworld.antminer.link/ (back them up)

1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 00:31:03:I am not sure they will change the proof of work but it is a possibility
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:31:05:Because Core is controlled by Blockstream
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:31:25:They receive salary from Blockstream
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:32:03:Increase block size challenges Blockstream's LN and sidechain plans
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:33:55:We absolutely need a new repos
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:34:41:It should be called Bitcoin Freedom, free bitcoin from the control of Blockstream
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:39:29:Core devs is not part of the economy
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:40:24:Many more users do want larger blocks
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:40:36:Core just ignores them
1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 00:41:41:otherwise there will be two chains
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:42:04:Then let it be two chains
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:42:44:Core's chain won't survive long
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:45:13:We signed 8MB, BIP100, now 2MB, all for more than half a year, see what core have done? They just ignore you and do only what they want to do.
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:49:37:As @Jeff Garzik pointed out, this consensus is only core's consensus
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:50:38:Core is such a good name, I hate to see it is hijacked
1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 00:55:04:their main developer appears to be jtoomim who is inexperienced by any comparison to nearly any of the active core developers
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:55:07:And we can hire more
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 00:56:32:We'll pay higher salary than Blockstream's

1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:17:41:Right now I see Classic side are trying their best to get consensus among all parities of Bitcoin ecosystem. But Core side is using their power to threaten the whole ecosystem
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:18:08:abusing their power to be exact
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:19:13:Classic are not only talking with miners, but wallets, exchanges and users( they have set up a voting system)
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:19:24:Who are Core talking with?
1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 01:19:42:core is talking with anyone who will listen
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:20:13:Oh, we have to "listen", but cannot talk?
1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 01:20:20:you can talk
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:20:35:Yes we can talk
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:20:35:Yes, everyone has only the right to "listen"
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:20:42:Nobody listens
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:20:57:That is what I was impressed with Core side
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:21:33:Core is Blockstream's private property now
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:21:50:When so many people proposed 2MB, where is the listening of Core?
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:23:43:Did you know initially we signed 8MB?
1|申屠青春:2016-01-19 01:24:22:The 75% thresholds is setup by core devs, however, it seems that they are not want to obey this ?
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:25:14:When 75% was set, Classic did not even exist
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:25:27:And I see now it is Core are actively trying to leverage their dominant situation to split the one chain into two chains, speculating that it will drive the other chain to death. And they added another irrelevant topic of changing the PoW algo. I bet that miners will not die but the CPU or GPU chain will die
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:29:38:We already step back from 8GB to 2MB
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:29:57:Where should we step back again?
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:30:54:HF is not necessarily a split. If more than 95% of the Bitcoin users( not equal to miners and hashtate), it is not s split
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 01:31:33:If both core and classic support the HF, it will be a success HF
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:32:19:While Classic is waiting and counting the vote, from not only miners, but exchanges and wallets, I see it a much better reality of the "consensus"
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:34:57:Everyone looking at the Classic will have their own observation whether an overwhelming majority is reached. No one will act without mind
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:37:32:It is obviously that Core has sensed that it cannot get support from miners, and so they are now thinking about change the PoW algro.
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:37:51:This is very close to evil
1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-19 01:39:41:Core does not have support and this is the reaction.
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:40:23:According to my observation, Classic is trying to get consensus as widely as possible
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:40:57:But Core is making changes and decisions without any similar endevor
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:41:11:Lots of pools and users are still use Core
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:41:36:This position of Core should not be misused.
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:42:11:If you are supporting Core, please try to help the communication and technical discussion.
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:42:28:But not delivering the threat and curse
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:43:58:Mining pool, like f2pool, from the very beginning, supports Core like a fan to Justin Bibber
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:44:14:But why do you think f2pool is changing his mind?
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:44:26:Because the miss behaviors of Core
1|小寒:2016-01-19 01:45:35:Do not try to play the game in the hard mode
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-19 02:16:40:Someone was telling me, miners are in control, and nobody else can tell what to hardfork or not.
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-19 02:16:52:so I made PoW change patch to show that isn't true
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:20:21:Luke, you are behaving in a very bad way when we are discussing the 2MB topic by adding another topic to the mess
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:20:53:But I am curious what is the hardware of your new PoW algro use?
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:21:00:GPU or CPU
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-19 02:21:07:there is GPU at least
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:21:18:Miners will not betray the economy
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:21:25:Miners follow the economy
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:21:33:But NOT Core
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:21:38:You know that, right?
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:22:20:Please tell us what kind of hardware we need to use and what the algro is
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:22:27:So we can play it with you
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:22:38:You would not want to play it
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:23:12:You would like to gain consensus with all parities and players with good and polite talk
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:23:25:Threatening not work here
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:24:01:And start another topic when it is already messy, is very not good for reach consensus
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:25:13:Luke, listen, miners will not betray the economy
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:25:31:But we may betray Core. Do you get my point?
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:29:43:Luke, I am already asking the price to rent GPU.
1|小寒:2016-01-19 02:30:26:we are preparing for your threatening, if you are serious
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 02:35:42:Next time please write tests
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-19 02:36:08:@Luke Dashjr Such a poor quality PR

1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 21:49:13:@Matt Corallo agreed, and classic only has a 1 month activation after lock in, basically nobody with experience with bitcoin would consider that to be remotely reasonable
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 21:49:58:Wait, 1 month? Holy shit... That is gonna get people sued.
1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 21:50:57:@Matt Corallo https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/3
1|James Hilliard:2016-01-19 21:55:27:their activation timeline and threshold is complete insanity
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 21:56:59:They are going to lose a lawsuit for theft and owe millions...
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-19 22:11:20:eh, gross negligence at worst I'd think
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 22:12:41:There's a really strong case for theft, though you could definitely win gross negligence. Many people have told all the classic people that they're being negligent
1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-19 22:19:50:Threatening to change POW also raises legal issues. Let's not go down that road.
1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-19 22:21:18:Key problem is the refusal to acknowledge any path besides SegWit

1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 03:04:17:So the core devs would prefer deploy a changing pow hard fork instead of a 2MB hard fork
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 03:04:24:Then please go ahead
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 03:05:32:Please do it I am eager to see such a fork

1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 05:10:56:@星空吴钢 I agree, 1MB is so great. We all like it!
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 05:12:22:1MB is more than enough IMHO, we do not need segwit either. Let's stick with 1MB.
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 05:18:40:Not sarcasm, if core devs do not respect miners, miners could do something that prevent segwit from being activated.
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 05:19:01:So we all happily have 1MB
1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 05:19:35:That is what Blockstreamers really want I believe

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:08:23:If [SW] doesn't get much adoption, then there isn't much fee pressure :)
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:08:43:If fees go up, people will adopt it quickly :)

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:20:01:Technically Greg is CTO, so he's closer to a boss, but that only applies for blockstream products, like liquid...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:27:53:by the way, matt, has anyone talked to you yet about taking over maintenance of the relay network?
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:28:40:Yea, I'm not really sure what to do about that... Really I'm pissed off no one is interested in building anther similar network
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:28:50:Having one relay network is shit
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:28:57:agreed
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:29:10:well, i met someone on the classic slack that is interested in doing just that
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:29:25:maybe even two people, actually
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:29:28:You should go build one and then I won't be pissed off anymore and I'll keep maintaining the current one :)
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:29:39:Great, let's have three!
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:30:11:do you think we should set up the network to be vastly different from yours? Can we interlink them?
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:30:24:Yes, vastly different is good!
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:30:25:different in topology
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:30:38:Create a new codebase, don't use the same code
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:31:02:But, sure, interlink is good, makes everything better :)
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 20:31:15:well, we are mostly interested in using the relay network code as something to keep things running smoothly until we have a better option
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:31:36:Meh, more of the same isn't so useful
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-20 20:32:02:It's easy to write a first version that works differently and maybe isn't that fast, but works

1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-29 00:50:31:SegWit is a softfork, it does not need consensus.
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-29 01:18:07:hardforks are not engineering
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-29 01:18:11:hardforks are social
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:22:44:@Luke Dashjr can we table this discussion until Saturday's conference call?
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:26:21:@Luke Dashjr can you just step back? It is really late for you anyway..
1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-29 01:26:37:ok, good night
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:28:18:good night..
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:28:32:we will pick it up some other time.
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-29 01:31:05:@吓洪Lin i want to push back on something you said a while ago... You claimed that more work has gone into segwit than would have been required for a hard fork. I completely disagree. We are, today, still finding a bunch of bugs that only become a problem if you increase the base block size... Doing a safe hard fork is way more work than segwit by a ton!
1|林吓洪:2016-01-29 01:32:38:@Matt Corallo I am already getting confused by all these baseless conclusion. Just couple seconds ago, Luke said that hard fork is not engineering, and you are telling me it needs more work...
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:32:55:ok. i will try to log all your points and list it as a discussion item next time.
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:33:15:it is a parking lot item.
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:33:35:we can revisit that next time..
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-29 01:33:57:@吓洪Lin a simple hard fork may be mostly engineering, but a block size hardfork is a ton of both, actually. there are quite a few assumptions about reasonable limits in the number of transactions/size in a block both in bitcoin core and other bitcoin software that will be broken
1|David chan:2016-01-29 01:34:51:Any specific issues Bluematt? Or just the same ones which are repeated on Reddit?
1|林吓洪:2016-01-29 01:37:39:@Matt Corallo I know hard fork is difficult, but I don't think this hard fork could be such a nightmare and crisis. Someone is blocking the way of Bitcoin dev
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-29 01:38:24:@David chan no, actually we've seen two new issues crop up in the past two weeks...one which is not /really/ exploitable, and one which is really, really, really close to being able to print new bitcoin out of thin air if you were to increase the block size
1|David chan:2016-01-29 01:39:17:Nice. Headlines like that really are catchy and scary.
1|David chan:2016-01-29 01:39:23:Care to specify?
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-29 01:39:30:@吓洪Lin ANY change to bitcoin consensus must be very carefully done
1|David chan:2016-01-29 01:39:51:I'm mean is it anything different from the guys who just kept on printing 50btc blocks after the first halfing?
1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-29 01:42:10:@David chan no, the one I'm referring to is a integeer overflow...in early versions of bitcoin, there was a bug that allowed to you overflow the value and end up creating a bunch of outputs that were much larger than 21 million coins...as a response, a bunch of checks were added which fix that bug in like 3 different ways...one of them was removed quite a long time ago, but wasnt noticed until a week ago
1|Kang Xie:2016-01-29 01:42:24:we are not going to solve this issue tonight. let's park it and remember all the discussion points and then revist them at another time.
1|David chan:2016-01-29 01:43:53:Okay. Thanks Kang. Thanks Matt I know of the signed int bug I'm really curious to know why it is still exploitable. Let's chat in classic forum to leave these miners be :)