Topic: "Bitcoin is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of cryptocurrency" - Gavin (Read 1413 times)

Gavin's shilling, trolling & FUD is getting boring. How many more failed takeover attempts is he going to make?

Nobody needs you any more Gavin, go away.

green writing = benefits EVERYONE, Users included
red writing = twisted opinion based on laudas misinformation

lauda.. you're failing miserably.. what the hell has on-chain capacity and popularity growth got to do with companies greed.
if bitcoin gets more popular EVERYONE benefits.

its sidechain solutions that are corporate centric, not on[bitcoin]chain solutions. because low on[bitcoin]chain capacity is not good for users both for cost of use and also how many can use it efficiently. however sidechain solutions are not good for bitcoin as a whole. because if its not on[bitcoin]chain. its not bitcoin

it really makes me laugh how the fanboys of centralizing and corporatizing the code that is slowly becoming less open to random individuals, are trying so hard to brush all their corporate desires into some weird tale that its others that want corporate dominance, not themselves.

its like facebook telling everyone myspace is a corporation and facebook is a open platform. just to convert everyone over to facebook. to then make the facebook corporation billions of profit at the expense of their users experience and freedoms

its time they wake up and realise which bed they have been sleeping in

He's lost his credibility ever since the time that we needed 20 MB blocks right now, or the network would be doomed.

He's already joined the likes of Zander (currently the main Classic developer).

The primary reason behind a higher block size limit is increased user adoption, which will lead to a higher price point, ergo greed. Why should we change to fit the greed of certain companies?

Yes, bad business models fails, that's why we are concerned about the current state of the bitcoin network.

"Why should we change them for the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay?"

What are you talking about? Off-chain transactions is their business, less transactions on-chain is better for them, they can even settle between them using mySQL.

if the debate is about nodes not fully validating.. seems core needs to answer a few questions too
core route:
old clients not fully validate segwit tx or segwit blocks
segwit allows no witness mode to limit clients by not validating transactions
segwit allows pruned mode to limit clients by not validating historic block data
seems not all core nodes will be full nodes either

if the debate is about blocksize.. seems core needs to answer a few questions too
4mb for core vs 2mb for other implementations
seems core wants to be known as being "big blockers"

if the debate is about hardforks.. seems core needs to answer a few questions too
luke-JR: "Using blockmaxweight prematurely may result in blocks larger than 1 MB being created when you later upgrade to 0.13.1, and the network today is not prepared for such larger blocks. Instead, continue to use blockmaxsize and reevaluate the network situation when 0.13.1 is released."

kind of funny that as luke JR points out an issue with core, (while he is still part of it) yet the other corporate paid devs want to shut him up
seems the REKT campaign against Luke-JR has begun
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4wc9a0/heated_discussion_in_bitcoincoredev_gmaxwell/

seems the bitcoin-core devs are ready to throw more people off the bitcoin bus if are not following the centralized roadmap

i now expect the usual trolls to not link discussions. not state statistics, numbers, data, to rebut the contents of my post.. but just ramble on a personal attack with multple insults that lack any factual detail or explanation. purely because of blind ignorant devotion to core.

have a nice day

I don't trust Gavin any more since he said he thought Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto.

First he made this statement.


After Craig Wright refused to publicly sign a message with a known Satoshi key Gavin made this statement.


After that fiasco anything he says lacks credibility. Gavin comparing Bitcoin to MySpace is meaningless because he's been wrong once too often.

That doesn't speak to whether widespread SPV use is particularly safe at this time. Fraud proofs may help, but some developers like Peter Todd doubt their viability. Satoshi isn't here to speak to the infrastructure and security mechanisms required to make this viable at scale, and he didn't imply that it was viable back then, or now. So let's not deceptively use his words, please.

Lol, no.



https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6269

You must improve your shilling game, theymos is paying you for this crap?

No. Go back to the cave that your crawled out. The rhetoric being spread by Gavin & co is bullshit; the market has decided what the block size should be. Gavin, Hearn, Ver, etc. all lack adequate skills and thus have to resort to social media to try and divert some support their way. Code up a better Bitcoin implementation, and let the market decide. Oh right, you can't.

I have no idea why he's on that list. Gavin has a singular commit in v0.13.0; a test that he wrote was used by someone else in their pull request.

There you have it. He's wants to completely change the model that satoshi built. I wonder who influenced him.

---

Update: You missed the 'validating transactions' part.

Bad business models fail. Good businesses adapt, others will go bankrupt. Why didn't we change the consensus rules to encourage the Satoshi Dice model? Why should we change them for the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay? They are here to make money, and may be willing to do so at the cost of long term network health. What matters are p2p users. In the long term, sustainable business models will survive.

Please take a moment to check the names of the people who contributed directly for the latest release:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-core-version-0130-released-1594650

I honestly belive that the current nodes are working absolutly fine and if geven tryed to replace or wants to experiment something new then first should do it in a demo mode it will save his and our time

It has been a while since I didn't hear from Gavin Andersen. I am glad he is alive first and he keep talking shit like he always did in the past. I am a bitcoin core supporter and the only real solution is to run a full node. Gavin has failed it big this time but this is something that happens when you sit all day and only keep talking instead of working, no one takes you for real when this happens and we should put these sayings straight to the trash bin.

Popular opinion is bitcoin is too big to fail or too big to become irrelevant, well, plenty of bigger enterprises have failed or are now irrelevant, myspace is a good example.

Concerns expressed by Gavin are shared amongst many of us for at least a couple years now, I'm of the opinion we've already passed the no return line some time ago, as people cannot build on the bitcoin network and many have been pushed out and had to build their own blockchains or build in some other blockchain, this is reflected on the current low value and the occasional pump without the possibility for growth.

Gavin Andresen hasn't done shit for years now except complaining and crying about stuff, meanwhile Core devs have been working hard to get stuff like segwit working, you know, the real clever stuff beyond crying for a blocksize increase. Also let's remember that this idiot wanted 8mb increase which is insane and would have ruined Bitcoin. Some people never learn.

Bitcoin isn`t "the Myspace of cryptocurrencies" bitcoin is "the facebook".

Btc is failing to scale because of people like this one.

I don`t care about his "theory".

Ultimately we will need bigger blocks and they will come, worst case miners will want to be able to fit more transactions in the blocks when the fees become more relevant. In the meantime we will be able to include many more transactions as a result of the SegWit changes, and transaction volume will have plenty of room to grow until it doesn't.

I think Gavin does not need a blockchain for his idea of a payment platform. Maybe what he needs really is a database? Or some sort of private blockchain where he can do whatever he wants in it. But that defeats the purpose of why a blockchain is a "blockchain".

Anyhow maybe bitcoin is not where he is supposed to be and maybe he will fit right in with other development teams like the one in Ripple.

Both bandwidth and non-bandwidth scaling mechanisms are in the works. Schnorr signatures will significantly reduce signature size, increasing capacity. Once Segwit takes care of malleability, Lightning will move some onchain throughput into offchain smart contracts. There are other possibilities, like batch validation and MAST to further optimize transaction/contract size, further increasing capacity. Segwit itself will also increase the block size. Weak blocks will help to reduce the externalities posed by increased throughput on the system.

Why do we need to break consensus, again?