Pages:
Author

Topic: Gavin is an Agent - page 6. (Read 9713 times)

legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin
May 04, 2015, 09:28:46 AM
#47
Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.
It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
I vote to fire him

What would be the point, do you think someone better would step in his shoes ? ofc not, it would be the same like it is now.
Anyways, like i said many times, its the network that has the final say in the end, if majority refuses his proposal, Gavin has no power to overthrow that decision.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 09:17:37 AM
#46
Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.
It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
I vote to fire him
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin
May 04, 2015, 09:16:26 AM
#45
Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.
It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
May 04, 2015, 09:15:53 AM
#44
You have got to stop skipping school to watch movies.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 09:08:52 AM
#43
The issue with let the network decide is most ppl don't read.
The "official" website only has to show his new client as the official client and they basically force
the network consensus. At the very least I'm sure they will push it as the way forward with no other
addendums or links to debate.
I for one will run a node 24/7/365 on the old software as my vote.
Hoping one of the alts will gain more traction that acts more like cash than bitcoin.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 103
May 04, 2015, 09:07:43 AM
#42
This smell troll, but let's apply some logic to it.

facts:
1/ CIA "interview"
          https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=6652.0

"I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories", Gavin Andresen

Gavin is a person that obviously likes to go to conferences, to do talks and so on. Even though he's a coder, he also seems to be a people person. I think he actually got personally excited to go talk to the CIA.

It's not uncommon that high profile people in something like bitcoin will draw the interest of governments. He got an invitation to speak, accepted it, and no transcript exists, which is not uncommon for such arrangements.


Satoshi not responding anymore after Gavin mentioning he went to see the CIA. It might be a coincidence, it might not. I think the most logic assumption is that it is not a coincidence. Whereas Satoshi needed no publicity, Gavin was the opposite. Satoshi would probably never have gone to the CIA to speak, and that's probably why he do not fancy anyone else doing it either. It's not a long stretch to imagine he'd drop the ball there and then in regards to mailing with Gavin.

2/ After screwing over at the very "honorable" TBF, he has now joined the MIT's Media LAB
          https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20132/gavin-andresen-core-developers-join-mits-digital-currency-initiative/
          http://www.media.mit.edu/files/sponsors.pdf

Being a part of the TBF let Gavin do what he enjoys most, to write code and get a salary. Now he has joined MIT's Media LAB and he will continue to do the same, and have access to other academics that he can communicate with, I assume it also gives him a paycheck. He gets to do what he likes the most, and he gets paid..

3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770

Please read https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236 for a great post, to get insight in these matters. I do not think Gavin is an agent. He might be, but even if he was, all the code he writes will still be viewable, so if he did something openly hostile, it would most likely be spotted, and it would be a major outcry and he'd instantly lose all trust. Other devs would take up the work, and Govcoin or Gavcoin might get traction, but there would still be Bitcoin.

Since there's no hard and factual evidence here, and there's been no proper research apart from posting a few links that does not prove anything, this thread is over the top FUD.






sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 08:13:36 AM
#41
Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.

fallacy spotted.

The game is not just to spot them, but to prove they're fallacies.

Dude whatever, im not discussing gavincoin with you. Like you know im against (at least until we face the actual issue), I know you're a Gavin-by-extension-USG sweet little cheerleader.

Please move along, you are loosing your precious time.

This is about Gavin being sold to the Worst Totalitarian System Earth has ever bare.

hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 08:09:01 AM
#40
Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.

fallacy spotted.

The game is not just to spot them, but to prove they're fallacies.
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 08:06:00 AM
#39
Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.

fallacy spotted.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 08:03:03 AM
#38
Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 07:56:25 AM
#37
Nah I don't think he is an agent
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
May 04, 2015, 07:52:26 AM
#36
this is funny. please point me to such debate..

at best you could find devs disagreeing and in no condition there has been a consensus about it. just no.

yet Mr Bell is moving forward with HIS (USG) plan.
Do you think that this is an anarchy or something?
Here you can find the list of developers and contributors: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
The changes were made on Gavin's github, thus they are proposed changes. He can't force them. If the developers agree with Gavin then this commit will go into Bitcoin.

This is not Bitcoin.

Code:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
This is Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
May 04, 2015, 07:51:37 AM
#35

1- CIA wouldn't publicly interview their own agents (or potential ones)

2- TBF screwed themselves + stopped paying the devs in April. GA is still Chief Scientist though afaik.

3- Feel free to contribute yourself, offer alternative solutions or just stay on the old fork.

1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD

2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.

3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.



Centralize & ControlTM

1- That's not really an argument for or against. But using the common sense, if CIA was to recruit GA, they would far more likely approached him quietly, instead of letting him make public statements about the invitation. Seems to me Satoshi did freak out over wikileaks accepting bitcoins (see his 2nd latest post).

2- Sure, let's not blame the ones that misbehaved, lets blame GA for his 'omission'. Anyway, how's that an argument of him being an agent?

3- I was referring to 'your contribution'. Don't like the fork? Let's hear your ideas/solutions. Most of people seem to agree with the need of lifting the limits with some difference of opinions on details.

That being said, I think it's actually healthy to consider the possibility of GA or any other dev to be an agent, and properly examine any proposed changes and look for threats etc. But announcing that as a fact because of the reasons stated in the OP is just daft.

1/ gavin is CIA buddy because "invitation". Gavin is USG buddy, because MIT Media LAB employee.

2/ gavin "worked" along scammers and deceivers a la Mark Karpeles, Shrem, Murk, Pierce and so on.

3/ there is no solution to be found to a non problem.

Im not saying Gavin is an classic Agent, like with a contract and a nice pension fund. Just that his intentions regarding Bitcoin are closely alined with USG's agenda. By now they surely made sure of it. Dont be naive man.

That being said, im done discussing this, i'll leave it to Bitcoin antifragileness.
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 07:41:53 AM
#34


There is nothing wrong with 20M blocks. If the other developers agree with Gavin this will get implemented. However, if they disagree then it won't.

this is funny. please point me to such debate..

at best you could find devs disagreeing and in no condition there has been a consensus about it. just no.

yet Mr Bell is moving forward with HIS (USG) plan.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
May 04, 2015, 07:32:20 AM
#33
3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770
I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving  - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".

A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.

Hard fork: allow 20MB blocks after 1 March 2016

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-07-29 05:53:43 UTC (64 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes)
http://bitcoinclock.com/

thats hardly 5 months before, and there is still room to lessen the time left until halving.

It's still not 'just before' the halving. No there is no room anymore, you don't know what you're talking about. You obviously have not either participated in many threads or read enough of them.
The halving might come earlier by 1 day than the time mentioned. It was actually coming closer at a quicker rate in the past.
There is nothing wrong with 20M blocks. If the other developers agree with Gavin this will get implemented. However, if they disagree then it won't.
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 07:25:05 AM
#32


3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770



I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving  - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".

A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.

lol no. read again.

Hard fork: allow 20MB blocks after 1 March 2016

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-07-29 05:53:43 UTC (64 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes)
http://bitcoinclock.com/

thats hardly 5 months before, and there is still room to lessen the time left until halving.
legendary
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1313
May 04, 2015, 07:15:51 AM
#31


3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770



I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving  - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".

A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 07:09:59 AM
#30

when/if bitcoin becomes mainstream the majority of bitcoin users will use and rely on online wallets and exchanges, if these centralized companies collude together with big mining companies they will have the biggest blockchain and people won't even have the choice to change blockchain if they want to keep their money.

I think the only real way the consensus mechanism would work as it should is if the blockchain is forked in a way that anyone can mine and earn bitc, maybe by putting some sort of limit on processing power/node, decentralized mining is the only thing that will preserve integrity of the protocol IMO


I really wonder if there's going to be a way to get away from that outcome. Convenience and preserving their funds is more important to most people than decentralisation even when that's the core principle.

Circle/ Coinbase etc are already engaged on a slow creep towards being cornerstones of a future system. The miners are a much more random element but many are just out to make the most money.

By the time it become clear that decentralised mining is really necessary to keep the flame alive, the block reward might not be worth it any more.

It's quite possible the whole thing will closely follow the trajectory of the internet. What began as the wild west slowly became another facet of everyday life with a side order of extra freedom if you could be bothered.  



That bold stuff sums it up. Thing is the Internet is now just some NSA's extension for mass surveillance. Nothing like its inceptors, Cypher punks purists et al. thought of in the beginning. Thank you Google, Facebook & co.

Coinbase & co will sell you to USG. The same way Facebook did. Because Profit.

Coinbase and all US bitcoin startups will follow Gavin's plan as per extension with USG interests, AND FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST. Claiming thats what "market decides" or that you should've come with a "better solution" (to a NON-PROBLEM).
Hence Gavin is now aiming for a fork before we even get the chance to see what happens with full blocks.. and even before the Halving, which should send bitcoin beyond moonscape... Why such a hurry?! Roll Eyes

Considering that even JPMorgan & co recognised the potential for Bitcoin to undertake exclusively and effectively large transactions worldwide.

If you cant see this then you are a lost US shill. Whether you recognize it or not. Just like Gavin, whether he is aware of being a USG muppet or not.

MUURICAAA FUCK NO.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 501
May 04, 2015, 07:03:18 AM
#29
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/cqxeoj4

Quote from: Gregory Maxwell
Reddit, I think you're jumping the gun based on watching a personal repository.

I think this is just some testing code-- he hasn't discussed this particular change with the other core developers; I for one would vigorously oppose it: for one, it's actually /broken/ because it doesn't change the protocol message size (makes for a nice example of how misleading unit tests often are; in this case they're vacuous as they don't catch that blocks over about 2MB wouldn't actually work). It's also not consistent with the last discussions we had with Gavin over his large block advocacy, where he'd agreed that his 20mb numbers were based on a calculation error. --- this without getting into the subtle concerns about long and short term incentives which are under-researched, or the practical issue of increasing node operating costs in a network with a node count that has fallen so much).

If y'all go around making a big deal about people's sketchpad work in their personal repos it creates an incentive to move all your work to private repositories where people can't get at them and read too much into them. I'd suggest you try to avoid doing that. Smiley

Quote from: gavinandresen

actually, it does change the protocol size....

.... But yes, it is intended as'it is time to discuss this now.' I will be writing a series of blog posts in the coming week or two responding to objections I've heard.


Healthy skepticism is fine... but sometimes these threads devolve into paranoia. Any critics of the block size limit increase should be criticizing specifics like Gregory Maxwell and offering other suggestions to the 3-7tps limitation dilemma.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1011
May 04, 2015, 07:01:07 AM
#28
Wait.  Weren't agent Smith and "Mr. Andersen" enemies in that movie?  Is Neo's defection a planned plot element for The Matrix 4 or something?
Pages:
Jump to: