Come join me >> The Official Facebook Group of Bitcoin!
Topic: Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork (Read 9927 times)
I think this thread has pretty much run its course. It's probably a good time to close it now!
Come join me >> The Official Facebook Group of Bitcoin!
Come join me >> The Official Facebook Group of Bitcoin!
June 02, 2015, 06:33:27 PM
BTW: I'm curious to know if Nick Szabo will comment on this matter. I guess we could assume is Satoshi's opinion 
He already tweeted, telling us to calm down and stop exaggerating.
That hasn't stopped the Gavinistas from setting their hair on fire and screaming "ZOMG BITCOIN IS LITERALLY GOING TO DIE REALLY REALLY SOON IF WE DON'T ALL PANIC RIGHT NOW!!!11!!."
June 02, 2015, 02:37:07 PM
Narcisistic devs are killing everything these days
June 02, 2015, 02:33:05 PM
This could be catastrophic for bitcoin.
Do you or any of the others who've posted similar messages have any idea what Bitcoin-Xt is? Do you realize it's just another version of the Bitcoin core code? Do you realize that it is already running, and processing transactions alongside Bitcoin Core?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
June 02, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
Increasing the capacity to 20x doesn't mean the blocks are going to
be that big right away. To me, 20mb feels right but that's
just one man's opinion.
be that big right away. To me, 20mb feels right but that's
just one man's opinion.
June 02, 2015, 12:48:11 PM
What is quite unexplainable is why Gavin is proposing such an abrupt change: going directly to 20MB blocks. It would be much more rational to have a "slow" approach, ie increasing the block size to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. I'm 100% sure consensus will be much easier to reach in that scenario. 2MB will double the current capacity with no difference at all in overhead for miners and full nodes.
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
You could argue that. You could also argue that we don't want to keep bandaiding this over and over.
If you're gonna use a blocksize increase as a bandaid, do it once so that its big enough we
have plenty of time to find a better solution before asking for another fork.
Please go read the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Most technical guys are against such an abrupt change because it can lead to centralization pretty quickly. The conflict of interest thing is pure BS. Many pools, especially the chinese ones which have difficulty to access 100Mbps connections behind the great firwall are very worried about their orphan rate skyrocketing and thus are against such an abrupt change, it's all on the bitcoin-dev mailing for everybody to see.
The fact is that there are many questions left unanswered, there's a very real centralization threat, but still most agree that they would support a more gradual change, even to 5MB or 8MB. That is x5 and x8 the current capacity, why in the hell are Gavin & Hearn (who has a track record of pushing for many very nefarious features, see blacklisting for example) pushing for a x20 increase in block size? Why not going for a gradual approach? The "we don't want bandaiding this over and over" is pure BS. I think the risk of centralization is too high to be reckless, it is much better to bandaid a couple of times than to just kill bitcoin by making it centralized.
June 02, 2015, 12:42:54 PM
This could be catastrophic for bitcoin.
Do you or any of the others who've posted similar messages have any idea what Bitcoin-Xt is? Do you realize it's just another version of the Bitcoin core code? Do you realize that it is already running, and processing transactions alongside Bitcoin Core?
June 02, 2015, 12:02:30 PM
lets just choose the best altcoin and be done with it
NXT, or if you're a PoW devotee, a NXT monetary system currency with minting (i.e.PoW)
NXT is the answer to all your problems guys
It actually isn't. A lot of people don't like proof of stake for several reasons.
The solution is simply adopting whatever fork people end up using at the end in consensus. Where is the problem?
June 02, 2015, 09:31:23 AM
I believe Gavin did many good things for Bitcoin, but I also believe some of the things he defends are not based on solid grounds - I also believe he did some shady, or at least dubious, things in the past. The fact that he sides with Mike Hearn is very telling, as Hearn always tried to kill bitcoin decentralization and fungibility trying to push awful proposals like blacklisting.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
i find also hilarious that gavin was not doing this for the money, he said it many times, but then he is talking about cashing out before something bad happen
the true is everyone is here to dump for fiat, none is actually going to care about the tech behind bitcoin, maybe only satoshi(but then he would not have mined 1M coins)
p.s. i confused gavin with maxwell, nevermind my first sentence is wrong...
He needed to keep mining in order to keep the network alive until it caught on.
but it was really necessary to keep the network alive at that time? when he was the only one using it? what's the point?
maybe he should have set the diff at 10 or even 100(instead of 1), at least he would not have mined so many coins, while maintaining the livelihood of the network
I don't think he would have contemplated what that mil coins means today. Just imagine how miniscule the chance of BTC becoming what it has become today was back then. Just a basement experiment.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
June 02, 2015, 09:24:08 AM
What is quite unexplainable is why Gavin is proposing such an abrupt change: going directly to 20MB blocks. It would be much more rational to have a "slow" approach, ie increasing the block size to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. I'm 100% sure consensus will be much easier to reach in that scenario. 2MB will double the current capacity with no difference at all in overhead for miners and full nodes.
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
You could argue that. You could also argue that we don't want to keep bandaiding this over and over.
If you're gonna use a blocksize increase as a bandaid, do it once so that its big enough we
have plenty of time to find a better solution before asking for another fork.
June 02, 2015, 05:37:41 AM
I believe Gavin did many good things for Bitcoin, but I also believe some of the things he defends are not based on solid grounds - I also believe he did some shady, or at least dubious, things in the past. The fact that he sides with Mike Hearn is very telling, as Hearn always tried to kill bitcoin decentralization and fungibility trying to push awful proposals like blacklisting.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
i find also hilarious that gavin was not doing this for the money, he said it many times, but then he is talking about cashing out before something bad happen
the true is everyone is here to dump for fiat, none is actually going to care about the tech behind bitcoin, maybe only satoshi(but then he would not have mined 1M coins)
p.s. i confused gavin with maxwell, nevermind my first sentence is wrong...
He needed to keep mining in order to keep the network alive until it caught on.
but it was really necessary to keep the network alive at that time? when he was the only one using it? what's the point?
maybe he should have set the diff at 10 or even 100(instead of 1), at least he would not have mined so many coins, while maintaining the livelihood of the network
June 02, 2015, 05:23:24 AM
I believe Gavin did many good things for Bitcoin, but I also believe some of the things he defends are not based on solid grounds - I also believe he did some shady, or at least dubious, things in the past. The fact that he sides with Mike Hearn is very telling, as Hearn always tried to kill bitcoin decentralization and fungibility trying to push awful proposals like blacklisting.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
Current blacklisting in effect that I know of is eligius pool and luke-jr pushing his blacklisting bitcoin on the gentoo world where recently anyone who compiled the default gentoo version of bitcoin got blacklisting of luke-jr's choice patched into the code by default.On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
gmaxwell backs luke-jr in any argument I've had with gmaxwell, no matter what the circumstances, so that sorta makes the "On the contrary" team sound worse since it's already in effect
June 02, 2015, 03:34:29 AM
What is quite unexplainable is why Gavin is proposing such an abrupt change: going directly to 20MB blocks. It would be much more rational to have a "slow" approach, ie increasing the block size to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. I'm 100% sure consensus will be much easier to reach in that scenario. 2MB will double the current capacity with no difference at all in overhead for miners and full nodes.
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
June 02, 2015, 03:34:22 AM
lets just choose the best altcoin and be done with it
NXT, or if you're a PoW devotee, a NXT monetary system currency with minting (i.e.PoW)
NXT is the answer to all your problems guys
June 02, 2015, 03:28:06 AM
lets just choose the best altcoin and be done with it
June 01, 2015, 10:24:12 PM
The miners aren't in control here. If the miners make poor choices, they might end up mining worthless tokens.
The miners are in control. They choose which version to use, the new or the old. If enough of them use the new version, then the blockchain forks. If enough of them use the old version, then the blockchain doesn't fork. Either way, most miners will not be mining worthless tokens because the fork will only occur first with a soft-fork when the majority switch, and second with a hard-fork when the super-majority switch. If less than the majority switch, then all miners will still be mining valid blocks and the tokens are then not worthless.Umm, the fork will have nothing to do with the mining algorithm, correct?
If so, can't we just merge-mine bitcoin and Gavincoin? Like we do already with namecoin?
Just buy "Bitbeans", it's POS too!
Gavin should just become the dev of Bitbeans (if he isn't already) and GTFO already.
I doubt pools will even add his shitcoin for merge mining, honestly.
June 01, 2015, 03:38:58 PM
I believe Gavin did many good things for Bitcoin, but I also believe some of the things he defends are not based on solid grounds - I also believe he did some shady, or at least dubious, things in the past. The fact that he sides with Mike Hearn is very telling, as Hearn always tried to kill bitcoin decentralization and fungibility trying to push awful proposals like blacklisting.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
i find also hilarious that gavin was not doing this for the money, he said it many times, but then he is talking about cashing out before something bad happen
the true is everyone is here to dump for fiat, none is actually going to care about the tech behind bitcoin, maybe only satoshi(but then he would not have mined 1M coins)
p.s. i confused gavin with maxwell, nevermind my first sentence is wrong...
He needed to keep mining in order to keep the network alive until it caught on.
June 01, 2015, 02:38:17 PM
Your defamation campaign against me is going nowhere. Try harder.
Oh wait, aren't you supposed to be spamming the hardware sub for Spamdoolies?
Oh wait, aren't you supposed to be spamming the hardware sub for Spamdoolies?
I am doing my best!
Hardware sub is hibernating. The fun is here where we have MP sock puppet accounts and scammers like you and cypherdoc.
Woah, backup, cypherdoc is a scammer now? Gimme the juice!
June 01, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
Your defamation campaign against me is going nowhere. Try harder.
Oh wait, aren't you supposed to be spamming the hardware sub for Spamdoolies?
Oh wait, aren't you supposed to be spamming the hardware sub for Spamdoolies?
I am doing my best!
Hardware sub is hibernating. The fun is here where we have MP sock puppet accounts and scammers like you and cypherdoc.
June 01, 2015, 02:18:28 PM
The miners aren't in control here. If the miners make poor choices, they might end up mining worthless tokens.
The miners are in control. They choose which version to use, the new or the old. If enough of them use the new version, then the blockchain forks. If enough of them use the old version, then the blockchain doesn't fork. Either way, most miners will not be mining worthless tokens because the fork will only occur first with a soft-fork when the majority switch, and second with a hard-fork when the super-majority switch. If less than the majority switch, then all miners will still be mining valid blocks and the tokens are then not worthless.Umm, the fork will have nothing to do with the mining algorithm, correct?
If so, can't we just merge-mine bitcoin and Gavincoin? Like we do already with namecoin?
Jump to: