Pages:
Author

Topic: Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork - page 2. (Read 9870 times)

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
What a baby. He's going to throw a tantrum and quit to make his own altcoin? Talk about centralization! Bitcoin is gavincoin already. Bitcoin is completely controlled by Gavin and this proves it.

If Gavin goes, a substantial amount of the hash rate will follow him.

Take notice that not a single major pool has said otherwise.

All it will take is ONE major pool to jump, Bitcoin price will crash and the rest of the pools will switch.

Once any two major pools switch, it's game over for "Legacy Satoshi"

Gavin is going to win has won this tug of war.

Gavin has already lost this tug of war.

His inability to accept a consensus he disagrees with has been exposed.  His duplicity, in the form of spawning XT in spooky/smokey VC backroom deals with no warning on the normal channels, and managerial incompetence have been confirmed.

The Gavinista coup is DOA.  They just don't know it yet.

No effective strategy or device exists to counter Mircea's 'GavinCoin Short' WMD:
Quote
http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.

It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.

Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.

It is by Lord Satoshi's sublime design Bitcoin grants all possible advantages to its defenders, and places all possible economic and technical burdens on attackers.
legendary
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
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.

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...
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
BTW: I'm curious to know if Nick Szabo will comment on this matter. I guess we could assume is Satoshi's opinion Wink
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
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.
newbie
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
It is a bad thing that one person currently has so much influence on the bitcoin perception
 him leaving should not cause more than a small dip on the news, otherwise it has become to centralized around him.

I fully agree with you, decentralization should be extended to individuals active in the ecosystem... Do you think that, given such a potential dangerous situation for the general Bitcoin project Satoshi should reappear to rebalance individuals' positions and their ascendency within the system? Although, if he didn't do this in 2013 why would he do it now, would his "appearance" show that the community isn't able to autoregulate itself thus its weaker than we all think?

I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on this!
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
This situation reminds me of that submarine movie, with Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.

Denzel says a nice speech about actions requiring both the captain and himself to agree, he does not agree, and furthermore.. blah blah etc etc..

Then they argue over launching some nuclear weapons. And Gene punches Denzel in the face. Hard.

Consensus. It's a tough one.

Makes Bitcoin's consensus-mechanism-achievements seem all the more impressive.
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
@tvbcof


Are you seriously trying to put forth that miners are not in control?

The miners, be they pools or scores of independents are absolutely the ones that will decide.

If enough ASICS in datacenters follow Gavin guess what, that becomes the new legit fork.

Also this is not an "attack", it's an evolution just the way Satoshi intended, with majority ruling.

Evolution is imminent, like it or not you will be part of Gavin and Hearn's fork.


~BCX~

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

I am a proponent of this theory. Bitcoin, like everything else on this planet, is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If there is demand for legacy Bitcoin, we will have legacy Bitcoin. I can promise you that.

yeah right lets not get carried away here and kid ourselves, its not like anyone wakes up in the morning and goes damn I can't get through my day without having some bitcoin.

i'm affraid all cryptos including bitcoins main market driving force is;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
full member
Activity: 184
Merit: 100
Bitcoin FTW!
It is a bad thing that one person currently has so much influence on the bitcoin perception
 him leaving should not cause more than a small dip on the news, otherwise it has become to centralized around him.
Agree, there are many Bitcoin developers, Gavin is most known one
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
...
I'm saddened to see so many comments saying that it is okay because we will probably be able to profit from this situation.

Need a hankie?

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Ahh I see.  Well, this is a bit overblown IMO to say Gavin's been compromised or crazy.
This is Greg relaying third hand what Gavin said in private "long term" about the
security, and speculating about other consensus algorithms as many people do.
It doesn't mean he's advocating get rid of PoW.

I understand Greg's position...presumably, there may be better ways to deal with
scalability than huge block size increases which could lead to centralization,
but I also understand Gavin's position that we should do something now to
avoid issues.

I'm not too worried, I think the situation will work itself out as it always does.
Well it is a bit exaggerated as both Gavin and Maxwell overreacted to the situation. As I've previously stated rather than going with this rubbish plan of his of supporting XT because he has been rejected he should stick with Core. However the developers should have proposed better solutions and implement on time as Gavin was trying. It is better to prevent a problem rather to fix in once it occurs.

I'm saddened to see so many comments saying that it is okay because we will probably be able to profit from this situation. The humanity's greed at its finest.  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276

I agree that miners are in control.  If there is a shake-up then it might be a good opportunity to go back to the good old days when 'everyone is a miner.'  Such a fork which achieved that (and protection against attack from ASIC farms in the process) might be a pretty interesting proposition.

I fully expect Hearndresen's fork to be successful and am hoping for that and plan to 'be a part of it' so to speak.  I plan to try to take advantage of a window of opportunity to dump that fork at a profit before people realize that it is just PayPal except less convenient and more useless.

That's a good idea to make some quick cash. We dump at just the right time and we could turn a tidy little profit off of this mess.

The best part is that we can do so and still sit on value in an eventual worthwhile system.  This is important because it provides incentive to cooperate in working toward one.

Believe it or not I hypothesized about this back in 2011 when I was taking a position and it was a factor in deciding how much of a position to take.  I'm sure I've spouted off about it from time to time in my (way to many) posts on this forum.

edit: slight
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
@tvbcof

Are you seriously trying to put forth that miners are not in control?

The miners, be they pools or scores of independents are absolutely the ones that will decide.

If enough ASICS in datacenters follow Gavin guess what, that becomes the new legit fork.

Also this is not an "attack", it's an evolution just the way Satoshi intended, with majority ruling.

Evolution is imminent, like it or not you will be part of Gavin and Hearn's fork.

~BCX~

I agree that miners are in control.  If there is a shake-up then it might be a good opportunity to go back to the good old days when 'everyone is a miner.'  Such a fork which achieved that (and protection against attack from ASIC farms in the process) might be a pretty interesting proposition.

I fully expect Hearndresen's fork to be successful and am hoping for that and plan to 'be a part of it' so to speak.  I plan to try to take advantage of a window of opportunity to dump that fork at a profit before people realize that it is just PayPal except less convenient and more useless.



That's a good idea to make some quick cash. We dump at just the right time and we could turn a tidy little profit off of this mess.
legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
@tvbcof

Are you seriously trying to put forth that miners are not in control?

The miners, be they pools or scores of independents are absolutely the ones that will decide.

If enough ASICS in datacenters follow Gavin guess what, that becomes the new legit fork.

Also this is not an "attack", it's an evolution just the way Satoshi intended, with majority ruling.

Evolution is imminent, like it or not you will be part of Gavin and Hearn's fork.

~BCX~

I agree that miners are in control.  If there is a shake-up then it might be a good opportunity to go back to the good old days when 'everyone is a miner.'  Such a fork which achieved that (and protection against attack from ASIC farms in the process) might be a pretty interesting proposition.

I fully expect Hearndresen's fork to be successful and am hoping for that and plan to 'be a part of it' so to speak.  I plan to try to take advantage of a window of opportunity to dump that fork at a profit before people realize that it is just PayPal except less convenient and more useless.




"Hearndresen's Fork"  <--- Love it!

Glad to see we agree and more power to turning a profit by selling at the right time.


~BCX~
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
@tvbcof

Are you seriously trying to put forth that miners are not in control?

The miners, be they pools or scores of independents are absolutely the ones that will decide.

If enough ASICS in datacenters follow Gavin guess what, that becomes the new legit fork.

Also this is not an "attack", it's an evolution just the way Satoshi intended, with majority ruling.

Evolution is imminent, like it or not you will be part of Gavin and Hearn's fork.

~BCX~

I agree that miners are in control.  If there is a shake-up then it might be a good opportunity to go back to the good old days when 'everyone is a miner.'  Such a fork which achieved that (and protection against attack from ASIC farms in the process) might be a pretty interesting proposition.

I fully expect Hearndresen's fork to be successful and am hoping for that and plan to 'be a part of it' so to speak.  I plan to try to take advantage of a window of opportunity to dump that fork at a profit before people realize that it is just PayPal except less convenient and more useless.

legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
@tvbcof


Are you seriously trying to put forth that miners are not in control?

The miners, be they pools or scores of independents are absolutely the ones that will decide.

If enough ASICS in datacenters follow Gavin guess what, that becomes the new legit fork.

Also this is not an "attack", it's an evolution just the way Satoshi intended, with majority ruling.

Evolution is imminent, like it or not you will be part of Gavin and Hearn's fork.


~BCX~
staff
Activity: 3374
Merit: 6530
Just writing some code
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.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
What a baby. He's going to throw a tantrum and quit to make his own altcoin? Talk about centralization! Bitcoin is gavincoin already. Bitcoin is completely controlled by Gavin and this proves it.

If Gavin goes, a substantial amount of the hash rate will follow him.

Take notice that not a single major pool has said otherwise.

All it will take is ONE major pool to jump, Bitcoin price will crash and the rest of the pools will switch.

Once any two major pools switch, it's game over for "Legacy Satoshi"

Gavin is going to win has won this tug of war.

~BCX~

I'm betting that you are wrong.

What you are failing to recognize is that me and probably a lot of hodlers can sit things out for long periods of time.  I'm perfectly happy to have 'legacy bitcoin' freeze for months while we let things shake out.  I've not made a Bitcoin transaction for a year anyway so it won't effect me one iota as long as there is good transparency into the going's on.

What I would really like to see happen is that Gavin's exponential growth fork is used as an opportunity for some significant improvements to better fill a niche that is important to me which is primarily broadly distributed infrastructure.  A dream-come-true would be a scheme whereby POW consisted of a group of randomly shifting CPU-friendly algorithms in conjunction with reward for providing transmission infrastructure.  I'll not hold my breath for that, but if we have to endure a work-stoppage to deal with superior resource attacks anyway I'd much rather re-start with some Achilles's heals of Bitcoin-1 patched up.


Apparently you don't understand the most basic principle of Bitcoin.

Once a majority of the hashrate follows Gavin, it really doesn't matter how much you "Hodl".

The size of the wallet has absolutely zero to do with "majority hash rate" rules.

~BCX~


Apperently you understand the flexibility one has with code.

If I'm sitting on a high value in Bitcoin and someone successfully attacks the blockchain, I'll patch my client with anything which solves the problem.  Even if that means something radical such as ignore sha256 hashes after block {n} and switch to a different algo I'm absolutely going to do it rather than throw up my hands and walk away.  The main requirement would be have enough of the right kind of like-minded fellow hodlers to form a workable system.  That's where a group of proven and trusted developers comes in.

Put another way, good luck attacking such a fork, and especially using data-centers full of sha256 asics to do so.  This can also be read as read "Fuck your 'most basic principles of Bitcoin.'"

Granted, this would no longer be Bitcoin, but neither is Gavincoin.  I'll favor these two (and probably countless other forks which would happen simultaneously), based on whether they promise to provide enduring value.

legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
What a baby. He's going to throw a tantrum and quit to make his own altcoin? Talk about centralization! Bitcoin is gavincoin already. Bitcoin is completely controlled by Gavin and this proves it.

If Gavin goes, a substantial amount of the hash rate will follow him.

Take notice that not a single major pool has said otherwise.

All it will take is ONE major pool to jump, Bitcoin price will crash and the rest of the pools will switch.

Once any two major pools switch, it's game over for "Legacy Satoshi"

Gavin is going to win has won this tug of war.

~BCX~

I'm betting that you are wrong.

What you are failing to recognize is that me and probably a lot of hodlers can sit things out for long periods of time.  I'm perfectly happy to have 'legacy bitcoin' freeze for months while we let things shake out.  I've not made a Bitcoin transaction for a year anyway so it won't effect me one iota as long as there is good transparency into the going's on.

What I would really like to see happen is that Gavin's exponential growth fork is used as an opportunity for some significant improvements to better fill a niche that is important to me which is primarily broadly distributed infrastructure.  A dream-come-true would be a scheme whereby POW consisted of a group of randomly shifting CPU-friendly algorithms in conjunction with reward for providing transmission infrastructure.  I'll not hold my breath for that, but if we have to endure a work-stoppage to deal with superior resource attacks anyway I'd much rather re-start with some Achilles's heals of Bitcoin-1 patched up.




Apparently you don't understand the most basic principle of Bitcoin.

Once a majority of the hashrate follows Gavin, it really doesn't matter how much you "Hodl".

The size of the wallet has absolutely zero to do with "majority hash rate" rules.



~BCX~

legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
What a baby. He's going to throw a tantrum and quit to make his own altcoin? Talk about centralization! Bitcoin is gavincoin already. Bitcoin is completely controlled by Gavin and this proves it.

If Gavin goes, a substantial amount of the hash rate will follow him.

Take notice that not a single major pool has said otherwise.

All it will take is ONE major pool to jump, Bitcoin price will crash and the rest of the pools will switch.

Once any two major pools switch, it's game over for "Legacy Satoshi"

Gavin is going to win has won this tug of war.

~BCX~

I'm betting that you are wrong.

What you are failing to recognize is that me and probably a lot of hodlers can sit things out for long periods of time.  I'm perfectly happy to have 'legacy bitcoin' freeze for months while we let things shake out.  I've not made a Bitcoin transaction for a year anyway so it won't effect me one iota as long as there is good transparency into the going's on.

What I would really like to see happen is that Gavin's exponential growth fork is used as an opportunity for some significant improvements to better fill a niche that is important to me which is primarily broadly distributed infrastructure.  A dream-come-true would be a scheme whereby POW consisted of a group of randomly shifting CPU-friendly algorithms in conjunction with reward for providing transmission infrastructure.  I'll not hold my breath for that, but if we have to endure a work-stoppage to deal with superior resource attacks anyway I'd much rather re-start with some Achilles's heals of Bitcoin-1 patched up.

legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
What a baby. He's going to throw a tantrum and quit to make his own altcoin? Talk about centralization! Bitcoin is gavincoin already. Bitcoin is completely controlled by Gavin and this proves it.

If Gavin goes, a substantial amount of the hash rate will follow him.

Take notice that not a single major pool has said otherwise.

All it will take is ONE major pool to jump, Bitcoin price will crash and the rest of the pools will switch.

Once any two major pools switch, it's game over for "Legacy Satoshi"

Gavin is going to win has won this tug of war.



~BCX~
Pages:
Jump to: