Topic: Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork - page 3. (Read 9927 times)

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.

I hope he takes a lot of the so-called 'derp majority' with him.

This conversation about block size has been going on for years (literally.)  It seems to me that around a year and a half ago many of the 'whales' had concluded that the pipe-dream of Bitcoin being everything to everyone and buying every cup of coffee was retarded and Bitcoin was best used as a backing store upon which a myriad of market tuned solutions could ride.  Several of the old-time economics folks were saying this (though not so much on this forum were most of them stopped wasting their time years ago.)

If I were a whale and in coordination with a few others, and wanted one last good buying opportunity, I might be inclined to engineer a situation whereby a lot of FUD surrounding this fork was promulgated and reflected in the price.  Then I would time things to buy with both hands.  Whether Gavin's exponential growth fork happened or not would not matter much.  If it did it would probably die off eventually as people realized how useless it was.  The solid core would be the original Bitcoin doing the one thing it is actually suitable to do.

The lack of central point of command is the reason why Gavin is 'threatening' to leave bitcoin core.
He can't get agreement to change this code base but he can start or in this case join another one.
If he gets enough miners to switch to his version, by virtue of the decentralization, it becomes the new
standard.

Obviously, he can choose to work on whatever he wants but in my opinion it should not be called Bitcoin
anymore. It is a new coin since the change in the consensus rules were not approved by a majority of core
developers.

I think there is a central point of command, Gavin. But without an integrated voting system, Gavin is mandatory.

Did you read what knightdk just said? It doesn't have "a central point of command", as you put it.

In my world, a purely decentralized currency would not have a central point of command. It would have the ability to exist autonomously.

What do you mean "Make bitcoin decentralized"? Bitcoin is already decentralized. Are you talking about the development? The development is somewhat centralized, but it is still decentralized since anyone can alter the source and try to commit to it. Not one developer has any final say about anything. Due to consensus, which is decentralized, no developer can force anyone to do anything.

I think it's possible to make Bitcoin decentralized but it will take some sort of creative voting mechanism integrated into the client.

The best approach until that system is achieved is to go with the person that Satoshi hand-picked to succeed him.

Ironically, these sorts of admission are about the only reason I do 'trust' him insofar as I think it plausible that he simply has his personal feelings about what Bitcoin should be.  I happen to think that most of his ideas are flawed, totalitarian, and that they suck is all.

Hearn has blatantly admitted his authoritarian leanings on more than one occasion.   I don't trust him.

Yes.  I'm not a mind reader and cannot say what Hearn(dresen) does and does not favor, but he also spurred a quasi-private conversation about the implementation of 'red-listing' within the Bitcoin Foundation.  I've never seen any indication that he wished for it to NOT occur.

Early in my exposure to Bitcoin (GPU days) Hearn posited that monopolization of mining by large players could make un-favored transactions nearly impossible.  'There is no real difference between taking someone's money and keeping them from spending it for 20 years' was something close to his quote.  I give the guy a huge amount of credit for his prescience about the way things were likely to centralize as mining technology evolved.  The big sticking point here is that with the block size at 1MB it is still relatively practical for many people to be infrastructure providers (which is why I have not yet totally lost interest in and hope for Bitcoin.)

It is worth note that Hearn's apparent conceptions of what Bitcoin should be like (that is, reasonably controllable by \) are probably more palatable to the general population, and even to the majority of techies, than the alternative.  Early adopters are a rarefied pool who were interested in Bitcoin for other reasons.  Some philosophical, some intellectual, some political, some criminal, some speculative, etc.  Most some combination.

---

My favored graphical representation would be:

  Bitcoin  >>  Gavcoin >>  Govincoin >> Govcoin

In a situation like this, I would love to hear what the pools and producers of hardware have to say. And what about the Bitcoin Foundation? Would they kick out Gavin or not? Hm, I guess not, if they accept Brock-Neucoin in the board...

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.
 

It is insult, not ad hom, to request you fuck off with cypher's/your/Reddit's frankly offensive '1MB support = Blockstream conspiracy' canard (because the existence of petertodd, Lukejr, and MP demonstrate it is false).

Actual ad hom would (for example) be calling you oversensitive, or stupid for not knowing the difference between insult and ad hom.   

Yesterday it was $236 now it is $231. That is not near $10. However I do agree and this just confirms Vod's words:

I pretty much agree with this statement. But I am also sure that Gavin has his reasons and maybe shit already hit the fans.

You didnt notice the near $10 price drop since yesterday?!?!?! This is only the beginning. Once word of this coders bullshit goes public its gonna be mass panic.

woah woah... where does Gavin say he doesn't believe in PoW?  This I gotta see.

You're correct as I can't find information myself. Looks like the source is wrong or I'm failing to find Luke's involvement with Blockstream. Although it is still 3 of them involved.
Where is Garzik?

That's not the point. I was trying to point out that there are probably things going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of. It would be unwise to say that being involved with Blockstream has no effect on their denial of 20MB blocks.
Ad hominem anyone? You should express yourself in a better way if you want people to take you more seriously.
Update: I still consider that it applies, even though it isn't direct to the character.
I've seen no information in regards to the first point. However I'm against the three others. While I've stated in another thread that the developers need to propose solutions that are better than Gavins and implement on time. They should stick together rather than disband at times like these. I'm strongly against the hostile takeover that Gavin could potentially be planing.

Drama?  In Bitcoin?  Inconceivable!

But yes, things are getting out of control.  We have our Lead Dev trolling the rest of the Core team, FFS!

WTF?  As a fan of epic trolls, I'm very impressed and entertained.  But as a long-term hodlr, it's a bit unnerving.

This season of All My Bitcoins is only setting the scene for next year's 'Civil War: Everything Burns' story arc.

We might be in trouble if Gavin has found a way to generate anti-anti-fragility.  Is XT a black swan?   



My anus popcorn is ready!