Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo. he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).
Are you implying Szabo is Satoshi?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 292. (Read 2032266 times)
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).
Are you implying Szabo is Satoshi?
i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
Bingo, Satoshi's invention and the core of Bitcoin is the distributed security mechanism. It is the essense of what Bitcoin is and how Bitcoin remains free of external influence. I still fail to see how this distributed security mechanism is in any way effected by an increase from 1 to 20MB blocks. Every single pool could easily handle the change and individual miners are completely unaffected.
Then you haven't read nor comprehended my posts in this thread.
i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
Why can't the users be the full nodes. (this isn't a question)
Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.
I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.
I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.
if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?
Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.
If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/
There is one exception though I see the development of the code that protects the protocol as centralized.
There was some info posted earlier that showed that their can be wisdom in mass behavior, I think its relevant, and i believe big picture we are coming out of the hypnoses of mass manipulation as invented by Edward Bernays and deployed by politicians and marketiers, (to quote Douglas Adams who did a talk on the topic) we moving away from the 1 to many communication age of broadcasters and moving to a new age of many to many communication of the internet. - which is proceeded by his parody of all the other ages from caveman times categorized by technology. I think the metaphor is quite apt given the Internet is a technology that wasn't invented for the masses to communicate.
frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.
both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.
Now that's just cruel. LOL!
seems character assassination and smearing is what frap.doc wants this thread to be about, I can oblige in any good mud-slinging, pig-wrestling descent into farce.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.
You mean we may go down?
No, I mean we may continue going sideways, until the allegedly acute max_blocksize issue and core team mismanagement problem are resolved.
frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.
both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.
Now that's just cruel. LOL!
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.
both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.
You mean we may go down?
Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
Gavin is pragmatic and respects his limitations because he values his accomplishments more than his appraisal of his knowledge, i.e. he doesn't have insecurities or is more balanced. Greg is idealistic and doesn't respect his limitations because he values his appraisal of his knowledge more than his accomplishments, i.e. he has some insecurities or is less balanced.
You definitely want Greg to leave your coin and go to the competitor's coin where he can pretty well muck it up. CoinJoin is a great example of that.
Don't get me wrong, Greg is smarter and more knowledgeable than me when it comes to math and crypto. He is a guy you'd love to have for his smarts, but you'd need to be very careful not to hand him the keys. Perhaps you could bring him around with some social engineering. I found that by being more careful about the way I interacted with him in ways that painted his ego well, he was more accommodating. I doubt he wants to leave Bitcoin, because he wouldn't have the same prominence with any other direction. Thus is he ripe to be accommodating.
MP's public display points to some psychological issues.
My public displays do also. The Multiple Sclerosis has amplified the effect. Hopefully I can get it under control and be more attuned to accomplishments. I have some past performances to remind me that I could.
Edit: Gavin's allusion to Greg overextending himself is an example of his pragmatism and balance. Gavin made choices based on being able to deliver, not based on what is ideal. My successes have come from being more like Gavin. My failures have come from being more like Greg.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
...
...
My sense after observing things for a while here is that Greg is actually a fairly patient person except in instance when the other person really ought to be doing better. I think that in addition to having significant inherent differences about the role of Bitcoin he has also lost patience with Gavin who is, by his own admission, not the brightest bulb.
On top of that, everyone who is anyone should be mortified at Gavin's slavish devotion to Hearn and the Bitcoin Foundation crowd who can be counted on for atrociously bad ideas by the standards of most early adopters. I'm sure that this is a contributing factor to Greg's loss of patience. This unbelievable scenario should make almost everyone 'run, not walk' away from Gavin, and I suspect that it was a major factor for Blockstream getting some wind in it's sails.
There you go. You are describing Greg's need for everyone to measure up to how he measures himself. A typical academic attitude. Academics are great at running intellectual circles around others, but they mostly don't ever accomplish anything significant in the real world.
And when I pointed out to Greg (gmaxell) that blacklisting in CoinJoin can't work because the entire point was to make the chain untraceable, did he say "ah yes, thank you". No.
And he continued to push that braindead paradigm, because he doesn't want to admit that Bitcoin can't be untraceable and non-fungible. His idealism and ego is coloring his pragmaticism.
Gavin will win. And I will also likely win over Greg, because I do have a pragmatic hat. I just have to remember to wear it more often.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
Bitcoin is collapsing now or will soon. Monero UP.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet.
Are you kidding? A crypto rock star like gmaxwell would be a stellar addition to XMR's core team. The price would double in an hour.
I'd rather he stay with Bitcoin to help balance/cancel out nefarious MBA/VC/frat boy influence, but if the Gavinistas run him off...
I'm in the camp that beeves it's the square root of the size of the network that give money its value, don't get me wrong I love the idea of A crypto rock star working in this field, I just can't bring my self to believe they are the reason people invest new economic systems.
I have written that a bounce (perhaps to $320) this summer is expected, but the final low (below $150) is still to come after that.
oh c'mon. is that all u got? if i were him i wouldn't say that either. why let your enemy know what you're thinking? lure them in, let them get comfortable. why the hell should he listen to you anyways?
i see the exact opposite. and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin. he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.
btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives. maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again. let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts. there. how's that feel?
admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.
i see the exact opposite. and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin. he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.
btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives. maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again. let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts. there. how's that feel?
admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.
Excellent retort.
I see TPTB playing all sides, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction.
The one thing they can't do "is just one thing" so we do get to leverage Bitcoin. We'd be remiss in not maximizing our opportunity to do so.
And thats exactly why I don't like sidechains neither lol, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction is live.
Its funny one of the most influential bitcoiners that truly is with his roots is MP, the one the mainstream community harshly demonize.
Mike Hearn's "Crash Landing" post
Quote
I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash. -Mike Hearn
^^^There it is again. The tired old 'argument from fear." Maybe the Gavinistas were only paying lip service to BTC's antifragility, in order to execute phase one of their embrace/extend/extinguish agenda.
Quote
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -William Pitt the Younger, 1783
"And with necessity, / The tyrant's plea, / excus'd his devilish deeds" -John Milton, Paradise Lost
"Necessity is the mother of invention." -Latin/English proverb
"And with necessity, / The tyrant's plea, / excus'd his devilish deeds" -John Milton, Paradise Lost
"Necessity is the mother of invention." -Latin/English proverb
Gavin is easily 2000% more poisonous than Luke. Luke wears his eccentricities and peccadillos with pride; Gavin intentionally hid the Bitcoin XT agenda in smokey, spooky boardrooms until the time was ripe to spring his poison pill/stalking horse/tar baby trap.
Eleuthria from BTCGuild thinks we need an increase:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/370rko/21_inc_engineer_everyone_assumes_humans_will_be/crjfnpg?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/370rko/21_inc_engineer_everyone_assumes_humans_will_be/crjfnpg?context=3
If the TPTB think this is their "ace in the hole" forcing crypto-currency to become centralized, I believe they've miscalculated. I agree that micropayment world is coming, but I don't agree it needs the centralized hardware he assumes.
oh c'mon. is that all u got? if i were him i wouldn't say that either. why let your enemy know what you're thinking? lure them in, let them get comfortable. why the hell should he listen to you anyways?
i see the exact opposite. and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin. he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.
btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives. maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again. let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts. there. how's that feel?
admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.
i see the exact opposite. and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin. he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.
btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives. maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again. let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts. there. how's that feel?
admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.
Excellent retort.
I see TPTB playing all sides, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction.
The one thing they can't do "is just one thing" so we do get to leverage Bitcoin. We'd be remiss in not maximizing our opportunity to do so.
I remain largely neutral about whether Bitcoin, Monero, or any future cryptocurrency will actually succeed on a large scale.
Does that include all potential Butterfly effects?
I am not neutral when it comes to the Butterfly effects likely having large scale impacts.
Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.
I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.
I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.
if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?
Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.
If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/
wtf this means? Its very simple to understand why a fork without 90% consensus will wreak havoc, specially with the ones like MP opposing it, its like committing suicide, maybe the Bitcoin community already in their subconsciousness realized Bitcoin is a danger to mankind with its public blockchain and the hive mind decided to abort it from within.
luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet.
Are you kidding? A crypto rock star like gmaxwell would be a stellar addition to XMR's core team. The price would double in an hour.
I'd rather he stay with Bitcoin to help balance/cancel out nefarious MBA/VC/frat boy influence, but if the Gavinistas run him off...
Jump to: