Pages:
Author

Topic: Should Gavin resign from developement of Bitcoin? [POLL] (Read 5187 times)

legendary
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001
Even if Gavin resigned it would give room for more people to step in and take his place. Satoshi left at the beginning and still it continues to grow get maintained and updated. It is up to Gavin to stay or not but if he does leave will be a massive loss but at the same time still room for more people to take over and take his place if he does decide to leave.

He should leave at a high though, not at a low. With all this shit about the fork, it would leave a stain on all his work before. I rather see him leave later than now.

True but maybe he has his own reasons to leave or is being pressured into it no one quite knows thew reasons  maybe he should step forward make an announcement casting his thoughts and views and get feedback from bitcoin users.
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1451
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Haven't heard much about block size lately. Bitcoin's development public email list is also back to normal. Are we done with the drama?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
[...] after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

link ?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08010.html

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30
FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

FYI, Nick Szabo retweeted (and added to his favorites):
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/605117508971053057
"@oleganza: If Bitcoin was ever competing with Paypal or Visa, it would not even start. It competes with gold and central banks."


Well then, it's settled.  Satoshi has spoken.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1007
Even if Gavin resigned it would give room for more people to step in and take his place. Satoshi left at the beginning and still it continues to grow get maintained and updated. It is up to Gavin to stay or not but if he does leave will be a massive loss but at the same time still room for more people to take over and take his place if he does decide to leave.

He should leave at a high though, not at a low. With all this shit about the fork, it would leave a stain on all his work before. I rather see him leave later than now.
legendary
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001
Even if Gavin resigned it would give room for more people to step in and take his place. Satoshi left at the beginning and still it continues to grow get maintained and updated. It is up to Gavin to stay or not but if he does leave will be a massive loss but at the same time still room for more people to take over and take his place if he does decide to leave.
member
Activity: 554
Merit: 11
CurioInvest [IEO Live]
[...] after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

link ?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08010.html

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30
FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

FYI, Nick Szabo retweeted (and added to his favorites):
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/605117508971053057
"@oleganza: If Bitcoin was ever competing with Paypal or Visa, it would not even start. It competes with gold and central banks."
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
-snip-

I do understand but can't we just wait and see what are the problems when block size reaches 1MB.
There seems to be a group of individuals that can wait. I'm pretty sure that they use reason often.  Roll Eyes

I didn't understand what you "really" meant. Maybe you can clarify?
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.



You got things mixed up.
It is the other way around.

It is community first, because if there wasn't community there wouldn't be a Satoshi to begin with.
If noone supported his coin, then you wouldn't have heard of him.

So you should put the community first, then the rest.

without satoshi , there would not be any bitcoin nowadays, nor blockchain, it's satoshi that started this whole story that then has built a comunity, the comunity wasn't even aware of bitcoin, before satoshi made it public, so you point has no sense
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.



You got things mixed up.
It is the other way around.

It is community first, because if there wasn't community there wouldn't be a Satoshi to begin with.
If noone supported his coin, then you wouldn't have heard of him.

So you should put the community first, then the rest.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
I don't really care what he does, I want to see more people getting involved with the development, if someone has better ideas, a view, the network will recognize him, that's how Bitcoin will thrive, not by simply pushing people out
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

You mean like waiting until your engine dies before worrying about putting more gas in the tank?

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?
Or maybe he's just proactive instead of reactive.  Ever thought about that?

Please ignore Mircea and his band. You're in for a better experience doing so. They have authority issues with Gavin and are going to spew up just about anything to support their goals (removing Gavin).
Fixing a problem once it occurs is the worst method. Mircea would rather get an STD than wear protection.  Roll Eyes
It seems rather irrational to wait and see how it plays out and if things go downhill then try fixing what we could have prevented in the first place.

Well if Gavin's predictions are correct, it might be too late or very difficult to apply a fix beyond a certain threshold. Adding to the problem is the fact that things can go downhill extremely fast in crypto, a single wave of panic-selling could be enough to bring Bitcoin to it's knees. I suggest that people interested in the topic read Gavin's own words/notes and make up their minds rather than trusting other people's version of the story.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
People really have weird reasons to why they are objecting Gavin's proposal.

I do understand but can't we just wait and see what are the problems when block size reaches 1MB.
There seems to be a group of individuals that can wait. I'm pretty sure that they use reason often.  Roll Eyes


Update:
I didn't understand what you "really" meant. Maybe you can clarify?
I'm trying to say that there is a group of people who think otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.
Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?

Well if Gavin's predictions are correct, it might be too late or very difficult to apply a fix beyond a certain threshold. Adding to the problem is the fact that things can go downhill extremely fast in crypto, a single wave of panic-selling could be enough to bring Bitcoin to it's knees. I suggest that people interested in the topic read Gavin's own words/notes and make up their minds rather than trusting other people's version of the story.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin: The People's Bailout

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.
Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

You mean like waiting until your engine dies before worrying about putting more gas in the tank?

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?

Or maybe he's just proactive instead of reactive.  Ever thought about that?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
Has Gavin considered creating a alt coin named Gavin coin? If the polls are to be believed then it could be exceedingly popular and make him a lot of money.

He's already created an alt called BitcoinXT, popularly known as GavinCoin.

The problem is that he's trying to launch it at the expense of BTC, with a sneaky secret ninja plan to cannibalize the existing network and ultimately assassinate good old CoreCoin.

Current domination post on the subject:

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.


[email protected] is done with the false-flag "embrace" phase.  He's now deep in the "extend" offensive.  Next (and last) he goes for "extinguish."
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Saying this is more than being idiot. It's like having a mental problem.
"Gavin doesn't like descentralization" they say and their answer is offchain transactions?

Satoshi made Bitcoin with block support way bigger than 20MB, we are just getting ready if the number of transactions increases.
I support 100% the new block max size.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Increasing the block max size doesn't necessary will make all blocks with 20MB. It's just a small step.
On the physical storage side, it's pretty much no difference. It's almost impossible to find a HDD with less than 1TB. It can support the actual network for a few years easily, no doubt.
Well, the only problem would be on the network side, transmiting and relaying a 20MB block would take a few moments. I just hope that even before we ever reach 5MB each block the devs and supporters find a better solution or the "block bloat".

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.
Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I do understand but can't we just wait and see what are the problems when block size reaches 1MB.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
well if he does so many thing that effects humanity then I guess he should leave the bitcoin development. 
if there is so much of ego in him and if he wants us to follow his rules then he should not be in the community.  bitcoin is a thing by the people and for the people . its freedom to anything.
it should be immune and people should be using bitcoin comfortably.
full member
Activity: 150
Merit: 100
There are still strong arguments against any block size increase. I don't think that there's anyone out there against the idea of allowing bitcoin to support a greater number of transactions per block. The way this is going to be implemented though is also a crucial part. And when speaking for myself, I kind of agree with some of the statements made in OP. A fork, while a considerable amount of core developers, miners, users and investors are in disagreement with Gavin's way of doing this, is risky to say the least.

Showing willingness to progress with such a plan while so many prominent members of the community have deemed it too risky is indeed driving the community apart, creating lots of uncertainty and ultimately puts bitcoin in a risky situation. Not the way I expected someone like Gavin to act like.

Dump for LTC and be done with it. LTC/BTC is your friend Wink

Gabbycoin is going to crash and burn. And the sheep who cheer him on are also responsible.

Diversify into alts, man. No problem. VTC looks good. LTC looks good, get some other good ones and just dump those BTC to whomever wants to hold that risk. Converting your coins is done in 60 minutes.

It happens right now right in front of you all: LTC very bullish and BTC very bearish. Why the hell do people still hold BTC? Better sell that shit early. It's a troubled coin with a lot of drama and risk now.
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1451
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
There are still strong arguments against any block size increase. I don't think that there's anyone out there against the idea of allowing bitcoin to support a greater number of transactions per block. The way this is going to be implemented though is also a crucial part. And when speaking for myself, I kind of agree with some of the statements made in OP. A fork, while a considerable amount of core developers, miners, users and investors are in disagreement with Gavin's way of doing this, is risky to say the least.

Showing willingness to progress with such a plan while so many prominent members of the community have deemed it too risky is indeed driving the community apart, creating lots of uncertainty and ultimately puts bitcoin in a risky situation. Not the way I expected someone like Gavin to act like.
staff
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6793
Just writing some code
It would loose microtransactions at the very first. And does it need them? I think not because they bloat it up ad infinitum!
A large portion of transactions now are micro transactions, and they haven't bloated the blocks.

Fees will never be enough for miners if you keep raising blocklimit ahead of demand and only on basis of a guess about the future. What if the future predictions doesn't come true? Then you are stuck with a coin that doesn't produce fees at all and miners will be forced to form a cartel.
Miners have the choice to quit. As I said earlier, once mining becomes unprofitable, miners will quit. That of course may lead to greater centralization, but only because of bandwidth issues. Even with 20 MB blocks, most people have enough bandwidth to support that size, and by the time that the size is reached, bandwidth should increase enough everywhere so that almost everyone has enough bandwidth. It is not a guess either. The prediction is based off of historical data of block sizes and the growth rate. Eventually, within a few years, this scaling problem does become an issue.

YOU JUST DON'T RAISE BLOCKLIMIT AHEAD OF DEMAND BECAUSE THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY STUPID THING TO DO. IF YOUR FUTURE PREDICTIONS TURN OUT FALSE IT'S RUINED!
Having a plan for a future condition never hurts. He is planning this way ahead of any possible maximum of the block size. This allows for a smooth transition. The code is written beforehand, bugs are worked out beforehand, and the change is not a rushed panicked thing that scares the crap out of everyone and causes a loss of confidence. By doing it now, it mitigates some of the negative consequences of doing it in a short time on short notice.

Not even talking about that he can't even get a consensus anywhere (not with the devs, not with the miners, not with the exchanges, not with the investos, the community, the users) HE IS A WASTE OF TIME! IF HE WAS RIGHT IN THE HEAD HE WOULD LAY IT OFF NOW.
He definitely has a lot of the community and users on board. I have not been able to find if any miners or exchanges disagree. Most are in favor of the block size increase, but only by some amount, not all the way up to 20 MB immediately.
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
If you raise blocklimit a lot ahead of demand (like Gavin wants) you get yourself potentially in trouble when the projections for txs don't come true because: how are you going to pay the miners when blockrewards go away? Fees are needed to keep the network secure.
Using the fees. If the block size stays the same, people will need to pay at least 0.005 BTC per transaction to keep the same miner's reward once the reward goes away. If there is enough transaction volume, then an even higher fee is required just so that your transaction will be confirmed quickly, and even that is not guaranteed. Increasing the block size keeps both the users and the miners happy. Miners will get paid, and if they include more transactions, they get more in fees. Users don't need to pay a large fee for a transaction, and they won't need to wait long times for a transaction to be confirmed. As long as there is still space in blocks for more transactions, most transactions will be confirmed quickly and miners can collect the most fees.

Thing is: these transactions don't take place yet. Most of the traffic is dice-games. What if Gavin can't predict the future?
Then miners stop mining once it becomes unprofitable. The outcome is still the same with or without the fork. If that much volume doesn't exist, then either way, the fees aren't enough to support miners once the block reward stops. Sure with smaller blocks you could force fees to go up, but Bitcoin would also lose people to altcoins that have lower fees and faster confirmation times.

It would loose microtransactions at the very first. And does it need them? I think not because they bloat it up ad infinitum!
BTC looses it's store of value purpose with a bloated, centralized and undefensible Gavinchain.
It was thought to be digital gold but Gavin wants to make it visacard. Can't have both.
Gavin sets priorities wrong.
Decentralisation has higher priority than tps for example.

Fees will never be enough for miners if you keep raising blocklimit ahead of demand and only on basis of a guess about the future. What if the future predictions doesn't come true? Then you are stuck with a coin that doesn't produce fees at all and miners will be forced to form a cartel.

YOU JUST DON'T RAISE BLOCKLIMIT AHEAD OF DEMAND BECAUSE THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY STUPID THING TO DO. IF YOUR FUTURE PREDICTIONS TURN OUT FALSE IT'S RUINED!


Not even talking about that he can't even get a consensus anywhere (not with the devs, not with the miners, not with the exchanges, not with the investos, the community, the users) HE IS A WASTE OF TIME! IF HE WAS RIGHT IN THE HEAD HE WOULD LAY IT OFF NOW... at least until there is real demand for bigger blocks because the current blocks are full.


Jeezuz, people ... really. What's the freakin' problem? There is no demand for bigger blocks right now. When there is then maybe it's alright to raise the bloody limit but not ahead of the freakin' demand. What's so hard to understand about that?
Pages:
Jump to: