Topic: Should Gavin resign from developement of Bitcoin? [POLL] - page 2. (Read 5183 times)

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.

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.

Thing is: these transactions don't take place yet. Most of the traffic is dice-games. What if Gavin can't predict the future?

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.

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.

I tell you right now: in a system how gavin wants with raising blocklimit ahead of demand you will not be able to stick to the 21 mln max coins and you'll have to quantitative ease new coins later on just to keep the network secure. So what Gavin wants now is QE later and that'll make your btc pretty much worthless when the hard limit is raised every other year.

Gavin wants to be central communist planner imo.
The system is selfregulated. If you fix it without anything broken you'll ruin the selfregulatory properties.

Gavin is cancer to Bitcoin. If he doesn't slow down with his plans or lay them off at least until it's really needed it's gonna crash hard, no doubt. Investors aren't sheep. They gonna dump on his ass if it needs to be.
If people let him vandalize the network with his XT client (which only gets around 50% of the network for all i can see) then i think BTC will depreciate a lot because people won't be willing to take the risk with two chains. It's safer to pump an altcoin then.

Best would be Gavin really starts his own little altcoin project. He's not the right man for btc.

Voted yes. I do not agree with all points Op has brought up, but I noticed more than once that Gavin is out for a power grab and is a rather conformist (pro-government) person (it started with The Bitcoin Foundation).

He did contribute to Bitcoin of course, but I don't think he has the personality that makes a good lead developer for this kind of software.

Also I do not tend to trust persons that voluntarily accept invitations by the CIA and other questionable government bodies that operate without transparency.


Exactly. Currently the system would work like this, if blocksize remains limited.

Decentralization is the very core of Bitcoin. Without decentralization there is no value - Bitcoin would be just another Paypal.

ya.ya.yo!

And then the Universe will implode, right?

At 1 MB and current growth  projected out you'd not be paying 2$ before 2020 if ever.
To let it reach the limit for some time will enable us to determine how this whole thing behaves with the fees. I doubt it will even be 2$ fees even with very high tx load.

At 1MB fees will be what people are willing to pay (free market effect). So i think 2$ wouldn't even happen. More like 1$ max ... or just wait longer.  User determines fees, no? If i pay 1cent i'll wait a bit longer than the one paying 10 cent. Pretty simple, isn't it?
With  blocklimit not even reached talking about 2$ fees is nonsense.

Right now you can send with zero fee and more often than not get into the next block. So what's this Gavin-fork about? It's cancer, nothing else.

This wouldn't work with large amounts of transactions. If there is a waiting list, then your transaction is not going to be confirmed in a timely matter. Once the list gets long enough, waiting for your transaction to be confirmed could take several blocks, and thus several hours. It would push out more than jsut micro transactions if there are enough transactions. Once the block is full, it can't take anymore transactions, even those that aren't micro transactions.

No. If you have 10 transactions more each block than the maximum, then yes. However what happens when there are 10 000 transactions more than the maximum each block?
What happens when you need to pay a $2 fee to send $1? The reality would be bad.
Two words:
Network complexity.


We all agree that a fixed limit won't work forever.

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

To go back to your original Star Trek metaphor, if Captain Kirk died - even though Scotty has the keys to the ship - would you really want to promote Scotty to Captain??

I think many of us have lost confidence in Gavin, but not in bitcoin

The bitcoin blockchain is already too large in size to make it feasible for mainstream adoption. This is the truth of the situation, like it or not. I've been monitoring adoption for about a year and a half and we are coming to a standstill in terms of transactions per day (with the exception of the recent selloff which has dramatically increased transactions).

Thus, I would say bitcoin's chances of actually achieving widespread adoption are already very slim.

Increasing the block size by such a large proportion will turn off the remainder of the potential convertible population, and will further solidify the gap between hardcore bitcoin geeks and those who couldn't care less.

By letting the blockchain expand up to 20x faster in size, centralization will no doubt be encouraged as those willing to run full clients/nodes will be discouraged by the amount of constant downloading they need to do. Imagine having to set up a QT wallet for the first time and waiting to download 100 GB just so you can perform a simple transaction... is that really an "improvement" on pre-existing systems?

Not all of us have super fast, 1 GBps internet speeds. Those of us who do have enough money in the first place shouldn't even need to worry about owning decentralized currency because they are obviously already well-off financially. Therein lies the irony of the entire cryptocurrency movement.

Therefore, I vote for Meni's elastic cap idea, even though Gavin seems to be putting up some resistance to it.

Edit: had I known my picture was going to end up on Reddit, I would have combed my beard!!

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?

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".

Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

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."

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

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.

Ok Mircea Popescu. We got it! It's the same shit over and over again.


I'm starting to see this with a totally different perspective. This is turning really funny for me with this huge amount of work coming from one man. Even if he doesn't post he is coordinating this somehow and knowing that he puts so much energy into this while also knowing that someday we will have bigger blocks and this huge amount of energy put into this whole vomit would simply waste