Just having a quick read through all of this thread & I don't think we've got anything to worry about.
This Gavincoin sounds like a load of shit.
He's probably just trying to create panic to put pressure on people to agree with him & enable us to increase the blocks size.
Basically he's pissing on his territory.
One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?
Thanks in advance.
Topic: So the destruction of Bitcoin is now official? - page 4. (Read 6089 times)
I think Gavin may be right to press the issue now.
We don't want to wait until transactions start getting
delayed -- we want to solve this issue now before
it becomes a real problem.
We know that block sizes are increasing and I don't
think we have that much time.
I've been working in politics and a certain way to prevent any consensus within a group is to put time pressure on an agreement over a thing that's controvers but should reach a consensual decision.
And no, there is no urgency to this.
What i see is the Gavin fanboys have been throughout playing foul with ad hominem, false urgency, pretending there would be no alternatives, strawman arguments and such. The pro-Gavin boys are heavily manipulating the conversation with their rethoric tricks. Pointing to urgency is another of those.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
There are quite many and clever options to address Bitcoin's scalabilty issue that would not compromise decentralization and weaken Bitcoin as much as Gavin's 20MB proposal.
But Gavin decided a solution had to be agreed upon NOW.
A fact that many people seem unaware of is that Gavin has no authority to make this decision.
Gavin is a core dev. Like Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Jeff Garzik, and Wladimir van der Laan... Not more, not less. He is not lead dev in anyway and he is not the only one to have access to the alert key.
However he has more media exposition than the other core devs probably because he used to be the Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist. A title that never really meant anything. But that doesn't give him any authority over the other core devs.
Still, many people, here and on forums call him "lead developer" and surprisingly he has never contradicted this inaccuracy.
But Gavin decided a solution had to be agreed upon NOW.
A fact that many people seem unaware of is that Gavin has no authority to make this decision.
Gavin is a core dev. Like Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Jeff Garzik, and Wladimir van der Laan... Not more, not less. He is not lead dev in anyway and he is not the only one to have access to the alert key.
However he has more media exposition than the other core devs probably because he used to be the Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist. A title that never really meant anything. But that doesn't give him any authority over the other core devs.
Still, many people, here and on forums call him "lead developer" and surprisingly he has never contradicted this inaccuracy.
I think Gavin may be right to press the issue now.
We don't want to wait until transactions start getting
delayed -- we want to solve this issue now before
it becomes a real problem.
We know that block sizes are increasing and I don't
think we have that much time.
There are quite many and clever options to address Bitcoin's scalabilty issue that would not compromise decentralization and weaken Bitcoin as much as Gavin's 20MB proposal.
But Gavin decided a solution had to be agreed upon NOW.
A fact that many people seem unaware of is that Gavin has no authority to make this decision.
Gavin is a core dev. Like Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Jeff Garzik, and Wladimir van der Laan... Not more, not less. He is not lead dev in anyway and he is not the only one to have access to the alert key.
However he has more media exposition than the other core devs probably because he used to be the Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist. A title that never really meant anything. But that doesn't give him any authority over the other core devs.
Still, many people, here and on forums call him "lead developer" and surprisingly he has never contradicted this inaccuracy.
But Gavin decided a solution had to be agreed upon NOW.
A fact that many people seem unaware of is that Gavin has no authority to make this decision.
Gavin is a core dev. Like Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Jeff Garzik, and Wladimir van der Laan... Not more, not less. He is not lead dev in anyway and he is not the only one to have access to the alert key.
However he has more media exposition than the other core devs probably because he used to be the Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist. A title that never really meant anything. But that doesn't give him any authority over the other core devs.
Still, many people, here and on forums call him "lead developer" and surprisingly he has never contradicted this inaccuracy.
*rubs magic ball*
Its the day after the fork. Gavincoin was hit hard last night; it hit 100USD within an hour,
continued to fall all night long before showing signs of a floor at 30 USD. Bitcoin also took
a huge hit but was halted at 75 USD. Tiger Direct and new-egg have halted sales.
Ddos attacks continue to grow on both chains. Wait... I see Gavin on CNN... he says he'll
go on hunger strike.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Merged mined altcoins and sidechains as has been suggested by quite a few people.
That solution comes at no cost and only benefits and does not endanger the stability of the ecosystem or require a hardork of BTC. Mindboggling how this isn't discussed more.
It's a quick and easy fix with no big risks or disadvantages.
uh...no... sidechains is not a quick and easy fix because if it was, developers would have did it already. thats the whole point.
merge mined altcoins? no thanks.
Indeed, all hail to the king of BTCBitcoinBTC
So this will happen whether the other core developers agree or not, so much for reaching a consensus.
Clearly in this context consensus means 'My way or the highway......'
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately.it is done in this way to prevent the need of a future change and repeating the current situation many times, we can't hard fork every year because we didn't do the right change at the first time, this should be avoided
sorry to tell everyone but you all should Sell, Sell, sell all your coins now! 
Everyone, hurry up and buy the last coin before the fork happens, after the fork you have 50% chance end up buying the wrong coin 
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Merged mined altcoins and sidechains as has been suggested by quite a few people.
That solution comes at no cost and only benefits and does not endanger the stability of the ecosystem or require a hardork of BTC. Mindboggling how this isn't discussed more.
It's a quick and easy fix with no big risks or disadvantages.
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately. 
Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.
Staoshi may be dead?
Bitcoin updates and fear embraces us all damn this is funny; like Thor said you Humans are so Petty and Tiny.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
yes it will and whos to say he can't still keep the old one alive! He can dev both versions ! Lol!! ;-) ~ez!
The real question is if the gavincoin fanboys can brainwash people into selling their bitcoin and support the 20MB altcoin instead or if people just don't care and continue business as usual exchanges included.
I think the best for everyone would be to entirely ignore Gavin and his followers.
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
yes it will and whos to say he can't still keep the old one alive! He can dev both versions ! Lol!! ;-) ~ez!
The real question is if the gavincoin fanboys can brainwash people into selling their bitcoin and support the 20MB altcoin instead or if people just don't care and continue business as usual exchanges included.
I think the best for everyone would be to entirely ignore Gavin and his followers.
Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
yes it will and whos to say he can't still keep the old one alive! He can dev both versions ! Lol!! ;-) ~ez!
Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both. THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
hehe ... double amount of BTC... errr not really. It's bitcoin and Gavincoin which did not make a real pricediscovery. In best case Bitcoin core doesn't loose too much marketcap while Gavincoin should crash rapidly.
In worst case both coins crash rapidly.
Jump to: