Topic: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? - page 16. (Read 18520 times)

The fact is, you created a account to hide behind, so that you can talk smack to other members, without having the risk of tainting your reputation on your main account.

A signature campaign would be a problem for you, because it place a limit on how much posts you can make per day, before you get banned for Sig spamming.

The disposable account you have now, is a throwaway and is ideal to talk smack to other members and also to spam as many threads as you want.

What I am saying is... Have a civil debate with your real account, and we would take you seriously.

We all have a opinion on this matter, but we choose to have a civil discussion, without attacking people and calling them names.

Let's just keep this civil and professional, because it's a important subject and it needs serious debate.

Let's just keep this civil and professional, because it's a important subject and it needs serious debate.

Says the person, who hides behind a sock puppet account to promote BitcoinXT. How ironic....

Show your real face and we would consider if you are biased enough to have a valid argument. Your post history does not show any reason other than being created to promote Bitcoin XT and to attack members

who does not share your view or opinion. Ignore = On. 

What a poor attempt in humor, if you don´t have it, leave it and just troll, that´s what you do best

How do i show my real face exactly? Put my face directly against the screen while you hit "scan" ?

I'm confused....

Says the person, who hides behind a sock puppet account to promote BitcoinXT. How ironic....

Show your real face and we would consider if you are biased enough to have a valid argument. Your post history does not show any reason other than being created to promote Bitcoin XT and to attack members

who does not share your view or opinion. Ignore = On. 

LOL because reputable members are long gone from this forum (such as Eric Evoorhees who speak loudly against Thermos' action btw). And most of the rest are sold accounts.

It is true we have contemplated joining a class action lawsuit against Gavin and Mike if they go through with the hard fork.

Because, if you lost your Bitcoins as a result of Gavin network split - would you hold him accountable?

It is true we have contemplated joining a class action lawsuit against Gavin and Mike if they go through with the hard fork.

Because, if you lost your Bitcoins as a result of Gavin network split - would you hold him accountable?

I cant believe you got paid for that...^^^


So what are the questions that matter? If you want to influence us, educate us...

Good point, you should start by looking at Lighting Network and Blockstream first.

You know the one thats already in the work instead of your hypothetical scenario.

There's a bomb implanted in Gavin's wife by evil big blockers. Unless a 1.1mb block appear in the middle of January then up she goes.

Others have called my Gavin.

But none of what you ask matters if you want to counter my points.

If they succeed in taking over Bitcoin, they will rule it. Many of the current devs have stated they will likely stop contributing to the code.

The problem as I see it is that the Bitcoin Core software is the reference software. If you want software guaranteed to have no back-doors,spying code or malicious spamming. Where do you find it? You have to trust an implementation and be able to judge other implementations against it. We need to trust that those that know and are experts in their fields, are actively defending against malicious changes and they can't do that across 10,000 different implementations.

Gavin has been there since the start. He has "form", as they say and the respect he has, was earned. That's not to say he could not be convinced into bad ideas, I just think its not his modus operandi to be malevolent and I don't see any factual basis to not continue with this assessment. He seems to feel passionately about bitcoin and argues for things he wants to see. Has he been "subverted" and moved to the dark side? Maybe. But I only see reasoned articles for debate at the moment fro a topic and decision he feels passionately for.

I sometimes feel that people want to piss in the developers' garden that they are tending because they can and there is nothing they can offer. Its a sort of reaction to a feeling of helplessness. There is nothing wrong with criticism and debate as there is nothing wrong with others wanting a different route but there must be a plan and plans by committee are slow laborious processes that don't please everyone.
Others just want to stamp on your plants because they don't like people having nice things

The problem is that most people don't know what the implication of these sorts of issues really are or, perhaps more importantly, what the interests of those in the debate are. What we do know is some people want change and the debate is about how much rather than not at all. So. Bitcoin is a hard concept to see in its entirety and most can only grok small chunks at a time. There are some that can grok everything and for us muggles, we have to listen to their arguments and vote with our confidence in those we trust.

My opinion is, I don't have an opinion on this particular change. I am dead set against centralisation and see many discussions that will ultimately lead us there but this isn't one of them. To me, this discussion is like "how pregnant should we be" and see all proposals as not being efforts to increase the distributed nature of Bitcoin.

I mean, he could have simply stepped back and wait for the right time to come up with his idea again.
He know that the volume will rise with the halving and he want to go ahead and make the change before that happen