Topic: Will we rename Bitcointalk to Gavincointalk? (Read 2274 times)

Like bitcoin dont have enough problems without this, so now we will have two versions of Bitcoin. Hope you big heads know wtf you are doing and bitcoin will survive. If that splitting when you cant talk out things together become routine, we will have that happening untill Bitcoin dissapear and some better community and their coin take his place.

call it "bloatcointalk" instead 

It doesn't make sense why you pick name gavincoin if people already know the name bitcoin. It doesn't make sense..

All a hardfork really is is a mandatory update, the problem is some users may not like the changes.

updating and hardforking are not the same thing. The rest was tl,dr

Okay so after releasing software and it gets spread to many users you don't upgrade it? Solid logic there.
Should Facebook cease work on its website due to the high number of users? The problem is that we haven't had something like Bitcoin. In the case of a company (e.g. Facebook), it can force changes easily, but with a decentralized community it won't work like that.
The Bitcoin community is full of different people, most of them don't really understand the protocol (they think and say that they do).

These so called 'supporters' that are against the fork, will actually be the people who caused the death of both forks (if it comes to that).

it isn't necessary right now, people feel it's forced upon them, people don't like the idea of huge chain, there have been no alternatives presented ... and a lot more reasons.
As it stands now i think the fork will end both post-fork-coins. In any case it was bad PR.

I think once a coin has become so big with such a cap you just don't fork it. You let it run and try to preserve it while pushing out more sophisticated stuff in form of new chains. No idea what justifies to put people in this stress when Mr. Andresen can just release his visa-dream-coin in altsection and see if it finds a buyer. What's the problem about that? Are bitcoin bagholders too lazy to trade some coins or what's the problem? I don't see a reason to drag the entire userbase and investors into this shit when an altcoin can be released. This whole act is not justified and is in no way constructive. Bitcoin became the joke of the internet over night with this proposal shit. It's totally irrational.

So i do understand very good all the trolling now. And maybe we should rename the forum post-fork to gavincointalk, who knows?

Well of course it would be a civil war Lauda were talking about forking the blockchain, if there are legitimate reasons to do it people will change to the new one 20MB but still have mixed feelings about it either way.

I agree. Miners and pools have enough issues to worry about regarding planning and execution and securing coin for their investors. That said, they can become forces of manipulation if so inclined, by advocating for direct code changes to give themselves a competitive advantage or to harm another pool. A "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation between miners and developers will inevitably turn into a cartel.

Once we have crossed that line of developers directly beseeching miners to adopt their code, we've lost the plot.

Feedback systems and checks and balances are not contained within code, but this is not a drawback. The progression of conversation should be:
Users & Merchants (Idea) -> Developers -> Users & Merchants (Feedback) -> Miners & Pools

The extra check of Users & Merchants provides feedback relevant to adoption. No governing body is needed as long as everything is done publicly and the feedback cycle from Users & Merchants remains intact. Developers that do not allow sufficient time (at least months) for Users & Merchants to advocate on their behalf cannot be trusted. Client development can be slow for a reason, and vitriol is certainly expected and may even be encouraged and embraced as more rational ideas will always prevail over time. The more details we get, the clearer the picture can become till it is so clear that mining pools won't really have a choice once the implementation is put in place. Time is the developer's burden. It takes time to build a consensus absent proof of work, but it is still achievable.

At some point the developers will just have to just go for it and hope the miners fall in line or risk the user backlash.

I don't claim to know the proper governance in all cases, but I do believe what I outlined here is reasonable without having actual government. It should always be some form of a gamble for the developer, without the risk of fork, they could propose anything.

I think most people are overreacting/complicating things

Will Bitcoin be named Gavincoin after the fork, if it happens? Yeah, you have your answer there

But what about MPcoin? The MPcoin community will also want to discuss here. Will MPcoin get a subforum?
Who says Gavincoin is Bitcoin? Mpcoin is closer related to bitcoin really as it will be actually 1:1  bitcoin - it is bitcoin (without a doubt). So Mpcoin could call itself 'Bitcoin' while Gavincoin has far less similarities with Bitcoin than Mpcoin has. 

So because Gavincoin seems to have the majority of supporters it is maybe wise to rename everything into Gavincoin because Mpcoin will also likely continue to call itself Bitcoin. So it will be a confusion of names. For the sake of the noobs people should rename everything.

I would strongly suggest to drop the name 'bitcoin' alltogether.

Since bitcointalk has been a brand it does not seem logical to change the name. But they can use your suggestion for other coins or for some special discussions.

So this discussion is spreading into every aspects of the forums and internet. Please stop it.
Someone was right calling it the Bitcoin civil war.

Since we are already here.. theymos are you 'for' or 'against' the current proposal from Gavin?

Indeed, this is still a mess that needs to be sorted out, as long as the fundamental properties and the decentralization and security of the network are secured I see any changes to improve it as reasonable but to be approached with caution.

Bitcoin can be changed in a backward-incompatible way and still remain Bitcoin. It was done by Satoshi with the version checksum change, for example.

Hopefully there won't be any huge hard fork controversy in the future. It'd be a big mess if people had to actively decide between one fork or another. If this does happen, then I will endorse the most correct version of Bitcoin, and this version is what I'll mean when I say "Bitcoin". In particular, these are some principles that any potential hard fork must not violate:
- The network must remain substantially decentralized.
- The inflation schedule must be the same or lower/slower. (Though I'm not 100% sure whether lowering inflation would be OK.)
- No one should be allowed by design to steal your money.
- As much as reasonably possible, no one should be able to prevent you from spending your money.
- Anonymity should be at least possible.

I will oppose any unsafe hard fork, even if it's proposed by Gavin. I and the sites I have some hand in are independent of the dev group, the Bitcoin Foundation, and other companies/organizations. I don't know whether Gavin's current proposal is safe, so the only thing I'm doing now is recommending caution.


I wasn't a fan of the whole idea of giving miners any special say on the issue. (Though it wasn't actually much of a vote, since miners could only confirm/reject P2SH.) Miners are basically employees of the network, and it should be the actions of users and businesses that influence what miners do, not the other way around. It would have been possible and better for users and businesses to (at a reasonable pace) force miners to accept the P2SH change.

Whoa whoa whoa. It was a bit more nuanced than that. Tycho's argument (from the few conversations I had with him) was that Deepbit had the most hashing power at the time, so it didn't make sense to get his permission first, he would ultimately have to defer to whatever the other mining pools decided or else run on a fork where he made up 51%+ of the hashing power that couldn't be trusted. He knew that ultimately the other pools would have to make a more unanimous decision and then he would follow them.

There's definitely something wrong with the way Gavin went about it, basically asking Tycho to switch (to then force the others to). It was wrong and I hope the separation of miner and development continues for at least a few decades before miners and developers are so embedded with each other we have a repeat of what led to Bitcoin in the first place.

Obviously you weren't around when they were trying to soft fork for P2SH support. Deepbit (the largest mining pool at the time) outright refused to go ahead with it for similar idiotic reasons as the people that are refusing this blocksize change (which btw has already been changed a couple of times in previous forks without many people voting against). It took a while to convince deepbit but in the end they listened and now there aren't many people at all (if any) who think the P2SH fork (something that was needed to allow for multisig) or even any of the previous forks were a bad idea.

And please stop with the fucking sockpuppets. It's so obvious you are a sockpuppet of the OP.

i will vote for bitcointalk

This time there is no consensus for it and it will result in the end for Bitcoin and start two new coins: Gavincoin and MPcoin.
So i support this proposal. Renaming the forum after the fork to Gavincointalk will help avoid confusion.

Shoe! get back to #bitcoin-assets where you belong!