Bitcoin Forum

Just from what I read it would appear that many people consider Mike and Gavin are forking bitcoin not for the benefit of bitcoin but for their own personal benefit. All this leads me to wonder how Mike and Gavin will benefit from the XT fork. Would love to hear some of the experts here give their opinions because up until now I have really not heard anyone supporting the fork.

Government grants. Hearn is also the son of a wealthy Google investor, so a lot of his ego-tripping is daddy issues. Gavin gets a salary is administrator and also getting paid via grants for research and such. It's A LOT OF MONEY.

So, you believe that a government and a Google shareholder are behind their push for a higher maximum block size?

I only know from the past. I don't know how it's changed since though. But that's how Gavin was paying us (and himself) back then, with grant money. So I'm going to assume it's still their main source of funding.

not to mention being one of the early bitcoin instaminers Gavin scored atleast one $25 million USD windfall i know of :o as well as gaining 260k + a year from the bitcoin foundation of awhile......so yeah good to see we've got an alternative to those greedy bankers  ???

well thats the past but too the future

ummm cough gemini  ;)

Anyone care to estimate what percentage of core developers are for this move and what percentage are against this move?

And technically it's not illegal because it's govt grant money. He and Jon Matonis know all the legal loopholes and stuff so they fully exploit that to stuff their pockets. That's why they are so overzealous about the project.

The financial gain is that bitcoin can live up to its promise  :)

a free and open blockchain. a blockchain everyone has access to, world wide, small and big transactions, every usecase you can imagine, uncensored, nearly free transaction costs for everyone in the world! and for that we need bigger blocks.

i guess everyone should support bigger blocks  :)


@rscholey

2vs4 or something like that. most agree about an increase but they dont find consensus.

Gavin gets paid by the Bitcoin Foundation who in turn got paid by their sponsors. What grant are you talking about? first time I ever heard of it, can I get one too?

Mike Hearn was a senior engineer at Google and co-owns a number of anti-spam patents with Google. Google lets certain employee's spend 20% of their time working on any project they want, Mike choose Bitcoin as his project in 2011. He quit his job in 2012/2013 to work on Bitcoin fulltime and is now paid by the Bitcoin Foundation, significantly less than what he was paid at Google.

Thats not to say there isn't a financial gain. This change could have impacts on mining revenue, it's hard to know for sure whether they have a financial reason for doing it. I think their reason is probably desperation but also a grab for more control over Bitcoin, the blocksizelimit does need to be changed but not via the insanely dangerous way they are attempting.

I recall him mentioning something about computer science research grants. That's why he had to annoint himself as "Chief Scientist" at Bitcoin Foundation, otherwise wouldn't qualify for it.

Agree, it seems like most are in agreement that the block sizes has to increase but as you mention, the problem is to find some consensus on how this should be done.

Would like to see a dynamic solution that will adapt to actual usage instead of just a scale based on where 'we' think bitcoin transactions are heading or where they will be in x years

He became "Chief Bitcoin Scientist" after he handed his old role of "Lead developer" of Bitcoin Core over to Wladimir Van Der Laan.  Though it's possible the bitcoin foundation gets some grants, I searched and couldn't find any info.

It was mainly funded by grants and donations in the very beginning. Matonis had his connections too.

Only Mike and Gavin support it. Some core devs could compromise with the sockpuppet-duo while around 50% of core devs don't like the proposal at all. Because the Gavincoin proposal has so small support and no consensus they need to release their XT shitcoin outside of core in the first place. Do you think we would be subject to such a populist social media opinion-manipulation-campaign if Gavincoin was the goood shit or something? Gavincoin is an attack on bitcoin core for a hostile takeover, nothing more and nothing less. And everyone actually knows this including Mike and Gavin. Why do you think Gavin would submit no BIP until like only some weeks ago?

This is not the "blocksize debate" this is "the ego and penis size debate" for bitcoin...

OP hopefully by reading this thread you will see the BS from these anti-XT retards  ::)

As far as I know, the Bitcoin Foundation no longer pays for core development. However, MIT does (if I remember correctly) pay for 3 salaries, one of which includes Gavin.


I've never heard anything about government grants, if someone has information on it I would love to know.

I think most of us support bigger blocks, though not by forking.
This should be added to core.

Bigger block, regardless of how it happens or what size, will need to happen via a fork.


And let me be very frank here. Coming from someone who has organized not just one, but multiple forks logistically with Litecoin and Dogecoin I can tell you its not all doom and gloom as people have claimed it to be. It's a pain in the ass, but not the end of the world. I'm one of a few people within cryptos who have experience in doing this.


Hell I'll state right now that I will personally help with the fork when it happens for Bitcoin.

Nice to have someone with experience.
Can you tell us a bit about the issues you faced? Particularly what can go badly wrong.

The largest issue I have personally have run into is communication. Specifically,either conformation from entities that they agree to the confirm to the new protocol or language issues. Language issues can be resolved with the addition of translators if available (which in Bitcoins case I cant imagine is that hard). In terms of the agreement is a little more difficult, and usually involves more "harassment" of said entity. Finding email addresses of entities is also a large pain point as well.

In any case, I would imagine it would be easier to upgrade bitcoin to a fork, but only if certain entities are supportive of it. For example, if BIP100 were to be the one that gets forked, it would be easier to send emails and CC TBF so those who receive the message know its serious. In cryptos, those who hold leadership positions in the ecosystem are the ones who influence the fork (yes I know its counter to decentralization, but thats another discussion) .

Lol how stupid can you be?

Maybe from the same people, that want the Bitcoin community divided.

So ... just notification issues.
Were any of them like this bitcoin fork, where there will be 2 chains running at once?
No problems with black hats trying to cash in on one chain or the other?

Well according to them, Wladimir must take on a more aggressive dictatorship role, when dicisions needs to be made, regarding development changes that needs to be done to the Bitcoin code.

Gavin and Mike is not in a position to force these changes and are out on a power trip to influence people to make these changes by forcing a fork. I can see the reason why they want some of these changes, but I

do not agree on the way they want to force the issue.  If there are money involved, it would come out at a later stage. It always does.  ;)

No, none of the ones I have personally been involved in have been in this circumstance.

You're toasting to a future where two core developers control the direction of Bitcoin? Did you toast the American bank bailout as well? (Maybe i missed your sarcasm)

I appreciate the documentation and communication (blog wise and over a long period of time), but it's bot enough. These folks are blazing a new trail and i guess the vote will be in node adoption...and this move is probably harmless but it symbolizes something that Bitcoin was trying to get away from - manipulation of the system by the few. This issue woukd be amplified if its factual that Mike and Gavin are foing this for their own personal gain.

NO, probably every half decent dev/cloner in the alt-section can pull off a fork.

aren't they rich in bitcoin, i know that Gavin is holding a good fortune, maybe he is using something that he dumped when the price was 1200

i'm not sure but i doubt someone will use his wealth for a project that do not belong to him, but if this is the case it can show, that he actually care about bitcoin

Not to many are supporting XT fork with bigger blocks, but many are supporting core fork with bigger blocks. That's a main difference.

Second thing is that I don't believe that Gavin is doing this to destroy a Bitcoin or to gain some sort of financial gain. He's a very clever man and he can earn tons  of money for himself somewhere else so I think these accusations are pure FUD. He had just have enough of the discussion and he wants bigger blocks. It's simple as that and there is no point in waiting further since nothing would change if he waited more. I think it's that simple.