QA with Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn [video] - London - April 16 2015

[Kakmakr]

Looks to me as if Gavin and Mike was a bit tipsy, because most of the answers was a bit tongue in the cheek and some was a bit "smuck". I would surely need a couple of beers to enable me to answer the same questions for the 1000th time. It's Always a good benefit to be able to speak to the core developers directly, because you cannot do that with the core developers of the banking systems. 

[pollen_bit]

Block Size mentioned and almost hinted at during this talk...

[BCwinning]

Block Size mentioned and almost hinted at during this talk...

he already forked it to the 20 mb limit according to some sources.
Guess it's time for the community to push back and not run his new code.

[pollen_bit]

I think it is only a suggestion to open up the discussion (again), this time with real intentions to fork.

[medUSA]

Finally had time to watch this in full. The first half was more interesting than the latter. Some interesting points were brought up.

They talked about no hierarchical decision making on bitcoin core and there is no easy way to funding core devs directly. When there is no hierarchy, no one individual has full control of the direction bitcoin core goes. So, no one individual can make bitcoin biased towards any sector. If there is a hierarchy, I have no problem with Gavin taking the helm, being more "dictating" now. However, when he is not around or pursuing other projects, the next lead dev could use the decision hierarchy to his advantage.

Is the absent of a hierarchy necessarily bad?

[pollen_bit]

@medUSA:

re hierarchy (good or bad), depends who you're asking 

[inBitweTrust]

Finally had time to watch this in full. The first half was more interesting than the latter. Some interesting points were brought up.

They talked about no hierarchical decision making on bitcoin core and there is no easy way to funding core devs directly. When there is no hierarchy, no one individual has full control of the direction bitcoin core goes. So, no one individual can make bitcoin biased towards any sector. If there is a hierarchy, I have no problem with Gavin taking the helm, being more "dictating" now. However, when he is not around or pursuing other projects, the next lead dev could use the decision hierarchy to his advantage.

Is the absent of a hierarchy necessarily bad?

Excellent question.

Most open source projects have at least one level of hierarchy separating the project/repo maintainer from the contributors. Linux with linus at the helm is definitely hierarchical. Not having any hierarchy can lead to possible dangers as well as I have been apart some disastrous non profits where there was no hierarchy and everyone was volunteers.

Open source projects are a interesting mix and balance of hierarchy and open collaboration and consensus building. The right mix is sometimes best.

[pollen_bit]

@inBitweTrust
like with any movement, mixing the instrumental and the symbolic approach always works best. question is the amounts..

[medUSA]

Finally had time to watch this in full. The first half was more interesting than the latter. Some interesting points were brought up.

They talked about no hierarchical decision making on bitcoin core and there is no easy way to funding core devs directly. When there is no hierarchy, no one individual has full control of the direction bitcoin core goes. So, no one individual can make bitcoin biased towards any sector. If there is a hierarchy, I have no problem with Gavin taking the helm, being more "dictating" now. However, when he is not around or pursuing other projects, the next lead dev could use the decision hierarchy to his advantage.

Is the absent of a hierarchy necessarily bad?

<snip>
Open source projects are a interesting mix and balance of hierarchy and open collaboration and consensus building. The right mix is sometimes best.

In the video, Mike Hearn mentioned some active opensourced projects have coders and updates, but the codes aren't necessarily getting better. He has a point. Yes, the "right mix" is always best, but then what is the "right mix"? 

[thejaytiesto]

I was expecting a bigger explanation on the blocksize thing since it's a big topic and an upcoming one within the next big update to 0.11, the explanation seemed vague to me, they didn't go into much detail.

[QuestionAuthority]

I was expecting a bigger explanation on the blocksize thing since it's a big topic and an upcoming one within the next big update to 0.11, the explanation seemed vague to me, they didn't go into much detail.

I agree. They seemed more interested in discussing the sci-fi possibilities of Bitcoin than describing what to do to keep Bitcoin alive through the next year. I love the possibility of Bitcoin mining cheddar cheese from the moon in 100 years. Unless they solve today's issues it won't be around long enough to make one order of nachos.

[manselr]

Block Size mentioned and almost hinted at during this talk...

he already forked it to the 20 mb limit according to some sources.
Guess it's time for the community to push back and not run his new code.

Why would you do that? Are we really going to go throught this? How would anyone benefit from staying at 1MB block? whats the point beside being stubborn cunt about it? let's just move on, 20MB is objectively better than 1 for god's sake.

[BCwinning]

Block Size mentioned and almost hinted at during this talk...

he already forked it to the 20 mb limit according to some sources.
Guess it's time for the community to push back and not run his new code.

Why would you do that? Are we really going to go throught this? How would anyone benefit from staying at 1MB block? whats the point beside being stubborn cunt about it? let's just move on, 20MB is objectively better than 1 for god's sake.

The only cunt here is you and Gavin , Put the code back like it was originally and quit playing with block size.