Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork

[Nancarrow]

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb.

Right. And I presented you with an either/or situation, and you have identified one of the branches does not apply. Therefore I contend the other one does. Since Bitcoin is not currently filling up 1MB blocks, there is no worry that block sizes will immediately become 20MB when the limit is raised. If and when they do it will be because it was NEEDED.

[1715166883]

1715166883

[1715166883]

1715166883

[1715166883]

1715166883

[1715166883]

1715166883

[Elwar]

I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads.

Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board:

What do other people think?


If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.

I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.

But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.


Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andresen

[Nancarrow]

I'm nobody, but FWIW I appreciate your effort, Elwar.

[gustav]

just increase the block size and make it scalable.  it is silly that people want to keep it small.  Bitcoin needs to scale to grow.  

I don't see any reason to panic .. what is the worst that can happen with the fork?  It's more of a technical issue for the nerds .. not affecting consumers

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075532.0

40 Million is the price to spam the blockchain to 1 Terrabyte HD use.
#justsayin'
Do you want to download 2,88 GB every day just to use Gavincoin? Because that'll be the reality when someone who doesn't like Gavincoin with a little money decides he wants to spam it. And you'll be waiting just as long for your txs as you would on 1MB blocks ...

[repentance]

Though we know that even if Gavin supported this fork and the network stays on mining the current fork, still there will be doubts among the general public seeing that one of the prominent figures in bitcoin leaves for another project.

The general public doesn't care.  Hell, half the people in this community don't care beyond whether or not it will affect Bitcoin price.  By necessity, the devs take a much longer term view of Bitcoin than most users and price is not - and should not be - their primary concern.

People leave projects all the time, often for projects similar to those they're leaving. 

It seems to me that what people are worried about is that Bitcoin users will make the "wrong" decision and back the "wrong" horse.  Maybe they will, but that possibility isn't a good reason to deny them the choice.

[dasource]

About time someone will balls took the bull by the horns ...

[Pecunia non olet]

I think it's good Gavin finally understood he needs to make an altcoin.
I just hope he'll leave Bitcoin alone then.

[subSTRATA]

What exactly is BitcoinXT? is it an altcoin?

[Muhammed Zakir]

And nobody actually read his post.

This is the biggest amount of FUD I have seen in a long time.

What do other people think?


If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.

I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.

But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.


Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andresen

Please point to the place where "Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork"

What exactly is BitcoinXT? is it an altcoin?

Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core nodes provide. - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.1/README.md

[ArticMine]

Gavin has little choice but to take this course of action as Bitcoin cannot continue crippled by the 1 MB limit. This is not a new debate. As the following thread dating back to 2010 demonstrates. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0;all Yes I have brought it back from the dead twice, but Bitcoin can not continue without dealing with the 1 MB limit for another two years, so I doubt I can do this a third time. 

[EternalWingsofGod]

"Today on the Sourceforge hosted Bitcoin-development mailing list Gavin Andresen has threatened to leave his present group of Bitcoin software developers over their objections to his demands for a rapid hardfork of the Bitcoin network. In the event his demands are not met Gavin plans to join Mike Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project which is a fork of the Bitcoin client where Hearn implements patches that Gavin's current affiliated developers find too risky to implement in any mainline Bitcoin client. If Gavin defects to Bitcoin-XT he plans to work with Hearn to lobby merchants, miners, and businesses to move to Bitcoin-XT. Previously Mike Hearn was responsible for the March 2013 Bitcoin network crisis."

Original post: http://qntra.net/2015/05/gavin-threatens-to-quit-bitcoin-development-and-join-hearns-fork/

Based on this article it seems like a development choice to work on a second route without the full team behind it.
As it is I see no issue with following different routes
Consensus will be reached through multiple paths but until its needed people will use Core and if it proves to be a significant issue move to XT if this is a two route fork then it could become one of Bitcoins first splits.
We will see though if unity is kept or not.

It is a bad thing that one person currently has so much influence on the bitcoin perception
 him leaving should not cause more than a small dip on the news, otherwise it has become to centralized around him.

It is a bit concerning that Bitcoin is centralized in a sense on the reliance of one particular dev but that aside I can understand Gavins role and it does remain important.

[Kprawn]

The ultimate authority for determining consensus is definitely not FORCING a situation, where you as a Core developer, create a situation, where you say... Either play the game, they way I want us to play, or I will destroy your ball, and me and my friends will play with another ball.

Is this the mentality of a Core developer? No wonder so many countries does not trust the WESTERN influence in the development scene.   

[Vaccomondus]

[tokeweed]

"Today on the Sourceforge hosted Bitcoin-development mailing list Gavin Andresen has threatened to leave his present group of Bitcoin software developers over their objections to his demands for a rapid hardfork of the Bitcoin network. In the event his demands are not met Gavin plans to join Mike Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project which is a fork of the Bitcoin client where Hearn implements patches that Gavin's current affiliated developers find too risky to implement in any mainline Bitcoin client. If Gavin defects to Bitcoin-XT he plans to work with Hearn to lobby merchants, miners, and businesses to move to Bitcoin-XT. Previously Mike Hearn was responsible for the March 2013 Bitcoin network crisis."

Original post: http://qntra.net/2015/05/gavin-threatens-to-quit-bitcoin-development-and-join-hearns-fork/

See you all in Litecoin.

[RoadStress]

I think it's good Gavin finally understood he needs to make an altcoin.
I just hope he'll leave Bitcoin alone then.

Hello MP puppet! How are you today?

[Lauda]

However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb.

Right. And I presented you with an either/or situation, and you have identified one of the branches does not apply. Therefore I contend the other one does. Since Bitcoin is not currently filling up 1MB blocks, there is no worry that block sizes will immediately become 20MB when the limit is raised. If and when they do it will be because it was NEEDED.

Stop. You are part of the group that is spewing out anti fork nonsense. It does not matter if it is filling up blocks now or not. Reaching consensus later will be very hard, we're even having problems right now.
Doing a hard fork will also be much harder.
Do you even have an idea what the media will do to Bitcoin once it stops including some transactions into blocks? It's better to prevent this from happening on time rather than having to fix it after it happens.

Some people just have big authority problems.

[iCEBREAKER]

Wow, so a developer has so much centralized influence that that him moving away is gonna decide an outcome?

Looks like Bitcoin's semi-decentralization is over. Onto the full centralization road people.

Yes, Gavin's coup is being greeted with thunderous applause from the cowed Redditards.

What a nightmare.  I hope to wake up and find out Bitcoin XT was just a collaborative hoax between /buttcoin and Gavin.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core nodes provide.

This is 100% textbook Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Gavin is putting MasterNodes on the Bitcoin network.  What could possibly go wrong?

[sintax]

Isn't Hearn that dude who wanted to force proof of identity by having people verify their passports?

Bitcoin  >>  Gavcoin >>  Fedcoin

[Nancarrow]

However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb.

Right. And I presented you with an either/or situation, and you have identified one of the branches does not apply. Therefore I contend the other one does. Since Bitcoin is not currently filling up 1MB blocks, there is no worry that block sizes will immediately become 20MB when the limit is raised. If and when they do it will be because it was NEEDED.

Stop. You are part of the group that is spewing out anti fork nonsense. It does not matter if it is filling up blocks now or not. Reaching consensus later will be very hard, we're even having problems right now.
Doing a hard fork will also be much harder.
Do you even have an idea what the media will do to Bitcoin once it stops including some transactions into blocks? It's better to prevent this from happening on time rather than having to fix it after it happens.

Some people just have big authority problems.

Er, dude, I'm PRO-fork and I was clarifying to someone why an ANTI-fork piece of reasoning ("The blocks will bloat immediately, we won't be able to keep up") was bogus. Maybe have some more coffee?

ETA: actually I can see where the problem arises - I was responding to someone who is also PRO-fork. But my point stands. Apologies, knightdk, for misinterpreting you in much the same way LaudaM misinterpreted me.