So the destruction of Bitcoin is now official?

[gustav]

According to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pv74/gavin_andresen_moves_ahead_with_push_for_bigger/
the Bitcoin community shall be forced at gunpoint out of Bitcoin into Gavincoin.
There will be Gavincoin/Bitcoin pairs at the exchanges and there will be a split not only in the community and developement team but in mining and blockchains aswell.
When the Gavincoin fork takes effect there will be a Bitcoin blockchain (old) and a Gavincoin blockchain (20MB fuckery). Both will at least for some time coexist and people will trade these coins against each other.

What will be the longterm effects on investors sentiment from this?
What will be the effects on sudddenly double the number of Bitcoins existing?
Will the price go in half? What are possible scenarios how this could play out?

How are you personally planning on reacting to this?

I know i buy fiat and altcoins to sit it out. Like to hear your opinion. Will you be blackmailed into using Gavincoin or will you continue to use Bitcoin core?
Or will you exit entirely or buy altcoins instead?

Love to hear some opinions especially from those who aren't supporting this whole Gavincoin fork madness.

[1714900720]

1714900720

[1714900720]

1714900720

[1714900720]

1714900720

[redsn0w]

According to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pv74/gavin_andresen_moves_ahead_with_push_for_bigger/
the Bitcoin community shall be forced at gunpoint out of Bitcoin into Gavincoin.
There will be Gavincoin/Bitcoin pairs at the exchanges and there will be a split not only in the community and developement team but in mining and blockchains aswell.
When the Gavincoin fork takes effect there will be a Bitcoin blockchain (old) and a Gavincoin blockchain (20MB fuckery). Both will at least for some time coexist and people will trade these coins against each other.

What will be the longterm effects on investors sentiment from this?
What will be the effects on sudddenly double the number of Bitcoins existing?
Will the price go in half? What are possible scenarios how this could play out?

How are you personally planning on reacting to this?

I know i buy fiat and altcoins to sit it out. Like to hear your opinion. Will you be blackmailed into using Gavincoin or will you continue to use Bitcoin core?
Or will you exit entirely or buy altcoins instead?

Love to hear some opinions especially from those who aren't supporting this whole Gavincoin fork madness.

I will choose when the new client will be released, but this is the good of 'decentralization' ... what will happen if someone will start to pay a lot of people to reach che consensus ?

Basically the network will 'educate itself".

[Kyraishi]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

[redsn0w]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

What ??
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



http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

https://archive.is/uVyY6

[jonald_fyookball]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

[Beliathon]

"So the destruction of Bitcoin is now official?"

No, but a shitty childish clickbait thread title is.

[redsn0w]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

[gustav]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

Yes, it casts "fear, uncertainty and doubt", that's why i made this thread because it is real ...

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

The thing is: not investors have a consensus, not the community, not the miners and not the developement team ... i don't see how this can play out in a positive way.

[Kyraishi]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

What ??
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



http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

https://archive.is/uVyY6

So where exactly is the threat there?
Please enlighten me, because I too was fooled at first to think that Gavin did threaten.

But what I see is:
"I'll then ask for help lobbying..."
"I'll ask for help getting big miners...."

He is going to ask them for help does not mean he is going to get it.

I mean I know English is not my first language but that doesn't seem like a threat to me.
More like determination to do something whether the rest agree or not.
That still does not mean he is going to get support.

Also, if he was to threaten it would be more like:
"I'll get help lobbying..."
"I'll get big miners...."

[gustav]

So where exactly is the threat there?
Please enlighten me, because I too was fooled at first to think that Gavin did threaten.

But what I see is:
"I'll then ask for help lobbying..."
"I'll ask for help getting big miners...."

He is going to ask them for help does not mean he is going to get it.

I mean I know English is not my first language but that doesn't seem like a threat to me.
More like determination to do something whether the rest agree or not.
That still does not mean he is going to get support.

Also, if he was to threaten it would be more like:
"I'll get help lobbying..."
"I'll get big miners...."

the text basically says
"we don't care about minorities, we go ahead anyways and there will be two competing blockchains (the bitcoin core we use now and my altcoin XT). I hope more people will support my altcoin than support the old 1MB bitcoin so those supporting the smaller blocks will have no choice but to use my altcoin"

that what the text basically translates to.  

[Agestorzrxx]

That's bad. It's a disaster for the development of bitcoin. It's a bad things to give a single person too much power to effect the development of bitcoin .

[jonald_fyookball]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

[Amph]

you do not understand, there is no need for consensus on a mandatory update, gavin knows it, everyone knows it, just release it and stop this no-sense fud

[redsn0w]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

What ??
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



http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

https://archive.is/uVyY6

So where exactly is the threat there?
Please enlighten me, because I too was fooled at first to think that Gavin did threaten.

But what I see is:
"I'll then ask for help lobbying..."
"I'll ask for help getting big miners...."

He is going to ask them for help does not mean he is going to get it.

I mean I know English is not my first language but that doesn't seem like a threat to me.
More like determination to do something whether the rest agree or not.
That still does not mean he is going to get support.

Also, if he was to threaten it would be more like:
"I'll get help lobbying..."
"I'll get big miners...."

What , I have never said it was a threat calm down (I thought only you did not read the Gavin's message on sourceforge). Yes you are right, it doesn't seem a threat but it is an ultimate request and now we will see if he will reach the consensus.

[Kyraishi]

-snip-

What , I have never said it was a threat calm down (I thought only you did not read the Gavin's message on sourceforge). Yes you are right, it doesn't seem a threat but it is an ultimate request and now we will see if he will reach the consensus.

Yeah, let's hope they all come to an agreement because this is spreading FUD and it's damaging Bitcoin.
Hopefully they will do it soon and clear this up.

[redsn0w]

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Basically yes, if you have some coin in the chain-A and some in the chain-B... when the chain-A will be abbandoned (by the miners and all the other people) you will lose all your coin in that chain. Now let's make an example, if somenoe will buy coin froim the chain-A with dollars and that chain will disappear what will the buyer think?

you do not understand, there is no need for consensus on a mandatory update, gavin knows it, everyone knows it, just release it and stop this no-sense fud

If the majority of people will not use the new 'client' = reach the consensus, then it will be a problem to everyone because two chain cannot exist forever.

[Lauda]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.

you do not understand, there is no need for consensus on a mandatory update, gavin knows it, everyone knows it, just release it and stop this no-sense fud

If there are better solutions that have been proposed then the update is definitely not mandatory. Even though I agree on the increase of the block size, I do not agree with Gavin forcing it. If the developers don't agree then it should wait.

[redsn0w]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.
...

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

[gustav]

If the majority of people will not use the new 'client' = reach the consensus, then it will be a problem to everyone because two chain cannot exist forever.

I think there is even a remote possibility for both chains to coexist literally forever because both are supported by parts of the community. I don't see why Bitcoin core would die as long as it has support?
It won't die so easy.

Another thing: if Gainvchain makes technical problems and people go back to Bitcoin core those who have spent their btc on Gavincoin will have lost all their BTC on Core aswell.

[achow101]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.
...

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

You are wrong because chain b is a fork of chain a and it therefore based on chain A. One problem with this that I can think of its if there is a half and half split in consensus, don't start on the old and others go to the new. If someone uses both clients, he could theoretically double his money if both chains are still used. And have value.

[Lauda]

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

The chain can't disappear. People can only stop using it. If everyone comes on board the Chain B you will have your coins there as well.
This happens with just about any hard fork. This one isn't special at all, aside from the drama around it.

The coins on Chain A will always be there, but if nobody uses it then it is useless.

I think there is even a remote possibility for both chains to coexist literally forever because both are supported by parts of the community. I don't see why Bitcoin core would die as long as it has support?
It won't die so easy.

The possibility is there, but the chances are slim. If the majority jumps onto Chain B, Chain A would be risky. The difficulty would drop as it gets abandoned by miners, thus increasing the chance of a 51%.

[gustav]

What happens when people switch back to Core after Gavincoin turned out to be no good?

Peter Wuille (who is a very respectable intelectual in the space) hints at “things we don’t even know of that could break”

[jonald_fyookball]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.
...

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

Well you are correct, however in this example (where chain A disapears)  you still have your coins on chain B, which is the one that matters.

The only risk is for people who try to sell their chain B coins for chain A coins , betting chain A will succeed , but it really fails.

[Amph]

If there are better solutions that have been proposed then the update is definitely not mandatory. Even though I agree on the increase of the block size, I do not agree with Gavin forcing it. If the developers don't agree then it should wait.

but as it is right now, there are no better alternatives, so in fact it is mandatory, we can't certainly wait forever on it, there is still time until early 2016 i think, then you must have a better plan or simply do the hardfork or the soft version

[LiteCoinGuy]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

correct. only a moron would think that we dont have to change the blocksize. good luck morons! 

[redsn0w]

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

The chain can't disappear. People can only stop using it. If everyone comes on board the Chain B you will have your coins there as well.
This happens with just about any hard fork. This one isn't special at all, aside from the drama around it.

The coins on Chain A will always be there, but if nobody uses it then it is useless.

I think there is even a remote possibility for both chains to coexist literally forever because both are supported by parts of the community. I don't see why Bitcoin core would die as long as it has support?
It won't die so easy.

The possibility is there, but the chances are slim. If the majority jumps onto Chain B, Chain A would be risky. The difficulty would drop as it gets abandoned by miners, thus increasing the chance of a 51%.

Maybe I have used the wrong words, but I was partial correct with my logic... because if someone will buy bitcoin from the chain-A and after a couple of days nobody will continue to use that chain then he basically will lose 'money' (Fiat currency that he used to buy Chain-A~btc.).

This is one of the problem, maybe the important one because at the end it is only a question about money.

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

Well you are correct, however in this example (where chain A disapears)  you still have your coins on chain B, which is the one that matters.

The only risk is for people who try to sell their chain B coins for chain A coins , betting chain A will succeed , but it really fails.

Yes of course, it will be one of the risk.

[gustav]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

[chennan]

It is not wise to fork bitcoin, put new name Gavincoin. The two coins will be ruined together. some concepts are discussed for long time before being implemented,such as big block size, fast synchronization ect. The dev team will reach to consensus before releasing new version bitcoin qt.

[Q7]

I just thought we are overreacting to the situation. More like a fud trying to scare people away telling them that the community is undecided and with no direction. I think your coins holding are pretty much there whether it is on chain A or B or whatever you guys want to call it. It won't just disappear just like that.

[BillyBobZorton]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

[Slark]

Great. Just as I thought we don't have enough of perplexing bitcoin bitcoin news. The title of this thread is an exaggeration of course but still this news are not 100% optimistic.
I understand that bitcoin have to change, it must evolve and be updated, but to do this in that way is a little too much. It will create drama, people won't understand this and wtf is Gavincoin?
20 MB fork is inevitable but now I see that decentralization of bitcoin can be tinkered with as much as developers want it to be...

[redsn0w]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Another opinion:




What do you think if the blockSize will be random? Not even 1 MB not even 20 MB  .

[blockchain slavery]

I think both chains will become worthless within short time. Very likely "Bitcoin" (no matter which one) will loose #1 spot on the list of coins if Gavin gets his way.
I also think core will not die because it's not broken.
I'm going to keep exactly 1 Bitcoin in cold store and not moving after fork. I'll put 90% of my money into altcoins. 

[thejaytiesto]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Another opinion:




What do you think if the blockSize will be random? Not even 1 MB not even 20 MB  .

What was this test like? Did they test visa+mastercard+paypal+major banks transaction per second volume? because that is what Bitcoin should be aiming at. Anything less is shit.

[BTI4LIFE]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.
...

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

You are wrong because chain b is a fork of chain a and it therefore based on chain A. One problem with this that I can think of its if there is a half and half split in consensus, don't start on the old and others go to the new. If someone uses both clients, he could theoretically double his money if both chains are still used. And have value.

^increase possibility of double-spends? hmmmm

[gustav]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Nope, i don't agree on that.

Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than bigger blocks. While 'Bitcoin' may not scale 'cryptocurrency' definately does. Need more txs? Just use merge mined altcoins for smaller txs. I personally don't see a need to raise blocksize at all ever simple because we will never run out of space for cryptocurrency txs. Even with 1MB blocks in btc.  
Cryptocrrency could go mainstream today on Bitcoin Core, there wouldn't be any scalability issues imo.
This whole problem is imaginary in my humble opinion.

[redsn0w]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Nope, i don't agree on that.

Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than bigger blocks. While 'Bitcoin' may not scale 'cryptocurrency' definately does. Need more txs? Just use merge mined altcoins for smaller txs. I personally don't see a need to raise blocksize at all ever simple because we will never run out of space for cryptocurrency txs. Even with 1MB blocks in btc.  
Cryptocrrency could go mainstream today on Bitcoin Core, there wouldn't be any scalability issues imo.
This whole problem is imaginary.

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

[gustav]

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners.

And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways.

[Netnox]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

[gustav]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ.
AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins.

I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast. There will only be casualties and no winner in that war imo.

[redsn0w]

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners.

And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways.

I do not know, but this obsession to see bitcoin mainstream is really no-sense.

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

The name will be same bitcoin, and who knows... if the gavin's change will succeed than the price will be the same.

[Netnox]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ.
AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins.

I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast.

You might have a point, whats to stop an exchange to offer Gavincoin or Chain B coin or whatever against Bitcoin, this will be interesting. I want to know if the price will tank after the fork or not, i might sell some for fiat/alts.

[redsn0w]

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners.

And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways.

Actually it can happen very fast, once a catalyst happens things can go rapidly, especially with technology. That catalyst might be Nasdaq trading Bitcoin and from there Bitcoin might be fuelled and promoted by governments.

Why a not-controlled technology/coin should be promoted by the governments? They will try to regulate something, but this time I think they will not succeed.

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ.
AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins.

I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast.

You might have a point, whats to stop an exchange to offer Gavincoin or Chain B coin or whatever against Bitcoin, this will be interesting. I want to know if the price will tank after the fork or not, i might sell some for fiat/alts.

Nobody knows if the price will be affected or not, but most probably no.

[achow101]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ.
AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins.

I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast. There will only be casualties and no winner in that war imo.

Of course, if the core devs can agree on this and Gavin doesn't fork Bitcoin by himself, the new version will probably have enough people on it for that fork to be considered Bitcoin, and the old chain might just die off. I don't think that Gavin will actually fork this by himself anytime soon, but will continue discussion with the dev mailing list and the other core devs.

Personally, I think that we shouldn't jump immediately to 20 Mb blocks, but work our way up there incrementally. I feel that that jump would invite people to spam, and some people's bandwidth is not enough to keep up with the large sizes.

[Amph]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

the miners will decide, they can't secure both without compromising one, there can't be two legitimate bitcoin, and surely the hash won't double over night

[redsn0w]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

the miners will decide, they can't secure both without compromising one, there can't be two legitimate bitcoin, and surely the hash won't double over night

And if the people will not exchange those coin, what will the miner do? Nothing because they will not be able to dump those coins.

It appears to me the last word on it would have the open market. Miners will mine what has the better price. If that is Bitcoin 1 or 2 or neither is to be seen.

I am not secure of this thing, if the new 'coin' will not have the same consensus of now it will be an high risk mine it.

[Netnox]

I think the majority will convert to chain B, because it can handle more transactions. I'm wondering if chain A starts to fade how low its price will go in case there would be a trading pair between the 2 chains.

[Lauda]

Maybe I have used the wrong words, but I was partial correct with my logic... because if someone will buy bitcoin from the chain-A and after a couple of days nobody will continue to use that chain then he basically will lose 'money' (Fiat currency that he used to buy Chain-A~btc.).

You've definitely stated something else. The problem is there however only for people who buy in on a specific chain after the fork.

Nope, i don't agree on that.

Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than bigger blocks. While 'Bitcoin' may not scale 'cryptocurrency' definately does. Need more txs? Just use merge mined altcoins for smaller txs. I personally don't see a need to raise blocksize at all ever simple because we will never run out of space for cryptocurrency txs. Even with 1MB blocks in btc. 
Cryptocrrency could go mainstream today on Bitcoin Core, there wouldn't be any scalability issues imo.
This whole problem is imaginary in my humble opinion.

Your humble opinion is wrong and is in no way associated with any technical background. You should definitely read the thread that D&T made a few months back. The network should have a theoretical 7 tps (transactions per seconds), in reality it is closer to 2-3.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
The average block size hit 0.5MB recently. Even though this number has great variations, the chart shows that we're slowly progressing there.

Pierre Rochard isn't right. I'm almost certain of it. Bitcoin is supposed to be used for pseudo-anonymous, quick and cheap money transfer.
I do not want to include a 2$ fee for a 1$ transaction, once the blocks are filled.

[MicroGuy]

I think the majority will convert to chain B, because it can handle more transactions. I'm wondering if chain A starts to fade how low its price will go in case there would be a trading pair between the 2 chains.

The person who controls Satoshi's alert key has a lot of pull. Let's just all agree that Gavin is the leader and be done with this nonsense.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners.

And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways.

I do not know, but this obsession to see bitcoin mainstream is really no-sense.

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

The name will be same bitcoin, and who knows... if the gavin's change will succeed than the price will be the same.

Chain A and Chain B wouldn't be the same price.

If Bitcoin is at 230 dollars when it split, there would then be double the bitcoin coins and theoretically with the supply increasing by 2 times, the price between the 2 should half at that moment.

Also people will price the one they have more faith in for more money than the chain they have less faith in. People would probably try to dump their old coins for cash asap.... or hold (since holding from before a fork will give you the same coins on both chains). I would suggest holding and not buying or selling. But obviously at some point someone will have to choose which chain they want to follow and buy, sell or trade accordingly.

Of course people not knowing which chain to choose, could cause confusion, and fear, and could crash the price of both to nothing.

[hund]

And if the people will not exchange those coin, what will the miner do?

There will be some exchange somewhere. A single exchange doing it is enough to rain hell on everyone.

I think the majority will convert to chain B, because it can handle more transactions. I'm wondering if chain A starts to fade how low its price will go in case there would be a trading pair between the 2 chains.

I think most people will stick to the core version because they don't need to update, have the version without Gavin who is not very popular anymore, the core is more decentral, uses less bandwidth, runs more stable, uses less system recources and so on.
I don't think Gavincoin will be able to compete with core in the market.

I think it's best when Gavin just leaves for his altcoin project and takes his following with him. The trouble starts when he tries to act as if it was Bitcoin.

[Netnox]

Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.

[redsn0w]

Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.

No, everyone is free to choose which client use - chain follow... it will not be 'fair' to follow satoshi's opinion.

[hund]

Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.

Staoshi may be dead?

[Netnox]

Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.

No, everyone is free to choose which client use - chain follow... it will not be 'fair' to follow satoshi's opinion.

This will only divide the community in half and it will be bad for the price aswell, people from both chains will fud each other lol, popcorn worthy for sure.

[NorrisK]

Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.

No need, this will probably be sorted out sooner rather than later and then we can all go back to crying about price.

[muhrohmat]

well price of btc will be afected a bit it divides into 2 coins and a bit for worst but i guess thas not to happen thers lots of speculation even in btc security blockchain and only 30% of it was potencialy hacked i belive in security of price even to go to 300$ by piece guess im an optimist

[jaberwock]

Prices are moving now, because of the FUD caused by the recent Galvin's statement:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075088.0

And downwards of course.


Still not enough to drive it into sub 230, though

[dKingston]

i don't see how exactly this fork 'destroys' bitcoin ...seems like a big overreaction

[BTI4LIFE]

Bitcoin-XT is simply a different (better?) coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!

:-)

====> no worries!!!

[hund]

Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!

:-)

====> no worries!!!

hehe ... double amount of BTC... errr not really. It's bitcoin and Gavincoin which did not make a real pricediscovery. In best case Bitcoin core doesn't loose too much marketcap while Gavincoin should crash rapidly.
In worst case both coins crash rapidly.

[achow101]

Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!

:-)

====> no worries!!!

Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.

[Bitware]

http://bitcoinobituaries.com/

[BTI4LIFE]

Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!

:-)

====> no worries!!!

Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.

yes it will and whos to say he can't still keep the old one alive! He can dev both versions ! Lol!! ;-) ~ez!

[hund]

Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!

:-)

====> no worries!!!

Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.

yes it will and whos to say he can't still keep the old one alive! He can dev both versions ! Lol!! ;-) ~ez!

The real question is if the gavincoin fanboys can brainwash people into selling their bitcoin and support the 20MB altcoin instead or if people just don't care and continue business as usual exchanges included.

I think the best for everyone would be to entirely ignore Gavin and his followers.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!

:-)

====> no worries!!!

Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both.

yes it will and whos to say he can't still keep the old one alive! He can dev both versions ! Lol!! ;-) ~ez!

The real question is if the gavincoin fanboys can brainwash people into selling their bitcoin and support the 20MB altcoin instead or if people just don't care and continue business as usual exchanges included.

I think the best for everyone would be to entirely ignore Gavin and his followers.

ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?

[Benjig]

Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.

Staoshi may be dead?

Prices going down, are you happy now?

Bitcoin updates and fear embraces us all damn this is funny; like Thor said you Humans are so Petty and Tiny.

[achow101]

ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?

Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately.

[hund]

ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?

Merged mined altcoins and sidechains as has been suggested by quite a few people.
That solution comes at no cost and only benefits and does not endanger the stability of the ecosystem or require a hardork of BTC. Mindboggling how this isn't discussed more.
It's a quick and easy fix with no big risks or disadvantages.

[johnyj]

Everyone, hurry up and buy the last coin before the fork happens, after the fork you have 50% chance end up buying the wrong coin

[EndTheFed321]

sorry to tell everyone but you all should Sell, Sell, sell all your coins now! 

[Amph]

ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?

Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately.

it is done in this way to prevent the need of a future change and repeating the current situation many times, we can't hard fork every year because we didn't do the right change at the first time, this should be avoided

[RustyNomad]

So this will happen whether the other core developers agree or not, so much for reaching a consensus.

Clearly in this context consensus means 'My way or the highway......'

[EndTheFed321]

Indeed, all hail to the king of  BTCBitcoinBTC

[jonald_fyookball]

ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?

Merged mined altcoins and sidechains as has been suggested by quite a few people.
That solution comes at no cost and only benefits and does not endanger the stability of the ecosystem or require a hardork of BTC. Mindboggling how this isn't discussed more.
It's a quick and easy fix with no big risks or disadvantages.

uh...no... sidechains is not a quick and easy fix because if it was, developers would have did it already.  thats the whole point.   

merge mined altcoins? no thanks.

[Quantus]

*rubs magic ball*

Its the day after the fork. Gavincoin was hit hard last night; it hit 100USD within an hour,
continued to fall all night long before showing signs of a floor at 30 USD. Bitcoin also took
a huge hit but was halted at 75 USD. Tiger Direct and new-egg have halted sales.
Ddos attacks continue to grow on both chains. Wait... I see Gavin on CNN... he says he'll
go on hunger strike.

[JeromeL]

There are quite many and clever options to address Bitcoin's scalabilty issue that would not compromise decentralization and weaken Bitcoin as much as Gavin's 20MB proposal.

But Gavin decided a solution had to be agreed upon NOW.

A fact that many people seem unaware of is that Gavin has no authority to make this decision.

Gavin is a core dev. Like Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Jeff Garzik, and Wladimir van der Laan... Not more, not less. He is not lead dev in anyway and he is not the only one to have access to the alert key.

However he has more media exposition than the other core devs probably because he used to be the Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist. A title that never really meant anything. But that doesn't give him any authority over the other core devs.

Still, many people, here and on forums call him "lead developer" and surprisingly he has never contradicted this inaccuracy.

[jonald_fyookball]

There are quite many and clever options to address Bitcoin's scalabilty issue that would not compromise decentralization and weaken Bitcoin as much as Gavin's 20MB proposal.

But Gavin decided a solution had to be agreed upon NOW.

A fact that many people seem unaware of is that Gavin has no authority to make this decision.

Gavin is a core dev. Like Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Jeff Garzik, and Wladimir van der Laan... Not more, not less. He is not lead dev in anyway and he is not the only one to have access to the alert key.

However he has more media exposition than the other core devs probably because he used to be the Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist. A title that never really meant anything. But that doesn't give him any authority over the other core devs.

Still, many people, here and on forums call him "lead developer" and surprisingly he has never contradicted this inaccuracy.

I think Gavin may be right to press the issue now.
We don't want to wait until transactions start getting
delayed -- we want to solve this issue now before
it becomes a real problem. 

We know that block sizes are increasing and I don't
think we have that much time.

[hund]

I think Gavin may be right to press the issue now.
We don't want to wait until transactions start getting
delayed -- we want to solve this issue now before
it becomes a real problem.  

We know that block sizes are increasing and I don't
think we have that much time.

I've been working in politics and a certain way to prevent any consensus within a group is to put time pressure on an agreement over a thing that's controvers but should reach a consensual decision.
And no, there is no urgency to this.

What i see is the Gavin fanboys have been throughout playing foul with ad hominem, false urgency, pretending there would be no alternatives, strawman arguments and such. The pro-Gavin boys are heavily manipulating the conversation with their rethoric tricks. Pointing to urgency is another of those.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Just having a quick read through all of this thread & I don't think we've got anything to worry about.
This Gavincoin sounds like a load of shit.
He's probably just trying to create panic to put pressure on people to agree with him & enable us to increase the blocks size.
Basically he's pissing on his territory.

One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?
Thanks in advance.

[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

[BayAreaCoins]

Just having a quick read through all of this thread & I don't think we've got anything to worry about.
This Gavincoin sounds like a load of shit.
He's probably just trying to create panic to put pressure on people to agree with him & enable us to increase the blocks size.
Basically he's pissing on his territory.

One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?
Thanks in advance.

I believe you'd actually get double the coins.

So basically if folks just stfu and let Gavin do his thing you'll have your coins on the 1mb and on the 20mb.

You save the 1mb coins and dump the free 20mb coins.

Gavin has been making his round for months lobbying the main services who have a iron grip on the market.  The coins that can be used at Coinscam (coinbase) and other services like that will be "White Bitcoins" and the side of the coin is "Black Bitcoin".  #Bitcoin-assests and a number of other folks will use the Black Bitcoins.  It will take more P2P to use Black BTC and White BTC you'll need to suck the governments dick.

As far as "safety hodling"... if you have profitable coins at this point and really care about the fiat value of your coins I'd probably take the fiat.  There's no way even Greece banks are more fucked than this.

People need to understand that Bitcoin is an altcoin and these Developers are all altcoin developers.  Period.

Don't trust Gavin, don't trust Satoshi and don't trust anyone... Think on your own, ask questions and contribute.

*tips hat*
(feel free to straighten me out where I fucked up)

[BTI4LIFE]

Just having a quick read through all of this thread & I don't think we've got anything to worry about.
This Gavincoin sounds like a load of shit.
He's probably just trying to create panic to put pressure on people to agree with him & enable us to increase the blocks size.
Basically he's pissing on his territory.

One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?
Thanks in advance.

I believe you'd actually get double the coins.

So basically if folks just stfu and let Gavin do his thing you'll have your coins on the 1mb and on the 20mb.

You save the 1mb coins and dump the free 20mb coins.

Gavin has been making his round for months lobbying the main services who have a iron grip on the market.  The coins that can be used at Coinscam (coinbase) and other services like that will be "White Bitcoins" and the side of the coin is "Black Bitcoin".  #Bitcoin-assests and a number of other folks will use the Black Bitcoins.  It will take more P2P to use Black BTC and White BTC you'll need to suck the governments dick.

As far as "safety hodling"... if you have profitable coins at this point and really care about the fiat value of your coins I'd probably take the fiat.  There's no way even Greece banks are more fucked than this.

People need to understand that Bitcoin is an altcoin and these Developers are all altcoin developers.  Period.

Don't trust Gavin, don't trust Satoshi and don't trust anyone... Think on your own, ask questions and contribute.

*tips hat*
(feel free to straighten me out where I fucked up)

tl;dr
>> exactly they only need the bigger blockchain to implement black and white coin scheme as request of regulators ~good call ! :-) lol1337

[dasource]

The funny thing is watch all these "against the 20MB blocks" still be here once the transition happens ...

[Dabs]

That's bad. It's a disaster for the development of bitcoin. It's a bad things to give a single person too much power to effect the development of bitcoin .

Satoshi? Of course, he's no longer an active dev.

One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?

If your coins are older than 1 day by the time the fork happens, you're pretty safe. And don't move them until the dust settles unless you are willing to gamble.

For most other normal people, if you see your transaction have at least 1 confirmation (included in 1 block) you might be safe.

[BTI4LIFE]

The funny thing is watch all these "against the 20MB blocks" still be here once the transition happens ...

^what part of "Gavins'-altcoin" are you confused about?

*there will be two versions of bitcoin at this rate!!!

;-)

////rotflmfao !!! h 00 t!<-----

[Bit_Happy]

According to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pv74/gavin_andresen_moves_ahead_with_push_for_bigger/
the Bitcoin community shall be forced at gunpoint out of Bitcoin into Gavincoin.
There will be Gavincoin/Bitcoin pairs at the exchanges and there will be a split not only in the community and developement team but in mining and blockchains aswell.
When the Gavincoin fork takes effect there will be a Bitcoin blockchain (old) and a Gavincoin blockchain (20MB fuckery). Both will at least for some time coexist and people will trade these coins against each other.

What will be the longterm effects on investors sentiment from this?
What will be the effects on sudddenly double the number of Bitcoins existing?
Will the price go in half? What are possible scenarios how this could play out?

How are you personally planning on reacting to this?

I know i buy fiat and altcoins to sit it out. Like to hear your opinion. Will you be blackmailed into using Gavincoin or will you continue to use Bitcoin core?
Or will you exit entirely or buy altcoins instead?

Love to hear some opinions especially from those who aren't supporting this whole Gavincoin fork madness.

"Gavincoin" is created in the minds of trolls.
What will be the effects on sudddenly double the number of Bitcoins existing?
Fools will be scared, rational people know that Bitcoin will be fine.

Will the price go in half?
If you try harder, we might go to zero!   

[kripto para]

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

[hund]

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

Ain't nobody got time for that! 

[R2D221]

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

As far as I understand, that has already happened.

[kripto para]

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

As far as I understand, that has already happened.

What's the problem then?
Why is he being a d*ck?

[R2D221]

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

As far as I understand, that has already happened.

What's the problem then?
Why is he being a d*ck?

Basically because everybody else is being a dick too.

[repentance]

ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?

Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately.

You really want to repeat this drama countless times between now and when the last BTC is mined?  Because there's nothing Bitcoiners love more than hysteria and every single time an increase is suggested the whole "sky is falling" thing is going to happen again.  In fact, it's probably going to be worse in the future because there will be more people involved in Bitcoin so the number of people hand-wringing over each change will increase over time.

If Bitcoin can't survive things like this then it's not going to be around long term anyway.

[hund]

Why does it need to hardfork when it is not broken?

[R2D221]

Why does it need to hardfork when it is not broken?

But it is broken.

[Bit_Happy]

Why does it need to hardfork when it is not broken?

But it is broken.

What would Satoshi do?
I haven't seen that discussed yet?

[R2D221]

Why does it need to hardfork when it is not broken?

But it is broken.

What would Satoshi do?
I haven't seen that discussed yet?

I like this quote, because it illustrates Satoshi's point of view regarding bandwidth:

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. 
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

[la contessa]

You are wrong because chain b is a fork of chain a and it therefore based on chain A. One problem with this that I can think of its if there is a half and half split in consensus, don't start on the old and others go to the new. If someone uses both clients, he could theoretically double his money if both chains are still used. And have value.

It sounds to me like it would potentially be like a stock split -- beneficial to the people currently holding coins, plus stimulating to the market. (Remember too that the market cap hasn't changed, and a lot of people have invested big in Bitcoin, so they are unlikely to take their own assets down)

[hund]

Why does it need to hardfork when it is not broken?

But it is broken.

you are broken

[dooglus]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

If Gavin launches his altcoin forked from Bitcoin, everyone who currently has Bitcoin will have the same number of Gavincoin. When his altcoin fades into obscurity, the original Bitcoins will still exist. Shortly after launch you may be able to sell your Gavincoins in exchange for extra real Bitcoins (or vice versa, if you think the altcoin will 'win') before the price drops significantly. But that's a gamble. It's safest just to hold both until you see which is going to 'win'.

[Eastwind]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

If Gavin launches his altcoin forked from Bitcoin, everyone who currently has Bitcoin will have the same number of Gavincoin. When his altcoin fades into obscurity, the original Bitcoins will still exist. Shortly after launch you may be able to sell your Gavincoins in exchange for extra real Bitcoins (or vice versa, if you think the altcoin will 'win') before the price drops significantly. But that's a gamble. It's safest just to hold both until you see which is going to 'win'.

Does it mean I can double spend?.  I will sell my Gavincoin (old bitcoin) in the GAvincoin chain and my old bitcoin is still in the bitcoin chain.  So I can spend that old bitcoin again?

[tokeweed]

Remember guys...  Safehaven coin = LTC.  See you there when the madness really starts.

[Eastwind]

Remember guys...  Safehaven coin = LTC.  See you there when the madness really starts.

LTC will just follow BTC.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Everyone, hurry up and buy the last coin before the fork happens, after the fork you have 50% chance end up buying the wrong coin

or you doubled your money with 2 coins  


@Eastwind

yes, Litecoin will follow 

[BayAreaCoins]

Everyone, hurry up and buy the last coin before the fork happens, after the fork you have 50% chance end up buying the wrong coin

or you doubled your money with 2 coins  

or not.  

CLAM is a better option in my opinion and you get them for free from your empty LTC addresses.

[not altcoin hitler]

Remember guys...  Safehaven coin = LTC.  See you there when the madness really starts.

LTC will just follow BTC.

Can you show the law that states this?

Not this time, mate.
Bitcoin crashes and does not recover while Litecoin flashcrashes with it and then goes to the fuckin' moon!

I'm already in it big time with additional fiat and btc on the sidelines for the flashcrash. I'm so ready for this!!!

PUMP LITECOIN ALREADY! WE DON'T WANT TO STAND THERE WITH PANTS DOWN WHEN BITCOIN DIES OFF! WE NEED LITECOIN ON ONE BILLION NOW FOR THE SAKE OF CRYPTOCURRENCY!!! THE SUCCESS OF CRYPTO CAN NOT DEPEND ON BITCOIN OR GAVIN ALONE!!! LITECOIN NOW!!!

[LiteCoinGuy]

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

we dont want that here Elwar   !


(just kidding - thx)

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

[Eastwind]

LTC will just follow BTC.

Can you show the law that states this?

Not this time, mate.
Bitcoin crashes and does not recover while Litecoin flashcrashes with it and then goes to the fuckin' moon!

I'm already in it big time with additional fiat and btc on the sidelines for the flashcrash. I'm so ready for this!!!

PUMP LITECOIN ALREADY! WE DON'T WANT TO STAND THERE WITH PANTS DOWN WHEN BITCOIN DIES OFF! WE NEED LITECOIN ON ONE BILLION NOW FOR THE SAKE OF CRYPTOCURRENCY!!! THE SUCCESS OF CRYPTO CAN NOT DEPEND ON BITCOIN OR GAVIN ALONE!!! LITECOIN NOW!!!

I do not mean the price. The price of LTC dropped more than BTC over the last year.

I mean LTC follows BTC in the development of the coin.

[Amph]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

If Gavin launches his altcoin forked from Bitcoin, everyone who currently has Bitcoin will have the same number of Gavincoin. When his altcoin fades into obscurity, the original Bitcoins will still exist. Shortly after launch you may be able to sell your Gavincoins in exchange for extra real Bitcoins (or vice versa, if you think the altcoin will 'win') before the price drops significantly. But that's a gamble. It's safest just to hold both until you see which is going to 'win'.

Does it mean I can double spend?.  I will sell my Gavincoin (old bitcoin) in the GAvincoin chain and my old bitcoin is still in the bitcoin chain.  So I can spend that old bitcoin again?

it seems so, so you can just fire up the XT client and having there your old coins with a simple wallet copy-paste(as well as having them in your old core client too), if this is the case, bitcoin it starting to look like a scam now...

[bryant.coleman]

Remember guys...  Safehaven coin = LTC.  See you there when the madness really starts.

LTC will just follow BTC.

That's true. The exchange rate of LTC depends upon the same of BTC. When BTC rises, LTC also rises, but more steeply. Similarly, when BTC drops, LTC also drops, but more steeply when compared to the Bitcoin (due to the lower market cap). This is applicable not just to the Litecoin, but to all the other shitcoins (such as Quark, Doge, Terracoin.etc) as well.

In short, there will be no other crypto without the original (BTC).

[Cruxer]

"So the destruction of Bitcoin is now official?"

No, but a shitty childish clickbait thread title is.

Agree, clickbait fud topic. Bitcoin will adjust, block size need to increase.

[redsn0w]

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

Yes you can test bitcoinXT just now : https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin  and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

If Gavin launches his altcoin forked from Bitcoin, everyone who currently has Bitcoin will have the same number of Gavincoin. When his altcoin fades into obscurity, the original Bitcoins will still exist. Shortly after launch you may be able to sell your Gavincoins in exchange for extra real Bitcoins (or vice versa, if you think the altcoin will 'win') before the price drops significantly. But that's a gamble. It's safest just to hold both until you see which is going to 'win'.

Does it mean I can double spend?.  I will sell my Gavincoin (old bitcoin) in the GAvincoin chain and my old bitcoin is still in the bitcoin chain.  So I can spend that old bitcoin again?

Yes you can simply (as concept) double spend your coin from both the chains (chain-A_core and chain-B_XT) but you should also find someone who will buy your Chain-B_XT's coins.

Example:

This is my address: 1GkGt3218AM8FU7ZGDCeZS4LWZR8xeZcjf

during the fork I will have the same amount on the two chains, and if I will be lucky I can spend two times the same sum.

[hund]

I do not mean the price. The price of LTC dropped more than BTC over the last year.

I mean LTC follows BTC in the development of the coin.

Does this mean when Bitcoin will selfdestruct Litecoin will also blow itself up without a second thought?

[ancientOne1]

When will this fork occur exactly?

[hund]

When will this fork occur exactly?

Not before march 2016.
So it'll be no demand for BTC. Could well die off before the fork due to no demand and people just plain dumping the living daylight out of it for the next 9 months.

Sell, sell, sell
Buy alts and US-Dollar, Euro, Yen whatever but quit Bitcoin and do not support anything Gavin Andresen is involved in ever again!

[thejaytiesto]

Remember guys...  Safehaven coin = LTC.  See you there when the madness really starts.

LTC will just follow BTC.

Can you show the law that states this?

Not this time, mate.
Bitcoin crashes and does not recover while Litecoin flashcrashes with it and then goes to the fuckin' moon!

I'm already in it big time with additional fiat and btc on the sidelines for the flashcrash. I'm so ready for this!!!

PUMP LITECOIN ALREADY! WE DON'T WANT TO STAND THERE WITH PANTS DOWN WHEN BITCOIN DIES OFF! WE NEED LITECOIN ON ONE BILLION NOW FOR THE SAKE OF CRYPTOCURRENCY!!! THE SUCCESS OF CRYPTO CAN NOT DEPEND ON BITCOIN OR GAVIN ALONE!!! LITECOIN NOW!!!

Lol, it's okay Mr LTC bagholder. Yes, LTC will meet the same fate as BTC eventually, they both have a blocksize limit, even if it will take more time for LTC to achieve that fate, it's a guaranteed one. The advantage BTC has is it will solve it better than the rest of the coins.
And for the ones against the 20MB fork: what is your fucking solution you geniuses? should we just wait and see what happens once we reach the limit?

[BTI4LIFE]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

If Gavin launches his altcoin forked from Bitcoin, everyone who currently has Bitcoin will have the same number of Gavincoin. When his altcoin fades into obscurity, the original Bitcoins will still exist. Shortly after launch you may be able to sell your Gavincoins in exchange for extra real Bitcoins (or vice versa, if you think the altcoin will 'win') before the price drops significantly. But that's a gamble. It's safest just to hold both until you see which is going to 'win'.

Does it mean I can double spend?.  I will sell my Gavincoin (old bitcoin) in the GAvincoin chain and my old bitcoin is still in the bitcoin chain.  So I can spend that old bitcoin again?

it seems so, so you can just fire up the XT client and having there your old coins with a simple wallet copy-paste(as well as having them in your old core client too), if this is the case, bitcoin it starting to look like a scam now...

you are not understanding PRICE does not matter to these cats~only enhanced functionality ! ;-) easy

[kelsey]

in the current scenario litecoin is a safe haven if the sky does fall for bitcoin over this fork.

[manselr]

in the current scenario litecoin is a safe haven if the sky does fall for bitcoin over this fork.

Why? In any case Litecoin is a pretty abandoned coin (look at its reddit activity) that may or not may get a huge pump and dump in the coming months only because it is the original altcoin so to speak.

[not altcoin hitler]

in the current scenario litecoin is a safe haven if the sky does fall for bitcoin over this fork.

Why? In any case Litecoin is a pretty abandoned coin (look at its reddit activity) that may or not may get a huge pump and dump in the coming months only because it is the original altcoin so to speak.

Bitcoin will be with high likelyness worthless 12 months from now. Pumping LTC to a decent cap makes sense because we need a coin to trade other coins against and too many people are repulsed and disgusted by Gavin and Bitcoin in general aswell as parts of this community. So a LTC pump makes a hell lot of sense from my point of view so the retards can make their circus and we don't need to care.

[Amph]

in the current scenario litecoin is a safe haven if the sky does fall for bitcoin over this fork.

Why? In any case Litecoin is a pretty abandoned coin (look at its reddit activity) that may or not may get a huge pump and dump in the coming months only because it is the original altcoin so to speak.

Bitcoin will be with high likelyness worthless 12 months from now. Pumping LTC to a decent cap makes sense because we need a coin to trade other coins against and too many people are repulsed and disgusted by Gavin and Bitcoin in general aswell as parts of this community. So a LTC pump makes a hell lot of sense from my point of view so the retards can make their circus and we don't need to care.

no it doesn't make sense, ltc is suffering the same problem of the TX limit, it doesn't affect it only because litecoin is ignored by everyone, no own care anymore about others coin, litecoin traffic is not on par on bitcoin, so 1MB maybe looks fine there, with 4 cats playing around

[crazyivan]

Pls, spread more FUD.

This is exactly what we need.

[newcripto]

Bitcoin is and will remain always the most innovated currency for last 100 years.Ups and downs in price never decide the fate of any thing.Bitcoin is just on right way and will have more and more adoption day by day.There are always changes to make the every tech more and more better to use in better way.

[muhrohmat]

yes new crypto i do agree with many people like you that say ttha btc its never dommed can be threaten but will survive and go to a good currency matter in price of dollars and euro theres like more 1% people using every day and with the possibiility of rise more and more people sites markets and communities will use it

[fat buddah]

[thedictator]

Bitcoins are not only for intelligent, wealthy people.

[QuestionAuthority]

Bitcoins are not only for intelligent, wealthy people.

FTFY

[bornil267645]

Bitcoin will remain intact no matter what some user try to say or do. If it was to falter, it would have already but it didn't. But if the bitcoin community starts to react like this, we will get chocked by our own smoke.

[ragi]

Bitcoin will remain intact no matter what some user try to say or do. If it was to falter, it would have already but it didn't. But if the bitcoin community starts to react like this, we will get chocked by our own smoke.

It will, because people are using it. Now even more. If something was wrong, that would've changed by now.

[not altcoin hitler]

Bitcoin will remain intact no matter what some user try to say or do. If it was to falter, it would have already but it didn't. But if the bitcoin community starts to react like this, we will get chocked by our own smoke.

It will, because people are using it. Now even more. If something was wrong, that would've changed by now.

Don't say that. People know Mc Donalds will kill them but still are going. Don't say people would be rational.

[desired_username]

I missed the constant FUD and drama.

[Searing]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

not sure exactly what you mean by point 3 above ....explain (use small words.this whole topic makes my head hurt)

as to all this drama going 'public'

I mean sure you have disagreements but to air them in public ..you could not reach at least the consensus among the bitcoin devs for a statement like this before it all went public?

"at the present time we are considering moving to bigger block size and are using bitcoin-xt as a platform to look at this as a way to achieve consensus when it is
decided if it is in the best interests of bitcoin at the time (or not) to implement such*


I mean jeez.....I more concerned about the antics then I am they want to make the blocks bigger

but to the previous point ..still don't get what you mean by point 3 above

thanks

[Error404]

Bitcoin is never be gone many people are hoping that bitcoin is the answer to their problem for school daily needs and for family that they need us bitcoin helps to gain money using their brain and thats a good impluence for many people who did not studying

[jonald_fyookball]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

not sure exactly what you mean by point 3 above ....explain (use small words.this whole topic makes my head hurt)

as to all this drama going 'public'

I mean sure you have disagreements but to air them in public ..you could not reach at least the consensus among the bitcoin devs for a statement like this before it all went public?

"at the present time we are considering moving to bigger block size and are using bitcoin-xt as a platform to look at this as a way to achieve consensus when it is
decided if it is in the best interests of bitcoin at the time (or not) to implement such*


I mean jeez.....I more concerned about the antics then I am they want to make the blocks bigger

but to the previous point ..still don't get what you mean by point 3 above

thanks

Been discussed many times..but basically, if the network forks...it means there's 2 different blockchains
that diverged from a previous state...since you had the coins in your wallet in the previous state,
you'll have the same coins on both forks of the chain...just wait till the dust settles and see which
chain becomes popular/de facto.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

not sure exactly what you mean by point 3 above ....explain (use small words.this whole topic makes my head hurt)

as to all this drama going 'public'

I mean sure you have disagreements but to air them in public ..you could not reach at least the consensus among the bitcoin devs for a statement like this before it all went public?

"at the present time we are considering moving to bigger block size and are using bitcoin-xt as a platform to look at this as a way to achieve consensus when it is
decided if it is in the best interests of bitcoin at the time (or not) to implement such*


I mean jeez.....I more concerned about the antics then I am they want to make the blocks bigger

but to the previous point ..still don't get what you mean by point 3 above

thanks

I tried to explain why people are saying their Bitcoins will double in this picture, maybe it will help someone understand it better:

[DooMAD]

This is getting tiresome now.  Either people are trying to troll or just very slow to understand.

the Bitcoin community shall be forced at gunpoint out of Bitcoin into Gavincoin. 

Yes, we're literally putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use an alternative client.      
Grow up and stop being a drama queen.  You're being given a choice.  You choose which version you're going to support.  I honestly can't tell how someone is finding a way to whine about being given a choice that makes it sound like you aren't being given a choice.  Several users are going on my ignore list after the fork happens and you're likely to be one of them.  I'd do it now but I need to see your idiotic posts in order to call you out on your BS.

That's bad. It's a disaster for the development of bitcoin. It's a bad things to give a single person too much power to effect the development of bitcoin .

I don't know how you could have it more backwards.  If Gavin was forcing his choice into Bitcoin core when the other devs are opposed, then that would be a sign of one person having too much power.  That's why Gavin is adding the code to another client and allowing the community to choose which one they prefer.  People were moaning when Gavin wanted to introduce the change in core and now they're moaning that he isn't.  You can't have it both ways.

So this will happen whether the other core developers agree or not, so much for reaching a consensus.
Clearly in this context consensus means 'My way or the highway......'

Anyone can release a client that supports a larger blocksize.  That's how open source software works.  If I knew how to code and wanted to introduce a change, there's absolutely nothing stopping me from publishing a modified client, but it doesn't mean everyone has to use it.  Consensus is reached when people mining and running full nodes choose to use that client or not.  Stop digging for drama where there isn't any.

[pitaluga]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

just forget it

[not altcoin hitler]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

just forget it

Glad not everyone is braindead. Thanks Huobi and BtcChina for saving Bitcoin  

It's hilarious that Exchange owners need to tell Gavin that stability is important. Gavin is a total amateur in every way. How much longer do we need to stand his numbness?
What does it take to demote him? Who decides that? Where to petition? Just ignore him and not use any of his bitcoin clients or what?

Please guys, hide him somewhere so the public doesn't need to see him much longer. He's an embarassement for bitcoin.

[BayAreaCoins]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

just forget it

Glad not everyone is braindead. Thanks Huobi and BtcChina for saving Bitcoin  

It's hilarious that Exchange owners need to tell Gavin that stability is important. Gavin is a total amateur in every way. How much longer do we need to stand his numbness?
What does it take to demote him? Who decides that? Where to petition? Just ignore him and not use any of his bitcoin clients or what?

Please guys, hide him somewhere so the public doesn't need to see him much longer. He's an embarassement for bitcoin.

Ooooooo just leave Gavin be. 

I'm sure he's just trying to do what he thinks is best and so is everyone else.

[BillyBobZorton]

1. probably its just overblown drama.  Consensus will
be reached.

2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".

3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.

not sure exactly what you mean by point 3 above ....explain (use small words.this whole topic makes my head hurt)

as to all this drama going 'public'

I mean sure you have disagreements but to air them in public ..you could not reach at least the consensus among the bitcoin devs for a statement like this before it all went public?

"at the present time we are considering moving to bigger block size and are using bitcoin-xt as a platform to look at this as a way to achieve consensus when it is
decided if it is in the best interests of bitcoin at the time (or not) to implement such*


I mean jeez.....I more concerned about the antics then I am they want to make the blocks bigger

but to the previous point ..still don't get what you mean by point 3 above

thanks

I tried to explain why people are saying their Bitcoins will double in this picture, maybe it will help someone understand it better:

Hey, a million thanks for this. It explains pretty well why all this "OMG FORK JUMP!!!!" shit is absolutely a total FUDfest by someone with an agenda. This should be useful and posted everywhere when the FUDsters come.