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.

[1713541513]

1713541513

[1713541513]

1713541513

[1713541513]

1713541513

[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.