Bitcoin core developer using fame to manipulate the community

[connectthebots]

So Gavin Anderson, a bitcoin core developer, recently alluded to switching over clients from Bitcoin core to Bitcoin XT, and this was all done because his idea of drastically changing the blocksize within 6 months to a year, from 1 MB to a enormous 20 MB was met with a , no no, by the other core developers.

Is this what Bitcoin has turned into, a centralized manipulative joke? One developer using his "fame" in the community to persuade others to give into his demands? Is this really happening right now? Am I fricking dreaming?

[1715161616]

1715161616

[1715161616]

1715161616

[anderson00673]

I really hope this doesnt happen.  It looks like a bluff, because why would he kill his own creation?  its just ridiculous.

[MicroGuy]

We need a central figure to take control of the Bitcoin ship and guide it between the icebergs.

It's fine if the other developers want to submit proposals, but Gavin should have the final say when it comes to core changes.

[connectthebots]

We need a central figure to take control of the Bitcoin ship and guide it between the icebergs.

It's fine if the other developers want to submit proposals, but Gavin should have the final say when it comes to core changes.

This is a so called(not really) "decentralized" cryptocurrency. There should be NO central figure. Satoshi would be ashamed of you all.

[GTO911]

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

[Amph]

We need a central figure to take control of the Bitcoin ship and guide it between the icebergs.

It's fine if the other developers want to submit proposals, but Gavin should have the final say when it comes to core changes.

This is a so called(not really) "decentralized" cryptocurrency. There should be NO central figure. Satoshi would be ashamed of you all.

but satoshi did create this whole thing, so it must be centralized then right? no, as long as it is open source you can't really call it centralized, but it's obvious that only competent people should change the code and not average joe from the street

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future

[connectthebots]

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

You have no idea what's going on. Bitcoin has a core team, Gavin Anderson is basically saying, "fuck you all, im taking control of the reigns now" to all the other members. That is Centralized. The reason there's even a core team, is so that no one member can take centralized control of Bitcoin development.

[redsn0w]

...

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future

This is the first time that I heard this thing, but maybe it was really difficult to create something and resolve the problem also if he predicted all these problem.

However I do not think he is using his fame to manipulate the community, if you do not want to follow his fork simple "don't follow it" & holding your coins (or sell them) and especially hope to be in the right chain at the end of the chaos.

[Amph]

...

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future

This is the first time that I heard this thing, but maybe it was really difficult to create something and resolve the problem also if he predicted all these problem.

However I do not think he is using his fame to manipulate the community, if you do not want to follow his fork simple "don't follow it" & holding your coins (or sell them) and especially hope to be in the right chain at the end of the chaos.

there wasn't any 1MB at first he added that limit to prevent possible ddos attack, so this is like knowing the problem of the transaction limit

[redsn0w]

...

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future

This is the first time that I heard this thing, but maybe it was really difficult to create something and resolve the problem also if he predicted all these problem.

However I do not think he is using his fame to manipulate the community, if you do not want to follow his fork simple "don't follow it" & holding your coins (or sell them) and especially hope to be in the right chain at the end of the chaos.

there wasn't any 1MB at first he added that limit to prevent possible ddos attack, so this is like knowing the problem of the transaction limit

I know in the beginning it did not exist a block size of 1 MB, it was added later to prevent spam but now it is not more necessary if bitcoin wants to compete with the other system of payment like visa, mastercard etc... but it will be really a no-sense battle (they should find a good compromise for a good stability).

[Eastfist]

I hate to say it, but Gavin's not necessarily manipulating the community UNLESS the community was already prone to his confidence tricks. Thems the facts.

[achow101]

If he is doing this over the course of several months to a year, then I think that is plenty of time for the core devs to reach a compromise and a resolution to this issue. It also is enough time to test the system for a few months to make sure that nothing breaks with the increase so that a stable version can be released.

[GTO911]

Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized

You have no idea what's going on. Bitcoin has a core team, Gavin Anderson is basically saying, "fuck you all, im taking control of the reigns now" to all the other members. That is Centralized. The reason there's even a core team, is so that no one member can take centralized control of Bitcoin development.

You seem to be new here as Gavin has been voicing concerns for a long time. Other devs are yeah im not sure so we do nothing types. A strong leader is needed to take actions

[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