Gavin announcement explanation please.

[rjclarke2000]

Hi guys,

My skills go as far as downloading a wallet and moving coins about.

With this in mind.....

Can someone explain what Gavin is planning to do and how definite it all is?

Side chains etc? Double coins? Wtf?


Thanks in advance.

[1714713690]

1714713690

[1714713690]

1714713690

[1714713690]

1714713690

[1714713690]

1714713690

[1714713690]

1714713690

[Eastfist]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

[BitcoiNaked]

lol this looks like a sinking ship where those who are tech savvy are the staff and the non tech savvy are the confused passengers getting lost on what to do and which way to go to exit the ship.

[rjclarke2000]

What's worse case scenario here then?

I basically have chump change in coins compared to some and I'd be pissed off if I lost them for whatever reason after their big change. What would people like the winklevii and other whales?

[coinableS]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

[spud21]

This board is full of threads about Gavin's announcement. He should make a statement about his plans here clearly explaining everything and giving a specific time frame. That would help quell all the confusion and misinterpretations.

[repentance]

He should make a statement about his plans here clearly explaining everything and giving a specific time frame. That would help quell all the confusion and misinterpretations.

It won't make the slightest bit of difference.

[rjclarke2000]

He should make a statement about his plans here clearly explaining everything and giving a specific time frame. That would help quell all the confusion and misinterpretations.

It won't make the slightest bit of difference.

In what respect? People still spreading FUD or people not listening?

Please explain.

Thanks

[LiteCoinGuy]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

good answer. how many people have bitcoins? maybe some 1 million? how many watch these videos and understand the debate? only a few hundred i guess.
and that is the reason for the FUD  

[rjclarke2000]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

good answer. how many people have bitcoins? maybe some 1 million? how many watch these videos and understand the debate? only a few hundred i guess.
and that is the reason for the FUD  

I am yet to watch it but I am pretty confident I'd be one of the ones who won't understand!

[LiteCoinGuy]

at this point even for me it is a little bit hard to understand everything. the video will not answer your questions regarding the core and xt debate.

we are in the middle of a discussion and even gavin does not know where we will be in some months. we have to wait.

but i know: bitcoin will not die and we will not have 42 mio bitcoins  


take a look at his blog:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/

[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

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Hi guys,

My skills go as far as downloading a wallet and moving coins about.

With this in mind.....

Can someone explain what Gavin is planning to do and how definite it all is?

Side chains etc? Double coins? Wtf?


Thanks in advance.

I'm a little confused too.
All I really give a shit about is if my coins are safe in cold storage & if they'll lose value because of this crack pot / dick measuring venture.
Anybody explain this in layman's terms about what it means for current bitcoin owners / hodlers & the price / validity of them.
I don't care about blocks sizes, forks etc etc.
Bitcoin is a long term investment for me I don't need to know the techie science stuff.
All that matters to me is the price & that my coins will still be valid.

[hund]

lol this looks like a sinking ship where those who are tech savvy are the staff and the non tech savvy are the confused passengers getting lost on what to do and which way to go to exit the ship.

Even worse: depending on who you ask you'll get very different advise! These non savvy passangers must feel really shitty.


@OP
Gavin lost his mind, doesn't care about consensus even with other developers. It's about increasing blocksize of BTC 20-fold which many people for good reasons do not agree with.
The Gavin announcements translates to: 'he will try to trick everyone into using his altcoin and will try to make them believe it would be bitcoin and hopes he can get so much support for it so that he can just force the opposition into it'
As serveral people have already announced not to support his altcoin and keep using the current Bitcoin (because it works pretty well afterall) there will be two Blockchains at the date of the fork which will cause a lot of chaos and could potentially ruin Bitcoin aswell as Gavins' altcoin.
Drama, drama, drama
The ones who are most at danger to loose their value or coins are those like OP who don't know what the heck is going on.

[hund]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

Or on the new fork depending on which one makes it ...

[dasource]

<snip>
Drama, drama, drama
The ones who are most at danger to loose their value or coins are those like OP who don't know what the heck is going on.

The only drama here my friend is if *we* do nothing ...
I for one am glad that Gavin has decided to take the bull by the horns and actually do something about it.

[MicroGuy]

Here's the nutshell explanation:

Gavin is going to make some critical (and necessary) changes to the Bitcoin code. Then everyone will join the new fork because that's the only thing that makes sense.

[dasource]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

Or on the new fork depending on which one makes it ...

Will you stop spreading nonsense ... how are we going to lose coins by your logic?

[coinableS]

Hi guys,

My skills go as far as downloading a wallet and moving coins about.

With this in mind.....

Can someone explain what Gavin is planning to do and how definite it all is?

Side chains etc? Double coins? Wtf?


Thanks in advance.

I'm a little confused too.
All I really give a shit about is if my coins are safe in cold storage & if they'll lose value because of this crack pot / dick measuring venture.
Anybody explain this in layman's terms about what it means for current bitcoin owners / hodlers & the price / validity of them.
I don't care about blocks sizes, forks etc etc.
Bitcoin is a long term investment for me I don't need to know the techie science stuff.
All that matters to me is the price & that my coins will still be valid.

Your coins are fine. If the fork does not go well and there are two competing chains "old coin" and "new coin" they will both be using today's blockchain as a reference as to who owns what and then split from there, so worst case scenario you will have double the coins, one for each fork.

[johnyj]

A worst case scenario:

Half of the merchants/miners/users still use the bitcoin-qt, work on original chain; another half of the merchants/miners/users upgraded to bitcoin-xt and work on the new xt chain

Pre-fork coins can be spent on both chain, which means the total coin supply becomes 42 million if you count both chains, then price of the coins on both chains will be cut by half

Hash rate will also be cut by half on both chains if the miners are 50/50 divided. Having a competing chain with almost the same hash power as your chain is a nightmare: It means your chain will be easily exposed to attack ( almost 51%, so the attack will succeed every once a while), double spending and transaction reverse will be daily event if the majority of the hash power on the other chain decided to do so. There will be hash wars which benefit none

So, like Jeff Garzik said, the hard fork is extinction level event, it should be carried out with fully reached consensus