Muhammed Zakir
|
|
June 02, 2015, 11:11:19 AM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
Can someone please show where Satoshi determined goofy Gavin as his successor? Thanks in advance for providing that evidence!
Why Satoshi need a successor? Gavin is just a core developer and not a successor of Satosh. Bitcoin is open source, any one can contribute it. the only explanation is that gavin is actually saotshi, or he belongs to the groug called "satoshi nakamoto" another is because Satoshi trusted only Gavin, and gave him the alert key because he was affected by a disease, and it was dying Then if Gavin is really Satoshi he should stop fucking around and make it public, at least he would probably get more support than what he does get now. If he is Satoshi and if he reveals himself, people may think this is his new plan to make people adopt 20 MB fork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int
somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll
change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4298
Merit: 3214
|
|
June 02, 2015, 03:59:44 PM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that.
|
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns. PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010
In Satoshi I Trust
|
|
June 02, 2015, 05:03:02 PM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
Can someone please show where Satoshi determined goofy Gavin as his successor? Thanks in advance for providing that evidence!
it is the same person:
|
|
|
|
pereira4
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183
|
|
June 02, 2015, 05:42:44 PM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that. Yeah it's pretty sad that people need a leader. People is free to run Core or run XT based on their prefered views on the software, not on who is proposing the changes on the software.
|
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
June 02, 2015, 05:47:31 PM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that. Yeah it's pretty sad that people need a leader. People is free to run Core or run XT based on their prefered views on the software, not on who is proposing the changes on the software. ...but on what is proposed software does. According to the block size growth, we need to increase maximum block size and no, it won't lead to centralization. But I still don't know whether 20MB maximum block size is needed ATM or is it better to have a lower maximum block size and increase it later if needed. I am still thinking on it. Anybody?
|
|
|
|
AGD
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2069
Merit: 1164
Keeper of the Private Key
|
|
June 03, 2015, 09:50:15 AM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that. Yeah it's pretty sad that people need a leader. People is free to run Core or run XT based on their prefered views on the software, not on who is proposing the changes on the software. ...but on what is proposed software does. According to the block size growth, we need to increase maximum block size and no, it won't lead to centralization. But I still don't know whether 20MB maximum block size is needed ATM or is it better to have a lower maximum block size and increase it later if needed. I am still thinking on it. Anybody? Why not start with 2MB size limit and when a certain threshhold is exceeded (2.8 for example) go up to 4 MB etc.?
|
|
|
|
MicroGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1030
Twitter @realmicroguy
|
|
June 03, 2015, 01:22:11 PM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that. Yeah it's pretty sad that people need a leader. People is free to run Core or run XT based on their prefered views on the software, not on who is proposing the changes on the software. ...but on what is proposed software does. According to the block size growth, we need to increase maximum block size and no, it won't lead to centralization. But I still don't know whether 20MB maximum block size is needed ATM or is it better to have a lower maximum block size and increase it later if needed. I am still thinking on it. Anybody? Why not start with 2MB size limit and when a certain threshhold is exceeded (2.8 for example) go up to 4 MB etc.? I think the reason Gavin has decided on 20MB is to avoid repeating the adversity of again forking the client.
|
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
June 03, 2015, 01:36:07 PM |
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that. Yeah it's pretty sad that people need a leader. People is free to run Core or run XT based on their prefered views on the software, not on who is proposing the changes on the software. ...but on what is proposed software does. According to the block size growth, we need to increase maximum block size and no, it won't lead to centralization. But I still don't know whether 20MB maximum block size is needed ATM or is it better to have a lower maximum block size and increase it later if needed. I am still thinking on it. Anybody? Why not start with 2MB size limit and when a certain threshhold is exceeded (2.8 for example) go up to 4 MB etc.? I think the reason Gavin has decided on 20MB is to avoid repeating the adversity of again forking the client. Bear in mind 20mb is a LIMIT. We are not anywhere near having enough transaction demand to fill 20mb blocks anytime soon.
But even if we hit 20mb tomorrow (won't happen), anyone can run a full node in pruning node, in which case old data is deleted and all you need is the UTXO set + a bit. So that's one or two gigabytes, hardly a big deal.
|
|
|
|
|