Looking for evidence to support theory of Gavin successor to Satoshi

[Muhammed Zakir]

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.

[1715231851]

1715231851

[1715231851]

1715231851

[odolvlobo]

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.

[LiteCoinGuy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.