Gregory Maxwell threatens to sell his bitcoins and find other things to work on

[findftp]

Increasing the block size is the most simple change, lightning network and side chain just sounds too complicated to be easily maintained, raised level of complexity is the worst enemy for long term sustainability

In my opinion this is the only real argument for bigger blocksize.
But the market will decide if it's really true.
Just wait, it'll solve out of itself.

[Pecunia non olet]

I read the other devs are 'childish' and so on... the only one childish is Gavin with his 'my way or the highway'. Bitcoin looses a lot support because of this and XT will have even less support by the people.

Maxwell deserves some respect for his statement. Many in the community feel similar. I also sold a large chunk of my btc holdings because i won't be bullied around by this asshat 'Gavin'.
I won't be using his fork ever. It's going to die one death or another anyways. I don't see it survive longterm.

I think this whole drama is one epic mistake caused by Gavin alone.

[BIG Tyrese]

Throwing is toys out of the pram to get his own way? thats how this comes across to me

[RoadStress]

I also sold a large chunk of my btc holdings because i won't be bullied around by this asshat 'Gavin'.
I won't be using his fork ever. It's going to die one death or another anyways. I don't see it survive longterm.

I think this whole drama is one epic mistake caused by Gavin alone.

Thank you for leaving Bitcoin Mircea Popescu!

[defaced]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

[jonald_fyookball]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

Because Greg has probably done 10x more for Bitcoin than everyone in this thread combined.

[DiamondCardz]

IMHO that's a mis-leading title. I can't gather anything from the reference that says he is currently threatening to sell his BTC and move on, just that if Bitcoin was to go down a bad route that he disliked he would then decide to sell his BTC and move on. He doesn't seem to currently be threatening to.

[defaced]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

Because Greg has probably done 10x more for Bitcoin than everyone in this thread combined.

So why shouldnt he dump his coin to get a return on his investment? I dont really understand your argument.

[findftp]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

Because Greg has probably done 10x more for Bitcoin than everyone in this thread combined.

So why shouldnt he dump his coin to get a return on his investment? I dont really understand your argument.

Because bitcoin is not about investments.
It's about rainbows and unicorns.

[ebliever]

I'm unclear on how going the XT path would make it centralized.

Because it will be needed more bandwidth, and a lot of people don't have access to it (node,etc...).

In other words, bitcoin is centralizing because it is successful, driving more transactions. Blaming Gavin for that is ridiculous. The irony is that the anti-Gavin freakout club looks like a old school clique that wants to keep volumes low so a small number of early adopters can play with their coins without the smelly public barging in. If you want centralization, keep bitcoin small with a limited base of support.

Gavin's fork proposal in itself centralizes nothing. It remains the rule that the miners collectively decide what Bitcoin will be. And if it turns out to be a mistake we can go back or go to Plan C, whatever. But I'll be investing more in altcoins if the Status Quo folks start winning and we see fees start rising while confirmation times lag because they didn't want to fix anything.

[alani123]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

Lose a bitcoin core developer, why not? /s

[defaced]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

Lose a bitcoin core developer, why not? /s

if he doesnt believe in the project anymore why would you want him?

[jonald_fyookball]

I say.. bring it, he should dump all the BTC he has. Why not?

Because Greg has probably done 10x more for Bitcoin than everyone in this thread combined.

So why shouldnt he dump his coin to get a return on his investment? I dont really understand your argument.

He can if he wants, obviously.  But if he dumps all his coins, that's basically like
him giving up on Bitcoin, so the community would lose a very talented and dedicated
developer.   

[alani123]

if he doesnt believe in the project anymore why would you want him?

I don't know what you refer to as the project. Bitcoin wasn't Gavin's project last time I checked.

[Quickseller]

I am personally concerned that this would matter to anyone. Before I continue, I want to point out that gmaxwell is a great asset to Bitcoin and the community. However I don't think it should matter that one person might stop working on Bitcoin as the open source and decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that it should not rely on any one person or any one small subset of people. If the community is concerned that any one person is going to stop work on Bitcoin then we have a bigger centralization problem then anyone realizes.

It is not uncommon for people to leave a large company in the middle of a project and the project most go on. It would be unusual for no team members on a project to not get some kind of a job offer while working on a long term project.

With all that being said, I do think his concerns should be somehow addressed. I don't know if this means making major changes to the proposed fork, making minor changes or making an argument to him that this will not cause further centralization. 

[defaced]

I am personally concerned that this would matter to anyone. Before I continue, I want to point out that gmaxwell is a great asset to Bitcoin and the community. However I don't think it should matter that one person might stop working on Bitcoin as the open source and decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that it should not rely on any one person or any one small subset of people. If the community is concerned that any one person is going to stop work on Bitcoin then we have a bigger centralization problem then anyone realizes.

It is not uncommon for people to leave a large company in the middle of a project and the project most go on. It would be unusual for no team members on a project to not get some kind of a job offer while working on a long term project.

With all that being said, I do think his concerns should be somehow addressed. I don't know if this means making major changes to the proposed fork, making minor changes or making an argument to him that this will not cause further centralization. 

watch out, if you say the project you might confuse someone.

[Quickseller]

I am personally concerned that this would matter to anyone. Before I continue, I want to point out that gmaxwell is a great asset to Bitcoin and the community. However I don't think it should matter that one person might stop working on Bitcoin as the open source and decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that it should not rely on any one person or any one small subset of people. If the community is concerned that any one person is going to stop work on Bitcoin then we have a bigger centralization problem then anyone realizes.

It is not uncommon for people to leave a large company in the middle of a project and the project most go on. It would be unusual for no team members on a project to not get some kind of a job offer while working on a long term project.

With all that being said, I do think his concerns should be somehow addressed. I don't know if this means making major changes to the proposed fork, making minor changes or making an argument to him that this will not cause further centralization. 

watch out, if you say the project you might confuse someone.

I was just using a project with a large company as an example. Bitcoin is not a project as it has no endpoint, at least hopefully it won't.

[defaced]

I am personally concerned that this would matter to anyone. Before I continue, I want to point out that gmaxwell is a great asset to Bitcoin and the community. However I don't think it should matter that one person might stop working on Bitcoin as the open source and decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that it should not rely on any one person or any one small subset of people. If the community is concerned that any one person is going to stop work on Bitcoin then we have a bigger centralization problem then anyone realizes.

It is not uncommon for people to leave a large company in the middle of a project and the project most go on. It would be unusual for no team members on a project to not get some kind of a job offer while working on a long term project.

With all that being said, I do think his concerns should be somehow addressed. I don't know if this means making major changes to the proposed fork, making minor changes or making an argument to him that this will not cause further centralization. 

watch out, if you say the project you might confuse someone.

I was just using a project with a large company as an example. Bitcoin is not a project as it has no endpoint, at least hopefully it won't.

does a project have to have a specific endpoint to be defined as a project?

google says "an individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned and designed to achieve a particular aim."

I'd say bitcoin is exactly that. Its ever evolving but fits that definition.

Also, how can one make the argument that it will be terrible if he leaves then make the argument that "its not his project", if its not one of his projects (a project is a collaborative effort) why should one care if he leaves? ELI5 because I obviously need it.

[Quickseller]

I am personally concerned that this would matter to anyone. Before I continue, I want to point out that gmaxwell is a great asset to Bitcoin and the community. However I don't think it should matter that one person might stop working on Bitcoin as the open source and decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that it should not rely on any one person or any one small subset of people. If the community is concerned that any one person is going to stop work on Bitcoin then we have a bigger centralization problem then anyone realizes.

It is not uncommon for people to leave a large company in the middle of a project and the project most go on. It would be unusual for no team members on a project to not get some kind of a job offer while working on a long term project.

With all that being said, I do think his concerns should be somehow addressed. I don't know if this means making major changes to the proposed fork, making minor changes or making an argument to him that this will not cause further centralization.  

watch out, if you say the project you might confuse someone.

I was just using a project with a large company as an example. Bitcoin is not a project as it has no endpoint, at least hopefully it won't.

does a project have to have a specific endpoint to be defined as a project?

My understanding projects in the business world is that they have a defined beginning and a defined end point. A business system on the other hand is something that is ongoing.

A few examples of a project would be the building of a house, the design of a specific model year car or the rebranding of a company.

A few examples of a system would be selling widgets, producing cars or internal quality controls.

You could say that the design of the forked Bitcoin protocol would be a project (it would be finished once the changed protocol is accepted by the network) while Bitcoin itself would be closer to a system (ideally "Bitcoin" would never end).

People are concerned about his potential departure because of his large amounts of contributions he has made to Bitcoin over the years.

[LGD2Business]

Core Devs are killing Bitcoin. Please somebody stop this.