Bitcoin is not decentralised. Proof right now.

[a fool and his money ...]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Gavin now can directly influence marketprice and wants to be the only one to decide on the code like a king which will become a reality if people switch to XT.
Bitcoin will be truely Gavincoin if people go to the XT fork.

Gavin also does not care about node count so the network itself will become a lot less decentralised on his Gavinfork.

I don't think the XT/Gavin fork will have a lot of value in the end of the day.

[Febo]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Is to small to be fully decentralized, but we will get there eventually. All we need to get there is time!  We are on the right track. Or that is a chain. Yes chain.

[pereira4]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Gavin now can directly influence marketprice and wants to be the only one to decide on the code like a king which will become a reality if people switch to XT.
Bitcoin will be truely Gavincoin if people go to the XT fork.

Gavin also does not care about node count so the network itself will become a lot less decentralised on his Gavinfork.

I don't think the XT/Gavin fork will have a lot of value in the end of the day.

You literally disproved your argument yourself:

will become a reality if people switch to XT.

Thats it. If PEOPLE choose to run nodes on XT, then XT will be the strongest chain. If people stick with Core, core will continue being the main chain. That's all. The devs can do whatever. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is nothing without the people running nodes. The people will decide what solution they prefer.

[gadman2]

OP doesn't understand that if Gavin has a good idea and we implement it, we will still be able to decide if any other ideas are to be implemented.

It's not like we're switching to closed source bitcoin and having him click generate coins to certain addresses. Jesus these tinfoil hat people are starting to get annoying. Shoo, shoo.

[a fool and his money ...]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Is to small to be fully decentralized, but we will get there eventually. All we need to get there is time!  We are on the right track. Or that is a chain. Yes chain.

Node count is declining for years. Gavin does his best to speed up that process. So you're actuallly wrong. All we need is time to be more centralised.

[DooMAD]

OP doesn't understand that if Gavin has a good idea and we implement it, we will still be able to decide if any other ideas are to be implemented.

It's not like we're switching to closed source bitcoin and having him click generate coins to certain addresses. Jesus these tinfoil hat people are starting to get annoying. Shoo, shoo.

Sadly, OP understands perfectly, but decides to troll.  Check his post history and you'll see mostly FUD.  Might even be a sockpuppet account, hard to tell these days.  If you see people ignoring the technical side of the argument completely and just basing their views on the personalities involved, you should probably disregard what they're saying.  Particularly if their entire argument boils down to calling it "gavincoin".

[ebliever]

OP: So what is your solution? At least Gavin is trying to move things forward. Seems like some people want bitcoin to petrify, or have pet ideas that have problems much greater than the 20 MB fork.

In the meantime it's a buying op for anyone with fiat. Worst case is nothing happens, and then in a year or so, *if* bitcoin keeps growing strongly, *then* we start running out of transaction capacity. Seems odd that the price of BTC would go down now because of a possible future problem that would merely keep bitcoin at a level that is greater than it is today.  

[RodeoX]

OP doesn't understand that if Gavin has a good idea and we implement it, we will still be able to decide if any other ideas are to be implemented.

It's not like we're switching to closed source bitcoin and having him click generate coins to certain addresses. Jesus these tinfoil hat people are starting to get annoying. Shoo, shoo.

I don't know why people can't understand this? Perhaps people do not understand what "open-source" and "distributed network" really mean. If they did half the stupid theories around here would be instantly seen as flawed.

[PolarPoint]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

[Amph]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

this is not correct, you can't choose either fork, are the miners that will choose for you, you must follow them in the end, choosing the fork with 10% consensus is useless...

[johnyj]

This has always been the case for any Github oriented development. The central core dev/code reviewer have the right to review the sumitted changes and decide which change is allowed and which change should be prohibited

In theory, people can select whatever version of bitcoin client they want to use, but in practice, they don't have enough knowledge to identify and see the consequence of different implementation between different versions. In this regard they are hopelessly dependent on the enlightenment of the core devs, and when core devs run into a conflict of interest, the project will be in a deadlock

From democracy point of view, it is worse than the democracy system that we have (In today's democracy system you vote for the party you like, but in Github there is no such possibility). But still, it is better than the monetary system we have today (You can not vote the FED chairman/money supply/interest rate, but you can select a crypto currency version that you like)

Most of the bicoiners should be informed about the pros and cons of each different alternative, but that typically evolves into some very complex political debate about decentralization and scalability, they got lost eventually

And, as 2013 fork shown, a few powerful guys controlling either large amount of coins or large amount of mining hashpower can corner the blockchain if they will. In fact, Satoshi's 1 million coin could kill any chain that he think is not on the right track. So the political landscape is quite complicated

If there is a decision making system that evaluate the interest of all the involved participants, that will always bring some compromise for certain participants to reach a single decision. But if there is no such system, blockchain will fork into different directions sooner or later, a true libertarian scenario  

[johnyj]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

this is not correct, you can't choose either fork, are the miners that will choose for you, you must follow them in the end, choosing the fork with 10% consensus is useless...

No, even there are only 10% miners mining on one chain, you can still use the same client as they have and use the coins on their chain. But the affected are not only miners, but also merchants and exchanges. If you want to spend/exchange your coins, the merchants and exchanges would have to support your coins too

[PolarPoint]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

this is not correct, you can't choose either fork, are the miners that will choose for you, you must follow them in the end, choosing the fork with 10% consensus is useless...

A user can choose either fork. The choice is his. He can send his pre-fork coins to a new address on the fork he chooses.  If there are less or no miners on his fork, the user can be a miner himself.

[cellard]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

this is not correct, you can't choose either fork, are the miners that will choose for you, you must follow them in the end, choosing the fork with 10% consensus is useless...

What 10%? from what i've read is 90%. The hard fork (real fork) only will happen if 90% of nodes are on XT. And no, anyone with a computer running a node (having a Core or XT wallet opened) can vote, by simply doing that.

[ajareselde]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

this is not correct, you can't choose either fork, are the miners that will choose for you, you must follow them in the end, choosing the fork with 10% consensus is useless...

A user can choose either fork. The choice is his. He can send his pre-fork coins to a new address on the fork he chooses.  If there are less or no miners on his fork, the user can be a miner himself.

Well i guess you can decide to use qt fork after 90% activation split. But there's no point, because if 90% network is on other fork, u wont be able to spend them anywhere.
Also,your address on other fork will still be populated with pre'fork coins, but that you will be able to double spend them, unlikely; one fork will ignore the other.
cheers

[terman45x]

smell that.... it's FUD! Most probably someone who sold at 160 and wants to buy in lower but realizing that it may not happen.

[ajareselde]

smell that.... it's FUD! Most probably someone who sold at 160 and wants to buy in lower but realizing that it may not happen.

I think it can also be because people dont quite understand what is actually going on. All the FUD's day in and out, but the facts are not straight

Look at this:

I don't think the XT/Gavin fork will have a lot of value in the end of the day.

It's just not true for a fact. If and when the XT happens, it will have value obviously, because it will mean that 90% of the network agrees.
Since when is majority decision non valuable ? It can only be seen as such to someone with blindfold on their eye,and those who hear , but choose not to listen (like feminists .

cheers

[Kprawn]

What in Bitcoin is not decentralized? I seem to miss the point of all this? You will still have decentralized nodes, no matter what you choose. {Core OR XT}

The core development for Bitcoin-XT might be centralized for a while, until more developers switch sides. {But the functioning of the protocol will still be decentralized}

Let's say this does happen... Do you really think, the development team will stay small and people will not switch teams?

Bring the Popcorn, this is going to be a good show.  

[RodeoX]

What in Bitcoin is not decentralized? I seem to miss the point of all this? ...

You are not the one missing the point. 

The argument is the same as arguing that potcoin or dogcoin will centralize bitcoin. These are just forks that have not been adopted as much. When the fork comes to BTC some will go one way others another. But there is no centralization in the system, Only choices. And the number of nodes means very little. It is clearly a reflection of the community increasingly using online wallets and not running a full node. 

I predict that the real $#!T storm will happen when the users who panic switch to a silly alt wake up to find that the value has drained out of their holdings. Spoiler alert! Its going to be the fault of Gavin and his shadowy government handlers. lol

[anderson00673]

It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.

Gavin now can directly influence marketprice and wants to be the only one to decide on the code like a king which will become a reality if people switch to XT.
Bitcoin will be truly Gavincoin if people go to the XT fork.

Gavin also does not care about node count so the network itself will become a lot less decentralised on his Gavinfork.

I don't think the XT/Gavin fork will have a lot of value in the end of the day.

Ha!  congrats on the non noob account.  But you either don't understand what XT is or choose to be obtuse.  If you are confused about the issue, whey we need it, and why the other devs oppose it you should look here and here.  Those are some pretty good threads.  Of course you are not going to look because your only purpose is to spread FUD.  I suspect you are even one of the money grubbing devs that is causing this problem in the first place.  Get in line and stop hurting the community with your horrible greed.