How come we are still discussing Gavincoin when he's the only one supporting it?

[Pecunia non olet]

Among the devs Gavin is the only one being 'pro'. All others have 'significant concerns'.

Gavins' definition of consensus: "I think it's cool and everyone else has to agree or will be 'left behind' " (his rethorics of blackmailing the whole community)

Maxwell:

"Gavin is the only committer to Bitcoin core who supports this particular proposal at this time. The rest of us have significant concerns about the impact on the security and the decentralization of the network; and potentially some process concerns."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqz9xf3

AND he's taking it directly to the public.
So all this shenangians just takes place with Gavin and his 5 shills posting from 50 accounts on twitter and this forum.

There is no consensus anywhere!
Not among the devs, not among the miners, not among businesses and certainly not in the community (old polls show 56% pro and these polls are probably rigged by his shillarmy)

We need to see this Gavincoin shitproposal as an attack an Bitcoin.

My recommendation is to 100% ignore Gavin and his shills aswell as his altcoin (XT). Just do not update and do not support the Gavincoin BS. Consensus and decentralisation is much more important than this. Gavin his harming Bitcoin.




This thread is selfmoderated because i'm sick of the shills and Gavincoin hurray-boys will be deleted.

[1714017013]

1714017013

[1714017013]

1714017013

[1714017013]

1714017013

[Beefcake]

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on.  I found this in another post and I think it might help you understand better: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion


It is an audio interview with Gavin and he explains things in plain english.  There is a real concern with the 1mb size and something needs to be done.  The members opposing Gavin jsut so happen to be invested in something called "blockstream" which also just so happens to be a solution to the problem of 1mb.  It seems a little fishy to me.  While I have not seen any direct evidence yet this could be a huge conflict of interest.  So don't be afraid of Gavin, be afraid of the others.  Or at least lets hope that they don't have a conflict of interest because that would make them very naughty indeed.

[Pecunia non olet]

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on.  I found this in another post and I think it might help you understand better: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion


It is an audio interview with Gavin and he explains things in plain english.  There is a real concern with the 1mb size and something needs to be done.  The members opposing Gavin jsut so happen to be invested in something called "blockstream" which also just so happens to be a solution to the problem of 1mb.  It seems a little fishy to me.  While I have not seen any direct evidence yet this could be a huge conflict of interest.  So don't be afraid of Gavin, be afraid of the others.  Or at least lets hope that they don't have a conflict of interest because that would make them very naughty indeed.

I have been listening to it and Gavin himself admits in it that 32MB blocks were removed back in the day because they enabled a network threatening/existential exploit. There was no explanation in the interview why this shouldn't be a concern now.

Furthermore the blckstream thing you bring up is propaganda by the pro-Gavin-shills who try their very best to put everyone who opposes Gavincoin into a bad image.
Just because some developers are working on offchain solutions doesn't mean they are biased. They are doing exactly the work that needs to be done to keep Bitcoin defensible. It is not a conflict of interests, it is necessary work and real innovation. Just going ahead and bloating the blockchain is no innovation.

There are 100 things that can be done to increase max txs without forking the coin without consensus. None of that has been explored. Gavin just wants 'my way or the highway'.

Gavin with his behaviour turns off not only the other devs but also investors and actually threatens Bitcoin which could potentially become worthless with this desaster.

This whole thing to me looks like a power grab/attack on BTC

[ktorn]

Here's a crazy hypothesis:

Maybe Gavin realised where we're headed and didn't like what he saw.

With proposals like the Bitcoin Lightning Network the blockchain could one day only be used for a handful transactions per day, for settling big balances between major offchain micropayment processors.

Maybe he didn't like that idea and is trying to scale the blockchain to avoid it becoming redundant.

If that was to be the case, then the detractors who claim bigger blocks will centralise the network don't realize that it's actually a potential fix for avoiding even bigger centralised offchain silos.

[MicroGuy]

Here's a crazy hypothesis:

Maybe Gavin realised where we're headed and didn't like what he saw.

With proposals like the Bitcoin Lightning Network the blockchain could one day only be used for a handful transactions per day, for settling big balances between major offchain micropayment processors.

Maybe he didn't like that idea and is trying to scale the blockchain to avoid it becoming redundant.

If that was to be the case, then the detractors who claim bigger blocks will centralise the network don't realize that it's actually a potential fix for avoiding even bigger centralised offchain silos.

I think Gavin operates by asking himself, "what would Satoshi do?" Making 20MB blocks is his best guess as to what Bitcoin's creator would have done.  

[Pecunia non olet]

Here's a crazy hypothesis:

Maybe Gavin realised where we're headed and didn't like what he saw.

With proposals like the Bitcoin Lightning Network the blockchain could one day only be used for a handful transactions per day, for settling big balances between major offchain micropayment processors.

Maybe he didn't like that idea and is trying to scale the blockchain to avoid it becoming redundant.

If that was to be the case, then the detractors who claim bigger blocks will centralise the network don't realize that it's actually a potential fix for avoiding even bigger centralised offchain silos.

Where is the problem with using the blockchain only for such settlement? Would be prefectly fine as long as everyone keeps the full access we have now so you can use the offchain stuff but you don't have to. You can still send your coins around on chain. Where's the problem to have all the dust transactions off chain?
Bitcoin is here to fuck the banks into the ass necessarily not to buy you coffee at starbucks. You can buy your coffee off chain or just pay a little higher fees if you want your coffee on chain. No problem there. Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than max txs.

I also found the argument compelling by one of the other devs that the problem is not urgent and until it could potentially become an issue there would be some more time left to potentially develop better solutions than just bloating the thing up (which is also no permanent fix).
So it's no problem now and until it is maybe better solutions become available.

Right now it's better to stay on 1MB blocks than to risk blowing the deam thing up because the consensus was harmed.

People need to understand Bitcoin is worthless without consensus and decentralisation aswell as defensibiltiy.
Max txs are secondary order of importance and not primary.

I think Gavin operates by asking himself, "what would Satoshi do?" Making 20MB blocks is his best guess as to what Bitcoin's creator would have done. 

Yeah, and other people ask themselves "what would mohamet/jesus do?" before they go and kill people.
Thats no excuse. Satoshi certainly wouldn't fork the network into two coins and also not cause this whole PR fiasco. Satoshi would also not make backroom deals behind everyones back like Gavin and then come out with his altcoin.
Gavin is much more of a pig than you might think.

[ktorn]

I'm undecided about the increase in block size and I'm absolutely not defending Gavin's approach to it.

I actually agree with Pieter Wuille on this message:

hard forks cannot be controversial things. A controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want.

[Pecunia non olet]

All of the other core developers have thus far been unwilling to endorse Gavin's fork, but most Bitcoiners outside of this small group, who have expressed an opinion on the matter, have stated they support the proposal. Now, the opinion of core developers should have more weight than that of the average Bitcoiner, and it does, but it's absolutely false to say that only Gavin supports his proposal.

Gavin is the only committer to Bitcoin core who supports this particular proposal at this time.

see: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqz9xf3


Old poll shows not even 60% of the community supported his proposal (and he still goes ahead with pushing his alt). The new poll is in the making. I wouldn't say 'most' support it. You're just lucky if you can still get a majority for it after this coup with his XT altcoin and the recent drop in price (direct response from the market) which must have upset just about everyone in the space.

[Pecunia non olet]

I'm looking forward to the new poll.

Also interesting the outcome of almost 50% of people want Gavin to resign and more than 50% think he's in bed with the US Government.

What more does one need to know?

[NeuroticFish]

I've seen the days when Dogecoin had its biggest fork, when AuxPoW was implemented. There were also harsh discussions. There were a lot of point of views, but there were discussions and the best solution (from what was available) was taken.
Democracy is not the best way forward. I know that if you want to convince a majority is a tough task.
I also know that bitcoin has to lay a path where people are not afraid of changes, as they may be leaps forward.

But not like this, really. Replacing democracy with a dictatorship is not better at all.

I guess that Bitcoin will have to find its way... different one from Gavin's...

[iCEBREAKER]

How come we are still discussing Gavincoin when he's the only one supporting it?

Centcom really knows how to light up a message board.

They had more success selling Reddit on Gavincoin than here or the dev list.

[croTek4]

Why do you keep referring to XT as an alt? Just curious, it seems to me that you don't fully understand what is happening.

[NeuroticFish]

What if Gavin's proposal is great and is needed now? Block sizes are increasing and very soon, it will reach 1MB. Isn't it better to increase size now? Increasing maximum block size to 20MB doesn't mean every blocks after that will be 20MB. It will take long time to reach that size unless someone spams a lot with recommended fees hmthat i very unlikely. Remember that, like LaudaM said previously, there is two sides for (almost) everything. You should check both before concluding.

Gavin's proposal is not bad. Not the best, but not bad. I actually somehow support it.
I also understand that he may have gotten tired of all this "too much talk and no communication" and, more important, nothing done.
Still, politically this is bad. And I am completely against this "ultimatum". There has to be better ways, at least between the devs.

Sorry if my previous post was .. ambiguous.

[NeuroticFish]

Some of the core developers aren't supporting this for some reason and are sticking with current *temporary* limit which is not good. A fork is needed now IMHO and this is the only way. They should accept this but instead, they are rejecting this proposal. I even tried to get answers from one if the developer who are against this but he is just ignoring my message. I would really like to Theymos' opinion on this proposal.

Hmm, I was expecting more from the devs of the mighty Bitcoin. Yet one more disappointment for the day.
I somehow hope that we are missing something. Maybe they'll conclude together in a reasonable time and Gavin just did this act of "bad politics" with a good purpose.

[not altcoin hitler]

There doesn't need to be a consensus amongst devs, but amongst people.

Bullshit. If there is no consensus among devs why should there be one amongst people? Who came up with the idea of populistic forks? Please seek medical advice.

How about Gavin sorts it out with his dev buddies before writing blackmail letters to the community?

[Pecunia non olet]

How come we are still discussing Gavincoin when he's the only one supporting it?

Centcom really knows how to light up a message board.

They had more success selling Reddit on Gavincoin than here or the dev list.

Sorry guys, was out of town. Cleaned the thread of the Gavin-propaganda-bots. They can play elsewhere. Here and reddit is pretty infested with these guys.
They work for US Military you say? Are you sure? How you know?

If it's an established fact that Gavin is in bed with the gov why is he still doing what he does?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

There doesn't need to be a consensus amongst devs, but amongst people.

Bullshit. If there is no consensus among devs why should there be one amongst people? Who came up with the idea of populistic forks? Please seek medical advice.

How about Gavin sorts it out with his dev buddies before writing blackmail letters to the community?

Proof of said blackmail letters?
And yes, ultimately people should decide. Anyone is free to work on Bitcoin and get people's support, there are no such thing as "official devs", but "official consensus". Through official consensus (what people use) the Bitcoin software becomes official, not the other way around.

[hdbuck]

There doesn't need to be a consensus amongst devs, but amongst people.

Bullshit. If there is no consensus among devs why should there be one amongst people? Who came up with the idea of populistic forks? Please seek medical advice.

How about Gavin sorts it out with his dev buddies before writing blackmail letters to the community?

Proof of said blackmail letters?
And yes, ultimately people should decide. Anyone is free to work on Bitcoin and get people's support, there are no such thing as "official devs", but "official consensus". Through official consensus (what people use) the Bitcoin software becomes official, not the other way around.

People should decide? I get the sense that people lead others into deciding since most does not have a clue as to what they're talking about.
They never get the choice really. Friggin illusion. Or call it even delusion.

I just dont want USG to decide.

[slaveforanunnak1]

I'm not ! I went full peteTodd! i dont' care. I'm not upgrading. I will of course if everyone else does. but I'm not going to at first.

[Pecunia non olet]

20MB doesn't scale! Not really.
On the other hand offchain transaction DO scale as much as you want. Just sayin'