Should Gavin resign from developement of Bitcoin? [POLL]

[deine mudder]

So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning to foist his and Hearns' XT altcoin on the community for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time. (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqbd78)
-Gavin is the only dev who supports this proposal (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqz9xf3)
-Gavin caused attrition not only for the devteam but for all of the community
-He caused a lot of important people in the space to be upset and even some devs threaten to leave
-Gavin caused a decline in the price of Bitcoin which could possibly turn into panic selling (we don't know yet)
-Gavin caused a serious loss in investors confidence and thus harmed Bitcoin greatly
-He sends blackmail letters to the Bitcoin community "do how i say or else ..."
-He doesn't care for decentralisation
-He lies about many things
-He tried a power grab and sides with people who support blacklisting of coins
-He caused massive unease for everyone for prolonged time
-He has no idea what consensus is or disrespects it willfully
-A majority of the community thinks he is a CIA mole (he lost his marbles)
-He threatens to risk network consensus and thus the value of a lot of peoples' investement

There are certainly more things to list. I'll complete the list later on.

I think it's time to think about if he is really an asset for Bitcoin or more of a burden right now. I have a feeling Bitcoin could rebound +10% if he would resign and thus end this discussion and bring back some investors confidence again. What do you think?

[MicroGuy]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

[achow101]

EVERYBODY PLEASE STOP WITH THE FUD!!!!!.

So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning his XT altcoin for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time.

The fork IS NOT an altcoin. It is a fork that will happen when >95% of the last 1000 blocks mined conform to the new version rules.

-Gavin is the only dev who supports this proposal
-Gavin caused attrition not only for the devteam but for all of the community
-He caused a lot of important people in the space to be upset and even some devs threaten to leave

possibly true.

-Gavin caused a decline in the price of Bitcoin which could possibly turn into panic selling (we don't know yet)

Stop spreading FUD and rumors if you don't know yet.

-Gavin caused a serious loss in investors confidence and thus harmed Bitcoin greatly
-He sends blackmail letters to the Bitcoin community "do how i say or else ..."
-He doesn't care for decentralisation
-He lies about many things
-He tried a power grab and sides with people who support blacklisting of coins

We don't know yet if these are true. Prove it. Find specific quotes of him publicly saying things that blackmail, lie, and show that he doesn't care for decentralization.

-He threatens to risk network consensus and thus the value of a lot of peoples' investement
-He has no idea what consensus is or disrespects it willfully

Not true. If you read above about how the blockchain will be forked, he is respecting consensus because the vast majority of the miners and thus nodes will need to upgrade.

-A majority of the community thinks he is a CIA mole (he lost his marbles)
-He caused massive unease for everyone for prolonged time

Both possible, but first is rumor and FUD, no proof.

I think it's time to think about if he is really an asset for Bitcoin or more of a burden right now. I have a feeling Bitcoin could rebound +10% if he would resign and thus end this discussion and bring back some investors confidence again. What do you think?

I think you are wrong.

[anderson00673]

No, because the team that opposes him has a HUGE conflict of interest.  They will benefit from strangling the bitcoin, they will profit from your pockets.  Its called blockstream and it is the reason for this mess.  Not Gavin.  He is trying to look ahead and fix problems before they happen.  I wish everyone would educate themselves on the matter and not spread FUD.  There will be no alt coin, there will be no double coin, in fact the switchover should be invisible for the casual bitcoin holder/user.  I hate having to type these things over and over, but I will keep doing it as long as the cancerous fud spreads.

[Quickseller]

Just WTF. I am not sure why so many people are so strongly against the fork to allow for 20 MB blocks. Especially random newbie accounts. It seems that someone might be using shills to make it look like more people are against the fork then what really are

I do not see any other way that would allow for bitcoin to not become a centralized money transmission service similar to western union other then to allow the max block size to grow. I also think this is only one step in the right direction as more needs to be done to allow for the network to handle a greater number of tps.

[TruthBear]

Amen https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077912.0

[forlackofabettername]

dumb fuck, for open source to hold any truth, there is no such thing as "resign" everyone can contribute, the community accept such contribution is another fact.

So what's this 'left behind' shit then? How can he even adress the community in this tone? Is this an april fools joke or what? He behaves like fuckin' Hitler! Take away his bloody alert keys already! This guy is a danger to Bitcoin.

[forlackofabettername]

dumb fuck, for open source to hold any truth, there is no such thing as "resign" everyone can contribute, the community accept such contribution is another fact.

So what's this 'left behind' shit then? How can he even adress the community in this tone? Is this an april fools joke or what? He behaves like fuckin' Hitler! Take away his bloody alert keys already! This guy is a danger to Bitcoin.

Do you have trouble understanding a simple English sentence?

I can make an announcement that if you dont give me all your btc, your mom will get aids from apes. Do you take it seriously or you're gonna cry "you're so mean. how can you talk to me like this? i'm your fcking bitch dont behave like that.... mmmmkay" ?

Right, but it turns out his announcement was really low then. Really, really low.
Read it again: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

I don't think that is how he should talk to the community. This letter/announcement is a failure. He is a failure. He failed and it turns out he is harming the coin so what's the problem with him fucking off to his altcoin and leaving bitcoin alone? There is no problem with that. Who has a problem with it can go support his altcoin.

The truth of the matter is: this whole discussion is a waste of time for everyone involved. The easiest way for everyone is if he would resign.

[medialab101]

No, because the team that opposes him has a HUGE conflict of interest.  They will benefit from strangling the bitcoin, they will profit from your pockets.  Its called blockstream and it is the reason for this mess.  Not Gavin.  He is trying to look ahead and fix problems before they happen.  I wish everyone would educate themselves on the matter and not spread FUD.  There will be no alt coin, there will be no double coin, in fact the switchover should be invisible for the casual bitcoin holder/user.  I hate having to type these things over and over, but I will keep doing it as long as the cancerous fud spreads.

This... this... and this +1

[forlackofabettername]

No, because the team that opposes him has a HUGE conflict of interest.  They will benefit from strangling the bitcoin, they will profit from your pockets.  Its called blockstream and it is the reason for this mess.  Not Gavin.  He is trying to look ahead and fix problems before they happen.  I wish everyone would educate themselves on the matter and not spread FUD.  There will be no alt coin, there will be no double coin, in fact the switchover should be invisible for the casual bitcoin holder/user.  I hate having to type these things over and over, but I will keep doing it as long as the cancerous fud spreads.

This... this... and this +1

So you are in support of a power grab so Gavin is the sole decision maker just because some other people in the devteam work on offchain transactions which are actually a benefit for bitcoin and don't require to damage it?
So these other devs are guilty and biased now because they oppose a centralisation idea and work on stuff that gets max txs up?
Don't you think Gavin is biased too like Hitler was biased with his power grab in germany?
If you support a monarchy you can do that but don't expect people to listen to your bullshit much longer.

This "HUGE" conflict of interest does not exist. It is propaganda by the Gavin cocksuckers same as the "urgency" gavin imagines all the time was all propaganda and lies. We are seeing through it. You can stop trying to tell lies 24/7 because it gets you nowhere. Most of you gavin-cocksuckers talk is lies. Please go to gavincoin, the bitcoin community won't follow you and some would be really greatful if gavin would leave so the price can recover.

All i get to read here is a lot of manipulative and misleading bullshit from you folks. Reddit is worse.

[tvbcof]

So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning his XT altcoin for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time.
...

False!  It's not 'his' XT altcoin but rather Mike Hearns'.  Gavin simply wants to merge Bitcoin under the project.  Gavin is the putative leader of Bitcoin so anyone who doesn't like it can go suck an egg.

[Kprawn]

Some people are blowing this out of proportion .... Gavin suggested a change to benefit the Bitcoin protocol. {If the change is not done, we might have problems in the future}

He cannot get consensus about this change and then he went the wrong route to force this change, by suggesting him leaving Bitcoin and supporting Bitcoin-XT {More debate should have been the better option}

I did not like the way it was handled, but I can see why it was done and what the impact for the future will be, if it's not done.

Let's say, NO change is done, and Bitcoin fails... Gavin will be blamed. If he apply the change on a NEW fork, and the implementation is successfull, you can still follow the NEW route. {So it seems}

Does that make any sense? {This is how I understand it}  

[deine mudder]

Inserted links so you're having a harder time spreading lies. If i wasn't so worn out i could easily provide a lot more evidence for all the listed points. I might do tomorrow.

[deine mudder]

So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning his XT altcoin for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time.
...

False!  It's not 'his' XT altcoin but rather Mike Hearns'.  Gavin simply wants to merge Bitcoin under the project.  Gavin is the putative leader of Bitcoin so anyone who doesn't like it can go suck an egg.

corrected

[anderson00673]

Just WTF. I am not sure why so many people are so strongly against the fork to allow for 20 MB blocks. Especially random newbie accounts. It seems that someone might be using shills to make it look like more people are against the fork then what really are

Yeah and I am surprised that they don't pony up a few coins to buy some FM and senior member accounts, the cheap bastards.  The noob accounts make it pretty obvious what is going on.  How does a noob have such strong opinions on things?  I didn't even know wtf the blockchain was when I first signed up, let alone be familiar with inside details about the developers.

[rix5]

It would be good if everyone just ignored him and never ever even discusses to accept anything he codes. Best would be he comes out and says he's not coding for btc anymore because otherwise we have to deal with such bullshit all the time. He needs to make an altcoin because he is mentally not big enough to lead a decentralised open source project that requires a consensus of a large group of people. In an altcoin he can be the king and have a coin with 3 nodes of which are all hosted by him personally and all his minions can support him there.

[Pecunia non olet]

Just WTF. I am not sure why so many people are so strongly against the fork to allow for 20 MB blocks. Especially random newbie accounts. It seems that someone might be using shills to make it look like more people are against the fork then what really are

Yeah and I am surprised that they don't pony up a few coins to buy some FM and senior member accounts, the cheap bastards.  The noob accounts make it pretty obvious what is going on.  How does a noob have such strong opinions on things?  I didn't even know wtf the blockchain was when I first signed up, let alone be familiar with inside details about the developers.

The 'noob'-ad hominem. Again. If i only would get a satoshi each time i need to read that particular ad hominem i would be lying on the beach of Jamaica or something.
This forum is the same shit over and over again on all threads. Are you not getting tired of saying the same crap over and over again?

[Amph]

no, on the contrary he should be the only one in charge, the others 4 should resign instead, it's better to have only one guy that deal with the whole client, after all this whole thing starteg with satoshi only

[Pecunia non olet]

no, on the contrary he should be the only one in charge, the others 4 should resign instead, it's better to have only one guy that deal with the whole client, after all this whole thing starteg with satoshi only

I think you'll gladly join his centralised shitcoin and let your coins be blcklisted and funds frozen by the govt, am i right?
I hope you can accept that many people don't share Gavins' vision of a shitcoin to buy coffee which will be more like ripple than it will be like Bitcoin and maybe you can see there will be no consensus for this shit.


Look what i found:


or maybe more like a trojan horse?



lol, i'm actually really bad with this stuff 

[Amph]

lol, how Gavin fork is centralized more than the whole bitcoin itself, built by one whole man, explain? it can't be, i just see it as a mandatory upgrade, the other proposal is even more shit if you really want to ask me, so by how i see it we have no choice

lucky we still have time, if in some months some better alternative will come up, i could change my mind

[tvbcof]

...


lol, i'm actually really bad with this stuff 

LOL!  True.  That's half of the reason it is so funny.

[MrZigler]

The other devs like Peter Todd have done such a good job putting out evidence that dramatically increasing the blocksize will lead to centralization of bitcoin that instead of refuting it the pro Gavin power grab are a screaming chorus of urgency and crisis reminding me of when there is a bill like the patriot act being pushed through congress.

Many are already decloaking and admitting an elitist centralization agenda.

That thing about the fork not happening until 90 % of nodes are running XT, that is going to change too.

These guys on a power trip have no intentions of waiting for 90 % of the nodes.

Get ready because if this powergrab is allowed to go unchalleged next thing is the 21 million BTC limit along with changing the target time.


The Gavin Regime will turn into Darth Vader saying "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further"

[jacktheking]

I read lot of things about this particular person. And I voted for Yes. I feel that he is making Bitcoin complex and uneasy for everyone.

[JeromeL]

no, on the contrary he should be the only one in charge, the others 4 should resign instead, it's better to have only one guy that deal with the whole client, after all this whole thing starteg with satoshi only

If anyone thinks Bitcoin needs a leader, I highly recommend:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqnnni

You can mentally replace "leader" with "point of failure" or "target to compromise" and not be too far off the mark

[onewiseguy]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

I like your stat on that Bitcoin was meant to be decentralized and Mr. gavin wants the whole cake.


Does not look so good.  at the same time what makes Gavin a bad dude I have seen a couple of his videos.  Up to this point seems like a far guy.

Am I missing something?

[SuperClam]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community
Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin
If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

Wrong.


Network Consensus > Community > Core Developers > Satoshi > Gavin

[medUSA]

-Gavin is the only dev who supports this proposal

Gavin's method of slowly raising block limit is simple and it works. The other proposed sidechain method is complicated and premature. He is out numbered not because his direction is wrong, it's because the other devs have "personal interests" on their solution.

-Gavin was planning to foist his and Hearns' XT altcoin on the community for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time.

The others devs' founded Blockstream, it was all planned for a long time too. It has been receiving millions of funding from "investors". Are these devs likely to push their sidechain tech or follow Gavin's method?

-Gavin caused a decline in the price of Bitcoin which could possibly turn into panic selling (we don't know yet)
-Gavin caused a serious loss in investors confidence and thus harmed Bitcoin greatly

Gavin did not cause the difference in opinion among the devs. All the devs as a group caused it. Besides, panic selling and loss in investors confidence is speculation.

[Agestorzrxx]

I really feel bad about recently fork things. When I know bitcoin, I realize it's the way going to freedom. And charge your money by yourself. But this things just show me we only waiting the things happened.

[digicoin]

no, on the contrary he should be the only one in charge, the others 4 should resign instead, it's better to have only one guy that deal with the whole client, after all this whole thing starteg with satoshi only

this

[LiteCoinGuy]

@deine mudder

man, you are one of the biggest trolls here 

[forlackofabettername]

You know you don't have consensus, when your  proposal crashes the price. What more do you want to know? The market already declined his allures, in fact people are so upset around 50% of people votes for Gavin to leave developement. I think this case is crystal clear.

[digicoin]

"Crash the price" A kid says. Ha ha.   

[tvbcof]

...


lol, i'm actually really bad with this stuff 

LOL!  True.  That's half of the reason it is so funny.

Here is my even more lame attempt:

[achow101]

That thing about the fork not happening until 90 % of nodes are running XT, that is going to change too.

These guys on a power trip have no intentions of waiting for 90 % of the nodes.

Get ready because if this powergrab is allowed to go unchalleged next thing is the 21 million BTC limit along with changing the target time.

They will definitely wait for the 90% before the fork happens because if they didn't it would completely screw up both the original and the new. This would devalue Bitcoin, and everyone would lose confidence in Gavin if he caused the fork to occur so that there actually are two separate coins that essentially doubles any amount of Bitcoin people have right now. He would loose his power and his power grab would fail if he screws up the way that it forks.

[the joint]

It's so refreshing that people are making such definitive conclusions about a dev who has guided development of this project for years, especially when they are so technically versed about the issue at hand 

My guess is that somewhere between 90-99.9% of people who are weighing in on this subject have absolutely no clue about what the technical ramifications of his proposal actually are.  People are just upset their investments might dwindle, and their concerns are based on what they hear from the 100th person in a game of telephone.

[Quickseller]

It's so refreshing that people are making such definitive conclusions about a dev who has guided development of this project for years, especially when they are so technically versed about the issue at hand 

My guess is that somewhere between 90-99.9% of people who are weighing in on this subject have absolutely no clue about what the technical ramifications of his proposal actually are.  People are just upset their investments might dwindle, and their concerns are based on what they hear from the 100th person in a game of telephone.

I think people who are heavily invested in various alt coins are most likely going to want the 20 MB fork to fail. If the fork fails then bitcoin will not be able to ever reach mainstream adoption and as a result as bitcoin gets more popular, people will be forced to also start to use alt coins as well which will push up the value of various shitcoins.

[ebliever]

Looks like the Blockstream FUD team and it's shills have reached their high water mark. Bitcoin price is starting to recover and even on threads like this Gavin is receiving over 50% poll support.

Gavin's proposal should be debated on its own merits, not subverted by Blockstream and others intending to rip off the bitcoin community by hijacking the blockchain and (over time) restricting it to those with the deep pockets to pay rising fees.

At first there was a lot of good debate over the proposal to partly restore the old 30+ MB limit by merely going back to 20 MB. But now as the "change nothing" manipulators have lost ground we see them going nuts with wild raving. Do they think this will help their cause?

[not altcoin hitler]

It's so refreshing that people are making such definitive conclusions about a dev who has guided development of this project for years, especially when they are so technically versed about the issue at hand 

My guess is that somewhere between 90-99.9% of people who are weighing in on this subject have absolutely no clue about what the technical ramifications of his proposal actually are.  People are just upset their investments might dwindle, and their concerns are based on what they hear from the 100th person in a game of telephone.

We only discuss it in the public arena because the devs have no consensus and gavin tries the power grab by the venue of ignoring the devteam and trying to lure in the community with his reddit-mob and cult followers who heavily manipulate the discussion and public opinion with lies and distorted arguments.
 
What do you think why we are even discussing this shit? Because Gavin wants the to be the sole leader of bitcoin, that's why we even have to discuss this shit.
So really he has to go because he's in the process of delivering a blow to everyone including himself.

The community will not come to rest as long as he is still trying to to pull his ego-bullshit off. Nobody wants him now. We prefer our Bitcoin healthy.

There is quite a couple of things going wrong right now.

[boopy265420]

My vote is for ''No''. Gavin is the person who is doing his best to deliver and making Bitcoin more and more better.Gavin must continue and should take all the necessary steps which he thinks are useful for long term.Community is on his back so no matter what comes he will continue and succeed.

[Pecunia non olet]

My vote is for ''No''. Gavin is the person who is doing his best to deliver and making Bitcoin more and more better.Gavin must continue and should take all the necessary steps which he thinks are useful for long term.Community is on his back so no matter what comes he will continue and succeed.

please move over to the 'praise our leader thread' thanks

[tvbcof]

...


lol, i'm actually really bad with this stuff 

LOL!  True.  That's half of the reason it is so funny.

Here is my even more lame attempt:

img] fuckin google.../img]

[the joint]

It's so refreshing that people are making such definitive conclusions about a dev who has guided development of this project for years, especially when they are so technically versed about the issue at hand 

My guess is that somewhere between 90-99.9% of people who are weighing in on this subject have absolutely no clue about what the technical ramifications of his proposal actually are.  People are just upset their investments might dwindle, and their concerns are based on what they hear from the 100th person in a game of telephone.

We only discuss it in the public arena because the devs have no consensus and gavin tries the power grab by the venue of ignoring the devteam and trying to lure in the community with his reddit-mob and cult followers who heavily manipulate the discussion and public opinion with lies and distorted arguments.
 
What do you think why we are even discussing this shit? Because Gavin wants the to be the sole leader of bitcoin, that's why we even have to discuss this shit.
So really he has to go because he's in the process of delivering a blow to everyone including himself.

The community will not come to rest as long as he is still trying to to pull his ego-bullshit off. Nobody wants him now. We prefer our Bitcoin healthy.

There is quite a couple of things going wrong right now.

Let him do what he wants.  That's the nature of decentralization.  Any dev can propose any changes he likes, implement them, and release a client.  They can jump and scream, advertise it, and persuade people to use it.

Where's the problem?  The only issue I see is that the (extremely) overwhelming majority of people, if asked to make a case for or against Gavin's proposal, would have no idea what to say, or would have no idea whether the case they do make is right or wrong. 

[iCEBREAKER]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

It goes like this: Nick Szabo = Satoshi > core dev consensus > Gavin > Community

There!  I fixt it, for you!   

(If you haven't noticed, the 8MB backpedaling began shortly after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

[unamis76]

No, he shouldn't resign... What fiasco is the poll about? Are discussions about important issues such as Bitcoin's future and block size now a "fiasco"? That's like putting one's head in the sand when confronted with an issue...

[tokeweed]

So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning to foist his and Hearns' XT altcoin on the community for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time. (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqbd78)
-Gavin is the only dev who supports this proposal (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqz9xf3)
-Gavin caused attrition not only for the devteam but for all of the community
-He caused a lot of important people in the space to be upset and even some devs threaten to leave
-Gavin caused a decline in the price of Bitcoin which could possibly turn into panic selling (we don't know yet)
-Gavin caused a serious loss in investors confidence and thus harmed Bitcoin greatly
-He sends blackmail letters to the Bitcoin community "do how i say or else ..."
-He doesn't care for decentralisation
-He lies about many things
-He tried a power grab and sides with people who support blacklisting of coins
-He caused massive unease for everyone for prolonged time
-He has no idea what consensus is or disrespects it willfully
-A majority of the community thinks he is a CIA mole (he lost his marbles)
-He threatens to risk network consensus and thus the value of a lot of peoples' investement

There are certainly more things to list. I'll complete the list later on.

I think it's time to think about if he is really an asset for Bitcoin or more of a burden right now. I have a feeling Bitcoin could rebound +10% if he would resign and thus end this discussion and bring back some investors confidence again. What do you think?

No.  I think he should push for Bitcoin XT.  He should start lobbying and be more vocal about it.  This is a truly exciting time for Bitcoin.

[RappelzReborn]

Of course not lol , He is doing a big effort to make Bitcoin better and more known then it never was so no he shouldn't resign if he does Bitcoin will probably not die , however it will be a big loss to the Bitcoin community . I don't see someone else who can do the same good job as he is doing .

[Fabrizio89]

It's not much about Gavin resigning but more about finding and bringing in more people able to code and with understanding of the technology that can contribute to a higher degree and do what is best for Bitcoin not for experimenting. Open source is that, giving opportunity to everyone to contribute and make things better than before.

[Amph]

he have plenty of coins right? then he is a good candidate and should not be resign, anyone that it is not distracted by the easy money, is a good dev in my opinion

if instead of him you put a good dev that has no coins, i'm sure he will work more for his interest only..

[SebastianJu]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

Um... regardless of the OP's question... im really astonished how many bitcoiners believe in a top down hierarchy. Your suggestion is the opposite of democracy. Gavin should only be the one that does what we want. Though i admit its hard to come up with an idea how the community could possibly vote on what should happen. The vote by chosing the original or the forked blockchain is a vote system already in place.

Still, Gavin should be the one who does what we want, he is no ruler. Only saying that he decides what to do looks to me like a backstep in human development. As if we need a leader telling us what will happen. Making us the ones who follow commands.

What is this conflict of interest with blockstream? How can the other devs profit from it by not forking?

I see though how Gavin could profit when he gives bitcoin his own stamp BitcoinXT. Im not sure if that name can be protected by rights so that Bitcoin would be a bit less public ownership. But i see that its a problem when future wallets are build from a company. Though i wonder how much bitcoin xt will affect things when the original client is changed and gavin isnt only going to bitcoinxt in order to use his private fork.

[JeromeL]

[...] after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

link ?

[Lauda]

You sure love the freedom that this forum provides. Freedom of speech idiocy on the internet sure has great downsides. 

Mircea and his band of shills need to stop the war against Gavin. Gavin is not going anywhere and there isn't anything that you can do about it.
He will never resign, end of story. The community has no power over this decision.

[marcus_of_augustus]

He should probably begin to consider his options. He's actually been at the wheel quite a bit longer than Satoshi was, he's not actually lead coder on Core (who is Wladimir and has been for quite some time now) and he's lost the respect of the overwhelming majority of the core devs on the block size issue.

Back away from the blind alley of blockchain forking brinksmanship, quietly step aside and hand the reins over would be an honourable move if this was any other open source project. Job well done Gavin, thanks.

[1Referee]

I voted, no. Gavin knows exactly what has to be done, and he has been here from the early days. Also important, he is one of the very few that had at least some sort of contact with Satoshi.

[randy8777]

of course not. that's also what i voted. something that basically isn't a problem turned into a mass-fud-hype. there are probably a lot shill accounts voting yes just to troll.

[iCEBREAKER]

[...] after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

link ?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html …

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30
FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

[not altcoin hitler]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

[RoadStress]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Ok Mircea Popescu. We got it! It's the same shit over and over again.

Mircea and his band of shills need to stop the war against Gavin. Gavin is not going anywhere and there isn't anything that you can do about it.
He will never resign, end of story. The community has no power over this decision.

I'm starting to see this with a totally different perspective. This is turning really funny for me with this huge amount of work coming from one man. Even if he doesn't post he is coordinating this somehow and knowing that he puts so much energy into this while also knowing that someday we will have bigger blocks and this huge amount of energy put into this whole vomit would simply waste 

[DarkHyudrA]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Saying this is more than being idiot. It's like having a mental problem.
"Gavin doesn't like descentralization" they say and their answer is offchain transactions?

Satoshi made Bitcoin with block support way bigger than 20MB, we are just getting ready if the number of transactions increases.
I support 100% the new block max size.

[not altcoin hitler]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Saying this is more than being idiot. It's like having a mental problem.
"Gavin doesn't like descentralization" they say and their answer is offchain transactions?

Satoshi made Bitcoin with block support way bigger than 20MB, we are just getting ready if the number of transactions increases.
I support 100% the new block max size.

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Saying this is more than being idiot. It's like having a mental problem.
"Gavin doesn't like descentralization" they say and their answer is offchain transactions?

Satoshi made Bitcoin with block support way bigger than 20MB, we are just getting ready if the number of transactions increases.
I support 100% the new block max size.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

[DarkHyudrA]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Saying this is more than being idiot. It's like having a mental problem.
"Gavin doesn't like descentralization" they say and their answer is offchain transactions?

Satoshi made Bitcoin with block support way bigger than 20MB, we are just getting ready if the number of transactions increases.
I support 100% the new block max size.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Increasing the block max size doesn't necessary will make all blocks with 20MB. It's just a small step.
On the physical storage side, it's pretty much no difference. It's almost impossible to find a HDD with less than 1TB. It can support the actual network for a few years easily, no doubt.
Well, the only problem would be on the network side, transmiting and relaying a 20MB block would take a few moments. I just hope that even before we ever reach 5MB each block the devs and supporters find a better solution or the "block bloat".

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

[Pecunia non olet]

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?

[nutildah]

The bitcoin blockchain is already too large in size to make it feasible for mainstream adoption. This is the truth of the situation, like it or not. I've been monitoring adoption for about a year and a half and we are coming to a standstill in terms of transactions per day (with the exception of the recent selloff which has dramatically increased transactions).

Thus, I would say bitcoin's chances of actually achieving widespread adoption are already very slim.

Increasing the block size by such a large proportion will turn off the remainder of the potential convertible population, and will further solidify the gap between hardcore bitcoin geeks and those who couldn't care less.

By letting the blockchain expand up to 20x faster in size, centralization will no doubt be encouraged as those willing to run full clients/nodes will be discouraged by the amount of constant downloading they need to do. Imagine having to set up a QT wallet for the first time and waiting to download 100 GB just so you can perform a simple transaction... is that really an "improvement" on pre-existing systems?

Not all of us have super fast, 1 GBps internet speeds. Those of us who do have enough money in the first place shouldn't even need to worry about owning decentralized currency because they are obviously already well-off financially. Therein lies the irony of the entire cryptocurrency movement.

Therefore, I vote for Meni's elastic cap idea, even though Gavin seems to be putting up some resistance to it.

Edit: had I known my picture was going to end up on Reddit, I would have combed my beard!!

[fatguyyyyy]

I think many of us have lost confidence in Gavin, but not in bitcoin

[nutildah]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

To go back to your original Star Trek metaphor, if Captain Kirk died - even though Scotty has the keys to the ship - would you really want to promote Scotty to Captain??

[Quantus]

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

[Lauda]

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

No. If you have 10 transactions more each block than the maximum, then yes. However what happens when there are 10 000 transactions more than the maximum each block?
What happens when you need to pay a $2 fee to send $1? The reality would be bad.

Therefore, I vote for Meni's elastic cap idea, even though Gavin seems to be putting up some resistance to it.

Two words:
Network complexity.


We all agree that a fixed limit won't work forever.

[achow101]

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

This wouldn't work with large amounts of transactions. If there is a waiting list, then your transaction is not going to be confirmed in a timely matter. Once the list gets long enough, waiting for your transaction to be confirmed could take several blocks, and thus several hours. It would push out more than jsut micro transactions if there are enough transactions. Once the block is full, it can't take anymore transactions, even those that aren't micro transactions.

[Pecunia non olet]

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

No. If you have 10 transactions more each block than the maximum, then yes. However what happens when there are 10 000 transactions more than the maximum each block?
What happens when you need to pay a $2 fee to send $1? The reality would be bad.

Therefore, I vote for Meni's elastic cap idea, even though Gavin seems to be putting up some resistance to it.

Two words:
Network complexity.


We all agree that a fixed limit won't work forever.

At 1 MB and current growth  projected out you'd not be paying 2$ before 2020 if ever.
To let it reach the limit for some time will enable us to determine how this whole thing behaves with the fees. I doubt it will even be 2$ fees even with very high tx load.

At 1MB fees will be what people are willing to pay (free market effect). So i think 2$ wouldn't even happen. More like 1$ max ... or just wait longer.  User determines fees, no? If i pay 1cent i'll wait a bit longer than the one paying 10 cent. Pretty simple, isn't it?
With  blocklimit not even reached talking about 2$ fees is nonsense.

Right now you can send with zero fee and more often than not get into the next block. So what's this Gavin-fork about? It's cancer, nothing else.

[Pecunia non olet]

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

This wouldn't work with large amounts of transactions. If there is a waiting list, then your transaction is not going to be confirmed in a timely matter. Once the list gets long enough, waiting for your transaction to be confirmed could take several blocks, and thus several hours. It would push out more than jsut micro transactions if there are enough transactions. Once the block is full, it can't take anymore transactions, even those that aren't micro transactions.

And then the Universe will implode, right?

[yayayo]

Voted yes. I do not agree with all points Op has brought up, but I noticed more than once that Gavin is out for a power grab and is a rather conformist (pro-government) person (it started with The Bitcoin Foundation).

He did contribute to Bitcoin of course, but I don't think he has the personality that makes a good lead developer for this kind of software.

Also I do not tend to trust persons that voluntarily accept invitations by the CIA and other questionable government bodies that operate without transparency.

Why can't we have a system were every block is full, with a waiting list and cutoff for those that didn't get into the last block?
Wouldn't this push out only the micro transactions? Isn't this how the system was suppose to work? Wasn't it suppose to be a fee based system and not a free system?
Wasn't the network suppose to pay for itself? Wouldn't this lead to a reliance on unpaid users for infrastructure?

Exactly. Currently the system would work like this, if blocksize remains limited.

Decentralization is the very core of Bitcoin. Without decentralization there is no value - Bitcoin would be just another Paypal.

ya.ya.yo!

[Pecunia non olet]

If you raise blocklimit a lot ahead of demand (like Gavin wants) you get yourself potentially in trouble when the projections for txs don't come true because: how are you going to pay the miners when blockrewards go away? Fees are needed to keep the network secure.

I tell you right now: in a system how gavin wants with raising blocklimit ahead of demand you will not be able to stick to the 21 mln max coins and you'll have to quantitative ease new coins later on just to keep the network secure. So what Gavin wants now is QE later and that'll make your btc pretty much worthless when the hard limit is raised every other year.

Gavin wants to be central communist planner imo.
The system is selfregulated. If you fix it without anything broken you'll ruin the selfregulatory properties.

Gavin is cancer to Bitcoin. If he doesn't slow down with his plans or lay them off at least until it's really needed it's gonna crash hard, no doubt. Investors aren't sheep. They gonna dump on his ass if it needs to be.
If people let him vandalize the network with his XT client (which only gets around 50% of the network for all i can see) then i think BTC will depreciate a lot because people won't be willing to take the risk with two chains. It's safer to pump an altcoin then.

Best would be Gavin really starts his own little altcoin project. He's not the right man for btc.

[achow101]

If you raise blocklimit a lot ahead of demand (like Gavin wants) you get yourself potentially in trouble when the projections for txs don't come true because: how are you going to pay the miners when blockrewards go away? Fees are needed to keep the network secure.

Using the fees. If the block size stays the same, people will need to pay at least 0.005 BTC per transaction to keep the same miner's reward once the reward goes away. If there is enough transaction volume, then an even higher fee is required just so that your transaction will be confirmed quickly, and even that is not guaranteed. Increasing the block size keeps both the users and the miners happy. Miners will get paid, and if they include more transactions, they get more in fees. Users don't need to pay a large fee for a transaction, and they won't need to wait long times for a transaction to be confirmed. As long as there is still space in blocks for more transactions, most transactions will be confirmed quickly and miners can collect the most fees.

[Pecunia non olet]

If you raise blocklimit a lot ahead of demand (like Gavin wants) you get yourself potentially in trouble when the projections for txs don't come true because: how are you going to pay the miners when blockrewards go away? Fees are needed to keep the network secure.

Using the fees. If the block size stays the same, people will need to pay at least 0.005 BTC per transaction to keep the same miner's reward once the reward goes away. If there is enough transaction volume, then an even higher fee is required just so that your transaction will be confirmed quickly, and even that is not guaranteed. Increasing the block size keeps both the users and the miners happy. Miners will get paid, and if they include more transactions, they get more in fees. Users don't need to pay a large fee for a transaction, and they won't need to wait long times for a transaction to be confirmed. As long as there is still space in blocks for more transactions, most transactions will be confirmed quickly and miners can collect the most fees.

Thing is: these transactions don't take place yet. Most of the traffic is dice-games. What if Gavin can't predict the future?

[achow101]

If you raise blocklimit a lot ahead of demand (like Gavin wants) you get yourself potentially in trouble when the projections for txs don't come true because: how are you going to pay the miners when blockrewards go away? Fees are needed to keep the network secure.

Using the fees. If the block size stays the same, people will need to pay at least 0.005 BTC per transaction to keep the same miner's reward once the reward goes away. If there is enough transaction volume, then an even higher fee is required just so that your transaction will be confirmed quickly, and even that is not guaranteed. Increasing the block size keeps both the users and the miners happy. Miners will get paid, and if they include more transactions, they get more in fees. Users don't need to pay a large fee for a transaction, and they won't need to wait long times for a transaction to be confirmed. As long as there is still space in blocks for more transactions, most transactions will be confirmed quickly and miners can collect the most fees.

Thing is: these transactions don't take place yet. Most of the traffic is dice-games. What if Gavin can't predict the future?

Then miners stop mining once it becomes unprofitable. The outcome is still the same with or without the fork. If that much volume doesn't exist, then either way, the fees aren't enough to support miners once the block reward stops. Sure with smaller blocks you could force fees to go up, but Bitcoin would also lose people to altcoins that have lower fees and faster confirmation times.

[Quantus]

Has Gavin considered creating a alt coin named Gavin coin? If the polls are to be believed then it could be exceedingly popular and make him a lot of money.

[Pecunia non olet]

If you raise blocklimit a lot ahead of demand (like Gavin wants) you get yourself potentially in trouble when the projections for txs don't come true because: how are you going to pay the miners when blockrewards go away? Fees are needed to keep the network secure.

Using the fees. If the block size stays the same, people will need to pay at least 0.005 BTC per transaction to keep the same miner's reward once the reward goes away. If there is enough transaction volume, then an even higher fee is required just so that your transaction will be confirmed quickly, and even that is not guaranteed. Increasing the block size keeps both the users and the miners happy. Miners will get paid, and if they include more transactions, they get more in fees. Users don't need to pay a large fee for a transaction, and they won't need to wait long times for a transaction to be confirmed. As long as there is still space in blocks for more transactions, most transactions will be confirmed quickly and miners can collect the most fees.

Thing is: these transactions don't take place yet. Most of the traffic is dice-games. What if Gavin can't predict the future?

Then miners stop mining once it becomes unprofitable. The outcome is still the same with or without the fork. If that much volume doesn't exist, then either way, the fees aren't enough to support miners once the block reward stops. Sure with smaller blocks you could force fees to go up, but Bitcoin would also lose people to altcoins that have lower fees and faster confirmation times.

It would loose microtransactions at the very first. And does it need them? I think not because they bloat it up ad infinitum!
BTC looses it's store of value purpose with a bloated, centralized and undefensible Gavinchain.
It was thought to be digital gold but Gavin wants to make it visacard. Can't have both.
Gavin sets priorities wrong.
Decentralisation has higher priority than tps for example.

Fees will never be enough for miners if you keep raising blocklimit ahead of demand and only on basis of a guess about the future. What if the future predictions doesn't come true? Then you are stuck with a coin that doesn't produce fees at all and miners will be forced to form a cartel.

YOU JUST DON'T RAISE BLOCKLIMIT AHEAD OF DEMAND BECAUSE THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY STUPID THING TO DO. IF YOUR FUTURE PREDICTIONS TURN OUT FALSE IT'S RUINED!


Not even talking about that he can't even get a consensus anywhere (not with the devs, not with the miners, not with the exchanges, not with the investos, the community, the users) HE IS A WASTE OF TIME! IF HE WAS RIGHT IN THE HEAD HE WOULD LAY IT OFF NOW... at least until there is real demand for bigger blocks because the current blocks are full.


Jeezuz, people ... really. What's the freakin' problem? There is no demand for bigger blocks right now. When there is then maybe it's alright to raise the bloody limit but not ahead of the freakin' demand. What's so hard to understand about that?

[achow101]

It would loose microtransactions at the very first. And does it need them? I think not because they bloat it up ad infinitum!

A large portion of transactions now are micro transactions, and they haven't bloated the blocks.

Fees will never be enough for miners if you keep raising blocklimit ahead of demand and only on basis of a guess about the future. What if the future predictions doesn't come true? Then you are stuck with a coin that doesn't produce fees at all and miners will be forced to form a cartel.

Miners have the choice to quit. As I said earlier, once mining becomes unprofitable, miners will quit. That of course may lead to greater centralization, but only because of bandwidth issues. Even with 20 MB blocks, most people have enough bandwidth to support that size, and by the time that the size is reached, bandwidth should increase enough everywhere so that almost everyone has enough bandwidth. It is not a guess either. The prediction is based off of historical data of block sizes and the growth rate. Eventually, within a few years, this scaling problem does become an issue.

YOU JUST DON'T RAISE BLOCKLIMIT AHEAD OF DEMAND BECAUSE THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY STUPID THING TO DO. IF YOUR FUTURE PREDICTIONS TURN OUT FALSE IT'S RUINED!

Having a plan for a future condition never hurts. He is planning this way ahead of any possible maximum of the block size. This allows for a smooth transition. The code is written beforehand, bugs are worked out beforehand, and the change is not a rushed panicked thing that scares the crap out of everyone and causes a loss of confidence. By doing it now, it mitigates some of the negative consequences of doing it in a short time on short notice.

Not even talking about that he can't even get a consensus anywhere (not with the devs, not with the miners, not with the exchanges, not with the investos, the community, the users) HE IS A WASTE OF TIME! IF HE WAS RIGHT IN THE HEAD HE WOULD LAY IT OFF NOW.

He definitely has a lot of the community and users on board. I have not been able to find if any miners or exchanges disagree. Most are in favor of the block size increase, but only by some amount, not all the way up to 20 MB immediately.

[alani123]

There are still strong arguments against any block size increase. I don't think that there's anyone out there against the idea of allowing bitcoin to support a greater number of transactions per block. The way this is going to be implemented though is also a crucial part. And when speaking for myself, I kind of agree with some of the statements made in OP. A fork, while a considerable amount of core developers, miners, users and investors are in disagreement with Gavin's way of doing this, is risky to say the least.

Showing willingness to progress with such a plan while so many prominent members of the community have deemed it too risky is indeed driving the community apart, creating lots of uncertainty and ultimately puts bitcoin in a risky situation. Not the way I expected someone like Gavin to act like.

[forlackofabettername]

There are still strong arguments against any block size increase. I don't think that there's anyone out there against the idea of allowing bitcoin to support a greater number of transactions per block. The way this is going to be implemented though is also a crucial part. And when speaking for myself, I kind of agree with some of the statements made in OP. A fork, while a considerable amount of core developers, miners, users and investors are in disagreement with Gavin's way of doing this, is risky to say the least.

Showing willingness to progress with such a plan while so many prominent members of the community have deemed it too risky is indeed driving the community apart, creating lots of uncertainty and ultimately puts bitcoin in a risky situation. Not the way I expected someone like Gavin to act like.

Dump for LTC and be done with it. LTC/BTC is your friend

Gabbycoin is going to crash and burn. And the sheep who cheer him on are also responsible.

Diversify into alts, man. No problem. VTC looks good. LTC looks good, get some other good ones and just dump those BTC to whomever wants to hold that risk. Converting your coins is done in 60 minutes.

It happens right now right in front of you all: LTC very bullish and BTC very bearish. Why the hell do people still hold BTC? Better sell that shit early. It's a troubled coin with a lot of drama and risk now.

[hasmukhh]

well if he does so many thing that effects humanity then I guess he should leave the bitcoin development. 
if there is so much of ego in him and if he wants us to follow his rules then he should not be in the community.  bitcoin is a thing by the people and for the people . its freedom to anything.
it should be immune and people should be using bitcoin comfortably.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!

Saying this is more than being idiot. It's like having a mental problem.
"Gavin doesn't like descentralization" they say and their answer is offchain transactions?

Satoshi made Bitcoin with block support way bigger than 20MB, we are just getting ready if the number of transactions increases.
I support 100% the new block max size.

What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same.

Also:
- Satoshi is not God. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will.
- He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past.
- His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money."

Increasing the block max size doesn't necessary will make all blocks with 20MB. It's just a small step.
On the physical storage side, it's pretty much no difference. It's almost impossible to find a HDD with less than 1TB. It can support the actual network for a few years easily, no doubt.
Well, the only problem would be on the network side, transmiting and relaying a 20MB block would take a few moments. I just hope that even before we ever reach 5MB each block the devs and supporters find a better solution or the "block bloat".

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I do understand but can't we just wait and see what are the problems when block size reaches 1MB.

[iCEBREAKER]

Has Gavin considered creating a alt coin named Gavin coin? If the polls are to be believed then it could be exceedingly popular and make him a lot of money.

He's already created an alt called BitcoinXT, popularly known as GavinCoin.

The problem is that he's trying to launch it at the expense of BTC, with a sneaky secret ninja plan to cannibalize the existing network and ultimately assassinate good old CoreCoin.

Current domination post on the subject:

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.

gavin@TLA.MIT.EDU is done with the false-flag "embrace" phase.  He's now deep in the "extend" offensive.  Next (and last) he goes for "extinguish."

[shawshankinmate37927]

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

You mean like waiting until your engine dies before worrying about putting more gas in the tank?

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?

Or maybe he's just proactive instead of reactive.  Ever thought about that?

[ObscureBean]

Blocks aren't even full, goofy.

Do you prefer to fix a problem or to avoid it?

I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?

Well if Gavin's predictions are correct, it might be too late or very difficult to apply a fix beyond a certain threshold. Adding to the problem is the fact that things can go downhill extremely fast in crypto, a single wave of panic-selling could be enough to bring Bitcoin to it's knees. I suggest that people interested in the topic read Gavin's own words/notes and make up their minds rather than trusting other people's version of the story.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

[Lauda]

I prefer to fix a problem once it occures. It's good to have a solution at hand but it's called "obsessive compulsive bahviour" if you fix problems that don't exist.

You mean like waiting until your engine dies before worrying about putting more gas in the tank?

Maybe Gavin has OCD. Ever thought about that?

Or maybe he's just proactive instead of reactive.  Ever thought about that?

Please ignore Mircea and his band. You're in for a better experience doing so. They have authority issues with Gavin and are going to spew up just about anything to support their goals (removing Gavin).
Fixing a problem once it occurs is the worst method. Mircea would rather get an STD than wear protection.  
It seems rather irrational to wait and see how it plays out and if things go downhill then try fixing what we could have prevented in the first place.

Well if Gavin's predictions are correct, it might be too late or very difficult to apply a fix beyond a certain threshold. Adding to the problem is the fact that things can go downhill extremely fast in crypto, a single wave of panic-selling could be enough to bring Bitcoin to it's knees. I suggest that people interested in the topic read Gavin's own words/notes and make up their minds rather than trusting other people's version of the story.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

People really have weird reasons to why they are objecting Gavin's proposal.

I do understand but can't we just wait and see what are the problems when block size reaches 1MB.

There seems to be a group of individuals that can wait. I'm pretty sure that they use reason often.  


Update:

I didn't understand what you "really" meant. Maybe you can clarify?

I'm trying to say that there is a group of people who think otherwise.

[Fabrizio89]

I don't really care what he does, I want to see more people getting involved with the development, if someone has better ideas, a view, the network will recognize him, that's how Bitcoin will thrive, not by simply pushing people out

[S4VV4S]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

You got things mixed up.
It is the other way around.

It is community first, because if there wasn't community there wouldn't be a Satoshi to begin with.
If noone supported his coin, then you wouldn't have heard of him.

So you should put the community first, then the rest.

[Amph]

It goes like this: Satoshi > Gavin > Community

Not like this: Satoshi > Community > Gavin

If you put the community in the middle there will be total chaos with no direction or cure. The community must go with flow chart A.

You got things mixed up.
It is the other way around.

It is community first, because if there wasn't community there wouldn't be a Satoshi to begin with.
If noone supported his coin, then you wouldn't have heard of him.

So you should put the community first, then the rest.

without satoshi , there would not be any bitcoin nowadays, nor blockchain, it's satoshi that started this whole story that then has built a comunity, the comunity wasn't even aware of bitcoin, before satoshi made it public, so you point has no sense

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-

I do understand but can't we just wait and see what are the problems when block size reaches 1MB.

There seems to be a group of individuals that can wait. I'm pretty sure that they use reason often. 

I didn't understand what you "really" meant. Maybe you can clarify?

[JeromeL]

[...] after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

link ?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html …

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30
FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

FYI, Nick Szabo retweeted (and added to his favorites):
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/605117508971053057
"@oleganza: If Bitcoin was ever competing with Paypal or Visa, it would not even start. It competes with gold and central banks."

[crazyearner]

Even if Gavin resigned it would give room for more people to step in and take his place. Satoshi left at the beginning and still it continues to grow get maintained and updated. It is up to Gavin to stay or not but if he does leave will be a massive loss but at the same time still room for more people to take over and take his place if he does decide to leave.

[NorrisK]

Even if Gavin resigned it would give room for more people to step in and take his place. Satoshi left at the beginning and still it continues to grow get maintained and updated. It is up to Gavin to stay or not but if he does leave will be a massive loss but at the same time still room for more people to take over and take his place if he does decide to leave.

He should leave at a high though, not at a low. With all this shit about the fork, it would leave a stain on all his work before. I rather see him leave later than now.

[iCEBREAKER]

[...] after Szabo began via twitter to gently reign in Gavin's megalomania.)

link ?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html …

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30
FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

FYI, Nick Szabo retweeted (and added to his favorites):
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/605117508971053057
"@oleganza: If Bitcoin was ever competing with Paypal or Visa, it would not even start. It competes with gold and central banks."

Well then, it's settled.  Satoshi has spoken.

[alani123]

Haven't heard much about block size lately. Bitcoin's development public email list is also back to normal. Are we done with the drama?

[crazyearner]

Even if Gavin resigned it would give room for more people to step in and take his place. Satoshi left at the beginning and still it continues to grow get maintained and updated. It is up to Gavin to stay or not but if he does leave will be a massive loss but at the same time still room for more people to take over and take his place if he does decide to leave.

He should leave at a high though, not at a low. With all this shit about the fork, it would leave a stain on all his work before. I rather see him leave later than now.

True but maybe he has his own reasons to leave or is being pressured into it no one quite knows thew reasons  maybe he should step forward make an announcement casting his thoughts and views and get feedback from bitcoin users.