Should Gavin resign from developement of Bitcoin? [POLL]

[tvbcof]

...


lol, i'm actually really bad with this stuff 

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

[1713962233]

1713962233

[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