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.

Here is my even more lame attempt:

img] fuckin google.../img]

[1714933263]

1714933263

[1714933263]

1714933263

[1714933263]

1714933263

[1714933263]

1714933263

[1714933263]

1714933263

[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."