Should Gavin resign from developement of Bitcoin? [POLL]

[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?

[1714055568]

1714055568

[1714055568]

1714055568

[1714055568]

1714055568

[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.