Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If Gavin has the power to do it how is it a non-starter?

[brg444]

If Gavin has the power to do it how is it a non-starter?

Do you really believe Gavin wanna go there?

[tl121]

Anyhow its ironic and funny, when browsing the XT sub-reddit to see a regular appearance of people complaining about the difficulty of running their node.

Running XT is equivalent to saying 'Lets vote to take away our vote'. The voting being done by running nodes, with XT supporters not having a problem if in the future only larger entities can run nodes in datacenters. (and yes nodes do vote because ultimately its them who have the power and miners have no choice but to mine blocks that economic consensus considers valid).

XT is actually an example of the need for easy to run nodes. Like Peter Todd said, I don't agree with XTs specific goals but the ability to do what they are trying to do needs to be there.
 

On the front page right now (and there have been many other instances of similar threads in past):

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3xke53/default_settings_should_not_crash_bitcoinxtd_on_a/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3xmmko/throttling_my_xt_nodes_cpu_usage/


Not from xt subreddit but still:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xp22r/fully_synced_bitcoin_core_is_using_50_cpu_is/


In the meantime core developers are constantly giving real improvements to scalability, as opposed to simplistic 'speed limit increase' masquerading as scalability solution of XT.

It's quite easy to run an XT node, assuming that you know enough about bitcoin to run any node.  Switching back and forth between core and XT is the same effort as upgrading to a new version of core.

That is, unless your XT node gets DDoS by criminals.

[VeritasSapere]

@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

I am not convinced that Core will increase the blocksize. I think it would be wrong to expect people to "trust" Core to do this. Remember that all that Core needs to do is stall and delay, this would bring about the early "fee market" which they have been advocating for, which is in direct opposition to many peoples wishes and the original vision of Satoshi.

The roadmap is very clearly laid out. Indeed there is no direct blocksize increase through a hardfork that is planned for the foreseeable future.

Instead we get immediate 75% increase through an uncontentious, backward compatible softfork which also brings about significant improvements in other aspects of the protocol.

Spare us the rest of your FUD. If we can't trust Core with the aforementioned proposal then who should we trust or whose plan should we favor?

I don't see any team proposing anything remotely as sound and well thought out so maybe you can enlighten me?

Spare us your FUD. You lost, get over it and stop being so impressed by the charlatans over at bitco.in. If you don't want to save yourself no one can.

Segregated witnesses will take a significant amount of time to implement, it will take at least two years before we could even expect this to be implemented throughout the entire ecosystem, which is what would be required in order to bring about this increase. Furthermore hard forks should be preferred because they act as an important governance mechanism which allows people to protest by not updating their clients thereby splitting the network, this is why I believe Core is so afraid of doing hard forks, this should be embraced as a feature instead of being considered as a flaw within the protocol to be avoided.

Instead of trusting any singular organization, we should distribute this power across multiple implementations, this is how mining and nodes are decentralized after all. The same principle should apply to development. So far we have three alternative implementations that support an increased blocksize. Bitcoin Unlimited and XT are both forks of Core so they will continue to take advantage of all of the developments and advances within Core. Btcd has been written from scratch on the other hand, a completely unique implementation, which will also make the network more robust and resilient, since not having a monoculture of implementations would make the Bitcoin protocol more healthy over the long run.

If you are asking me who you should trust then I can respond by saying that you should not trust anyone. Bitcoin achieves trust without centralized authority, if Bitcoin needs to relly upon a centralized group of technocrats like Core in order to survive then the experiment has proven that Bitcoin does not work, this would defeat the very purpose of its existance so to speak. You might think that it is fine that we will be reliant upon third parties in order to effictivly and cheaply transact in Bitcoin if the blocksize is not raised. I disagree and I do not think it is justified for this group of technocrats to change the economic policy of Bitcoin which many people like myself did initialy sign up for. If Core does not increase the blocksize, which now does seem to be the case, I am certain that we will see the network fork, most likely causing a split depending upon the support either side might have.

I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.

[brg444]

Segregated witnesses will take a significant amount of time to implement, it will take at least two years before we could even expect this to be implemented throughout the entire ecosystem, which is what would be required in order to bring about this increase.

Another load of FUD further demonstrating your ignorance of technical aspects and your over-reliance on outsiders for insight. You're obviously basing these numbers on Jeff's openly pessimistic outlook which is being challenged by a considerable amount of devs.

The more generally accepted view is that the softwork will take anywhere between 3-6 months. Once activated it provides an immediate 75% increase in transaction capacity.

Moreover Jeff presents a shoddy parallel between multi-sig prevalence and potential future pace of SW adoption by the ecosystem. There are many reasons why this comparison is not particularly accurate but the more important one is that the largest actors in the ecosystem (hosted wallets) who are responsible for a important fraction of current transaction load will have clear economic incentive to move forward ASAP with SW. This will immediately translate into even more headroom for regular transactions.

Furthermore hard forks should be preferred because they act as an important governance mechanism which allows people to protest by not updating their clients thereby splitting the network, this is why I believe Core is so afraid of doing hard forks, this should be embraced as a feature instead of being considered as a flaw within the protocol to be avoided.

Hard forks create a dangerous precedent and potential destruction of the trust that has so far gravitated around Bitcoin since its inception, especially when there is a clear divide and lack of consensus.

The ability for us to compromise using a softfork is a clear win and anyone who does not understand this needs to double check their assumptions.

As a result, segwit allows scaling Bitcoin capacity in a opt-in way. Those who want to take advantage of extra capacity need to expend extra resources, but those who do not want to use the feature (no matter how small that minority is), do not need to expend any extra resources at all. Therefore, censorship-resistance property of Bitcoin remains unchanged.

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/135710722553/how-segregated-witness-is-not-the-same-as-bumping

Instead of trusting any singular organization, we should distribute this power across multiple implementations, this is how mining and nodes are decentralized after all. The same principle should apply to development. So far we have three alternative implementations that support an increased blocksize. Bitcoin Unlimited and XT are both forks of Core so they will continue to take advantage of all of the developments and advances within Core. Btcd has been written from scratch on the other hand, a completely unique implementation, which will also make the network more robust and resilient, since not having a monoculture of implementations would make the Bitcoin protocol more healthy over the long run.

Different implementations are generally helpful except when they challenge the existing consensus rules. I don't see why you even adressed this point since clearly no one is challenging it. It seems your complaint is about a general lack of adoption of these implementations. One doesn't have to look far to understand why it is so.

Have you looked at XT's Github repo lately? The development has stalled while Core continues to innovate. Its lead developer is missing in action and nowhere to be seen. Are you seriously proposing that users run code that is demonstrably lacking in peer-review?

I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.

We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else.

If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone.

If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes.

[VeritasSapere]

Segregated witnesses will take a significant amount of time to implement, it will take at least two years before we could even expect this to be implemented throughout the entire ecosystem, which is what would be required in order to bring about this increase.

Another load of FUD further demonstrating your ignorance of technical aspects and your over-reliance on outsider for insight. You're obviously basing these numbers on Jeff's openly pessimistic outlook which is being challenged by a considerable amount of devs.

The more generally accepted view is that the softwork will take anywhere between 3-6 months. Once activated it provides an immediate 75% increase in transaction capacity.

Moreover Jeff presents a shoddy parallel between multi-sig prevalence and potential future pace of SW adoption by the ecosystem. There are many reasons why this comparison is not particularly accurate but the more important one is that the largest actors in the ecosystem (hosted wallets) who are responsible for a important fraction of current transaction load will have clear economic incentive to move forward ASAP with SW. This will immediately translate into even more headroom for regular transactions.

Regardless it is still not sufficient enough of an increase to avoid the network becoming congested and causing transactions to become more expensive and unreliable, effectively bringing about a change in the economic policy of Bitcoin, which represents a departure from the original vision of Satoshi.

Furthermore hard forks should be preferred because they act as an important governance mechanism which allows people to protest by not updating their clients thereby splitting the network, this is why I believe Core is so afraid of doing hard forks, this should be embraced as a feature instead of being considered as a flaw within the protocol to be avoided.

Hard forks create a dangerous precedent and potential destruction of the trust that has so far gravitated around Bitcoin since its inception, especially when there is a clear divide and lack of consensus.

The ability for us to compromise using a softfork is a clear win and anyone who does not understand this needs to double check their assumptions.

I think that hard forks are critical in regards to ensuring the freedom of the Bitcoin protocol by acting as an important governance mechanism, it is this mechanism which ultimately ensures the freedom of choice by the participants of the network. You think that hard forks are dangerous and will destroy trust, this trust of yours I think is misplaced, I would not trust a protocol that would not be able to hard fork, when there is such disagreement. Since hard forking in this way is the only way to resolve such a disagreement without tyranny of the majority. Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this point, unless you are unable to be tolerant of other peoples believes. Tolerance is critical however if we wish to live in a peaceful society, respecting that other people have the freedom of choice to do something that you might disagree with.

Instead of trusting any singular organization, we should distribute this power across multiple implementations, this is how mining and nodes are decentralized after all. The same principle should apply to development. So far we have three alternative implementations that support an increased blocksize. Bitcoin Unlimited and XT are both forks of Core so they will continue to take advantage of all of the developments and advances within Core. Btcd has been written from scratch on the other hand, a completely unique implementation, which will also make the network more robust and resilient, since not having a monoculture of implementations would make the Bitcoin protocol more healthy over the long run.

Different implementations are generally helpful except when they challenge the existing consensus rules. I don't see why you even adressed this point since clearly no one is challenging it.

Alternative implementations are important exactly because they can challenge the existing consensus rules, otherwise the consensus rules would be whatever the reference implementation says it is, that would be pointless considering that alternative implementations are important exactly for this reason that they can challenge the status quo.

Are you seriously proposing that users run code that is demonstrably lacking in peer-review?

Considering that these alternative implementations are mostly based on Core with only some small changes which have been reviewed thoroughly, I would suggest that users run this code. It is not true that this code is lacking in peer review unless you would argue that Core is lacking is well, which it can indeed be argued that they should slow down introducing more complexity into Bitcoin without reviewing these changes for several years first. The blocksize increase on the other hand is a relatively simple change which has been discussed for years now and initially was only meant to be a temporary anti spam limit, at much lower network throughput compared to today. Its consequences and related game theory are as dependent on economics, psychology and politics when compared to computer science.

I think we should let this experiment run its course as it was always intended, since I do still believe in it, even though others might try and convince you that it is broken and that they need to fix it with their solutions.

I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.

We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else.

If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone.

If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes.

I am starting to think that you are in the minority now, however this is difficult to measure or know, since we do not have any reliable metrics, and the forums tend to be disproportionately represented by people like us, the writers. Which is why proof of work as a consensus mechanism during a hard fork is really so wonderful. We will get to see what people really think when the market talks to us then. I look forward to that time when the pedal goes to the metal and people will put their money where their mouths are. We will see what happens, either way I am confident the fork to increase the blocksize will happen soon, I will be happy regardless of the support that it gains, since it will represent the freedom of choice, and that Bitcoin is truly free, governed by the economic self-interest of the masses.

[brg444]

I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.

We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else.

If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone.

If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes.

I am starting to think that you are in the minority now, however this is difficult to measure or know, since we do not have any reliable metrics, and the forums tend to be disproportionately represented by people like us, the writers. Which is why proof of work as a consensus mechanism during a hard fork is really so wonderful. We will get to see what people really think when the market talks to us then. I look forward to that time when the pedal goes to the metal and people will put their money where their mouths are. We will see what happens, either way I am confident the fork to increase the blocksize will happen soon, I will be happy regardless of the support that it gains, since it will represent the freedom of choice, and that Bitcoin is truly free, governed by the economic self-interest of the masses.

Bitcoin will not hardfork anytime soon. Your only chance to do so, XT, failed miserably.

The miners are already getting behind Core's proposal and anyone trying to interject will simply be left behind.

Meanwhile you're free to spin-off your own altcoin because it's only going to get worse for you and your clique from here on out.

[johnyj]

Allowing the blocks to become consistently full will render transacting on the Bitcoin network more unreliable and expensive. This should not be considered a good thing this early in Bitcoins development, especially considering that adoption is tantamount to increasing the security and decentralization of the network.

Furthermore it is not just the case that we will have to be pay more for transacting, but that there will not be enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that we pay. Since under such a model most average users would not be able to compete with payments processors, banks and other large institutions over block space. However I do not believe that it would even get to that point in the first place, since firstly we would fork before that happened, and secondly I do not believe such a system would gain sufficient adoption especially compared to superior alternatives that would exist concurrently in the free market.

During the July and September spam attack, almost every block was full, but there were only a few users complained about the confirmation speed because they did not include enough fee. So the fee market is far from reaching its pain point, and people will adapt to the rising fee by reduce transaction frequency or use other solutions

And of course you can't compete with payment processors, web wallet service providers and exchanges fee wise, since they send hundreds or thousands of coins at once and can afford much larger fee. But that's exactly the point, large and frequent transactions should only be done by large actors and they are the backbone of the ecosystem. Rest of the people will be using off-chain services for daily spending, so that they can get many consumer oriented features. And every one should still be able to do low frequency high value transfer so that the long term storage security and convenience is not affected

[VeritasSapere]

I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.

We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else.

If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone.

If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes.

I am starting to think that you are in the minority now, however this is difficult to measure or know, since we do not have any reliable metrics, and the forums tend to be disproportionately represented by people like us, the writers. Which is why proof of work as a consensus mechanism during a hard fork is really so wonderful. We will get to see what people really think when the market talks to us then. I look forward to that time when the pedal goes to the metal and people will put their money where their mouths are. We will see what happens, either way I am confident the fork to increase the blocksize will happen soon, I will be happy regardless of the support that it gains, since it will represent the freedom of choice, and that Bitcoin is truly free, governed by the economic self-interest of the masses.

Bitcoin will not hardfork anytime soon. Your only chance to do so, XT, failed miserably.

The miners are already getting behind Core's proposal and anyone trying to interject will simply be left behind.

Meanwhile you're free to spin-off your own altcoin because it's only going to get worse for you and your clique from here on out.

Yet you are the one that is continuously attempting to make it out as if there is consensus, when clearly there is not. Some of your comments even seem angry and hateful. There are differences of believe, which will most likely lead to a fork, whether you like it or not. I earnestly recommend you not to sell the coins from the other side, even though you insult, attack and disrespect me. I still wish you prosperity, peace, love and happiness.

[brg444]

I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.

We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else.

If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone.

If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes.

I am starting to think that you are in the minority now, however this is difficult to measure or know, since we do not have any reliable metrics, and the forums tend to be disproportionately represented by people like us, the writers. Which is why proof of work as a consensus mechanism during a hard fork is really so wonderful. We will get to see what people really think when the market talks to us then. I look forward to that time when the pedal goes to the metal and people will put their money where their mouths are. We will see what happens, either way I am confident the fork to increase the blocksize will happen soon, I will be happy regardless of the support that it gains, since it will represent the freedom of choice, and that Bitcoin is truly free, governed by the economic self-interest of the masses.

Bitcoin will not hardfork anytime soon. Your only chance to do so, XT, failed miserably.

The miners are already getting behind Core's proposal and anyone trying to interject will simply be left behind.

Meanwhile you're free to spin-off your own altcoin because it's only going to get worse for you and your clique from here on out.

Yet you are the one that is continuously attempting to make it out as if there is consensus, when clearly there is not. Some of your comments even seem angry and hateful. There are differences of believe, which will most likely lead to a fork, whether you like it or not. I earnestly recommend you not to sell the coins from the other side, even though you insult, attack and disrespect me. I still wish you prosperity, peace, love and happiness.

You deserve no respect.

You are a blatantly disingenuous individual out to mislead people through political manipulation and outright lies.

You've made no attempt to learn from your previous mistakes and ignorant assumptions. You continue to pretend understanding issues you have no clear grasp of and naively play into the hands of shameless charlatans who prey on weak minds.

You've repeatedly stated you were open to compromise and previously claimed you supported XT only because it was the only scaling proposition currently implemented.

Now that we have a cogent alternative that has garnered support out of most of the developing community you refuse to budge or compromise and consider the benefits of the aforementioned proposal.

There is indeed no consensus hence why there is no hard fork.

There was no consensus either for opt-in RBF yet it got implemented, because it's a softfork.
There was no consensus either for CLTV yet it got implemented, because it's a softfork.

I think you can guess where we're heading, with or without you  

[VeritasSapere]

Allowing the blocks to become consistently full will render transacting on the Bitcoin network more unreliable and expensive. This should not be considered a good thing this early in Bitcoins development, especially considering that adoption is tantamount to increasing the security and decentralization of the network.

Furthermore it is not just the case that we will have to be pay more for transacting, but that there will not be enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that we pay. Since under such a model most average users would not be able to compete with payments processors, banks and other large institutions over block space. However I do not believe that it would even get to that point in the first place, since firstly we would fork before that happened, and secondly I do not believe such a system would gain sufficient adoption especially compared to superior alternatives that would exist concurrently in the free market.

During the July and September spam attack, almost every block was full, but there were only a few users complained about the confirmation speed because they did not include enough fee. So the fee market is far from reaching its pain point, and people will adapt to the rising fee by reduce transaction frequency or use other solutions

And of course you can't compete with payment processors, web wallet service providers and exchanges fee wise, since they send hundreds or thousands of coins at once and can afford much larger fee. But that's exactly the point, large and frequent transactions should only be done by large actors and they are the backbone of the ecosystem. Rest of the people will be using off-chain services for daily spending, so that they can get many consumer oriented features. And every one should still be able to do low frequency high value transfer so that the long term storage security and convenience is not affected.

I think this also comes down to whether we want Bitcoin to be used as a currency directly without third parties or not, I presume you do not think this is possible, I do think this is possible, which is fine. However I would argue that if it is possible being able to do both is actually better since adding more utility to Bitcoin does in turn make it a better store of value. It is Bitcoins utility that I believe even sets it apart from gold as a store of value. After all we can not sprinkle gold dust down a phone line and send it across the world cheaply in a matter of seconds without relying on third parties, we can do this with Bitcoin and I do not think that we should change this. I did sign up for the original vision of a p2p electronic cash system after all.

As the chart below shows we are approaching and will exceed network capacity within a few months if this trend continues.

[brg444]

I did sign up for the original vision of a p2p electronic cash system after all.

As the chart below shows we are approaching and will exceed network capacity within a few months if this trend continues.

Yet another highly misleading post.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Graph here shows we still sit at around 60-70% of capacity with clear headroom for at least another year especially when considering the immediate impact of SW implementation.

I'm not even going to adress the bastardization of the "cash" term so often misinterpreted and casually thrown around without consideration for its meaning and outright dismissal of the arguably more important "p2p" term before it.

[Lauda]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up. 

This was already discussed before. The alert keys are also held by Gavin IIRC and they have not been removed because an abuse attempt would be stopped within minutes and Gavin would lose all credibility and become one of the most hated persons in the Bitcoin world. Peter R's suggestion just confirms what we have known all along, he's paid by someone to do this.
Luckily XT is living its final days.

[hdbuck]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up. 

This was already discussed before. The alert keys are also held by Gavin IIRC and they have not been removed because an abuse attempt would be stopped within minutes and Gavin would lose all credibility and become one of the most hated persons in the Bitcoin world. Peter R's suggestion just confirms what we have known all along, he's paid by someone to do this.
Luckily XT is living its final days.

And Gavin is paid by the US Governement. This we know for sure.

[hdbuck]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up. 

This was already discussed before. The alert keys are also held by Gavin IIRC and they have not been removed because an abuse attempt would be stopped within minutes and Gavin would lose all credibility and become one of the most hated persons in the Bitcoin world. Peter R's suggestion just confirms what we have known all along, he's paid by someone to do this.
Luckily XT is living its final days.

And Gavin is paid by the US Governement. This we know for sure.

Are you paid by Blockstream, too?

Nope sry wrong conspiracy.

Still Gavin is on a USG payroll.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up. 

This was already discussed before. The alert keys are also held by Gavin IIRC and they have not been removed because an abuse attempt would be stopped within minutes and Gavin would lose all credibility and become one of the most hated persons in the Bitcoin world. Peter R's suggestion just confirms what we have known all along, he's paid by someone to do this.
Luckily XT is living its final days.

And Gavin is paid by the US Governement. This we know for sure.

Are you paid by Blockstream, too?

Nope sry wrong conspiracy.

Still Gavin is on a USG payroll.

Peter Todd and BtcDrak have their very own shitcoin. Why do you have to get personal tho?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If Gavin has the power to do it how is it a non-starter?

Do you really believe Gavin wanna go there?

I don't see why not.

[brg444]

If Gavin has the power to do it how is it a non-starter?

Do you really believe Gavin wanna go there?

I don't see why not.

Well I guess you're right cause once you've lost all credibility the only thing left is to carry along doing the same things that made you lose it in the first place: break stuff

[hdbuck]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up.  

This was already discussed before. The alert keys are also held by Gavin IIRC and they have not been removed because an abuse attempt would be stopped within minutes and Gavin would lose all credibility and become one of the most hated persons in the Bitcoin world. Peter R's suggestion just confirms what we have known all along, he's paid by someone to do this.
Luckily XT is living its final days.

And Gavin is paid by the US Governement. This we know for sure.

Are you paid by Blockstream, too?

Nope sry wrong conspiracy.

Still Gavin is on a USG payroll.

Peter Todd and BtcDrak have their very own shitcoin. Why do you have to get personal tho?

nothing personal, just stating that Gavin is paid by the Government of the United States of America.

Ah and has openly met with CIA.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The market should decide. Not a bunch of corporate-types. Let the dogs run, I say.

@HdBuck

Gavin works at MIT. Am I wrong?