Bring back Gavin

[JPage]

There is 'core' and there is 'classic'.  And there are good/bad arguments for both.  That ship has sailed. 

Now there is a new problem.  With Blockstream's takeover of core and eviction of Gavin - it is time to fork the Git as follows:


Make an IDENTICAL copy of core.  No changes whatever, core1 and core2 - not one line of code being different.  Start a new Git with new people (non Blockstream) having commit access.  Put Andreas - seemingly the only clear thinking reasonable guy these days - on with the highest credential.  Get others - on both sides of the aisle - to join too.  Then, minors switch to core2. 

Theymos' censorship and Blockstream's takeover of core are bad for Bitcoin and bad for our future.  We've got to undo this now.  We can settle the blocksize debate later.  Now, we have to stop the takeover of Bitcoin by this clearly corrupt private entity. 

[1714174647]

1714174647

[1714174647]

1714174647

[1714174647]

1714174647

[odolvlobo]

You already have the ability to fork the bitcoin repo. Everyone does.

[somacoin]

No please don't bring back Gavin please
Wait until he had time to think for a while

[instacalm]

Theymos' censorship and Blockstream's takeover of core are bad for Bitcoin and bad for our future.  We've got to undo this now. 

Could you elaborate on these claims please?

[Patatas]

No please don't bring back Gavin please
Wait until he had time to think for a while

Yes,I feel he is equally supposed to be blamed for Craig's claims.We'e not idiots,we know its well planned and set up.Gavin is an intelligent guy dont know how he supported this stupid act.I'm having second thoughts about Gavin now,he went from one of the most trusted for the community to a sheep in 48 hours.

The actual problems of bitcoin are not even looked at anymore.People are busy finding who is the real Satoshi.

[Amph]

Theymos' censorship and Blockstream's takeover of core are bad for Bitcoin and bad for our future.  We've got to undo this now. 

Could you elaborate on these claims please?

everything that is not core, is an altcoin, everything that is not on chain 1 is an altcoin

[Lauda]

Now there is a new problem.  With Blockstream's takeover of core and eviction of Gavin

Bullshit. Gavin is not even a Core contributor anymore, and has barely contributed anything in the last 12 months. People who aren't active should not have such a level of access anyway. He was not evicted at all. If he wants to contribute, he can open a pull request just like everyone else.

Make an IDENTICAL copy of core.  No changes whatever, core1 and core2 - not one line of code being different.

No thanks.

Theymos' censorship and Blockstream's takeover of core are bad for Bitcoin and bad for our future.

Bullshit. The people that fed you these thoughts are what is bad for Bitcoin.

The actual problems of bitcoin are not even looked at anymore.

People who can actually deal with those problems are working on them, and people like OP are just trying to disrupt and waste everyone's time.

[The00Dustin]

everything that is not core, is an altcoin, everything that is not on chain 1 is an altcoin

No, anything on "chain 1" as you put it, cannot be an altcoin.  Alternative clients are alternative clients, but until they fork the chain and that fork continues to grow alongside another fork, there is no argument about what is bitcoin and what is an altcoin, as bitcoin is the only surviving chain from the genesis block.  Any logic suggesting that changes which don't lead to two competing chains indefinitely is an altcoin is no different than logic suggesting core itself is an altcoin.  Moreover, worshipping core is like worshipping satoshi.  I'm constantly accused of being a big-blocker, but quite frankly, like most recent posts where this accusation has been flung, I'm not talking about big blocks, I'm talking about the idiocy and hypocrisy on both sides of the debate.

[Amph]

everything that is not core, is an altcoin, everything that is not on chain 1 is an altcoin

No, anything on "chain 1" as you put it, cannot be an altcoin.  Alternative clients are alternative clients, but until they fork the chain and that fork continues to grow alongside another fork, there is no argument about what is bitcoin and what is an altcoin, as bitcoin is the only surviving chain from the genesis block.  Any logic suggesting that changes which don't lead to two competing chains indefinitely is an altcoin is no different than logic suggesting core itself is an altcoin.  Moreover, worshipping core is like worshipping satoshi.  I'm constantly accused of being a big-blocker, but quite frankly, like most recent posts where this accusation has been flung, I'm not talking about big blocks, I'm talking about the idiocy and hypocrisy on both sides of the debate.

i said anything that is "not" on chain 1 is an altcoin, you said the same thing basically, in your first sentence

if they are here to change the fundamentals(without no valid reason and without any needed improvement, like the 21M market cap) that made bitcoin great then they are clearly making  an altcoin, that's how i see it

[pereira4]

Stopped reading at "Blockstream takeover".
Gavin has taken away privileges from other people in the past, because they were inactive. Gavin removed long time contributor "dooglus":

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hvevo/slug/d2t16mh



So as you can see, it's time now to remove it from him, because he hasn't contributed to anything for ages, and he has also been fooled by a scammer which doesn't make him a guy that can be trusted enough (assuming that he wasn't part of the plan of this weird Craig incident)

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I think it's gone too far & too much shit has happened for Gavin to return. I doubt he'd be welcome now. The Core team is more than good enough to cope in his absence as has been the case for a while now.

[Denker]

I think it's gone too far & too much shit has happened for Gavin to return. I doubt he'd be welcome now. The Core team is more than good enough to cope in his absence as has been the case for a while now.

Totally agree!
Gavin has stretched things way too much.
He is always welcome to contribute to core. But giving back commit access after all what had happened would be a serious risk imo.

[futureofbitcoin]

Sigh... I really hoped bitcoin would succeed, but with attitudes like these, it's probably doomed to fail...


(In case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about everyone other than the OP)

[Lauda]

He is always welcome to contribute to core. But giving back commit access after all what had happened would be a serious risk imo.

Some people tend to misunderstand what the removal of commit access means. Gavin can still work on Bitcoin Core and submit pull requests. He does not need nor deserve commit access anymore.

Sigh... I really hoped bitcoin would succeed, but with attitudes like these, it's probably doomed to fail...

The only way that Bitcoin can "succeed" (whatever this is supposed to mean, and I'll assume mainstream adoption) is by secondary level solutions such as LN. Otherwise, if you follow Gavin's proposal you would end up with a highly centralized and inefficient system (inefficient because it still won't compare to traditional centralized systems).

(In case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about everyone other than the OP)

Seems like you're in the same bag of fools like OP is.

Stopped reading at "Blockstream takeover".

The "Blockstream & Core are evil && Bitcoin is failing" propaganda tends to be quite annoying sometimes.

[yayayo]

He is always welcome to contribute to core. But giving back commit access after all what had happened would be a serious risk imo.

Some people tend to misunderstand what the removal of commit access means. Gavin can still work on Bitcoin Core and submit pull requests. He does not need nor deserve commit access anymore.

Yeah, he is not an important contributor anymore. He choose to run his altcoin projects some time ago. Also with his involvement in "verifying" Craig Wright as Satoshi he has become a security risk. Obviously he lacks competence to properly evaluate a basic cryptographic procedure. Also signing a NDA is a non-go.

Stopped reading at "Blockstream takeover".

The "Blockstream & Core are evil && Bitcoin is failing" propaganda tends to be quite annoying sometimes.

It's basically deflecting failure with the altcoin projects XTcoin and ClassicCoin on Bitcoin. Despite the staged "blocks-are-full-Bitcoin-will-Die"-doomsday propaganda brought up by the Gavinistas, Bitcoin is healthier than ever and continues to improve on the technological front.

ya.ya.yo!

[The00Dustin]

everything that is not core, is an altcoin, everything that is not on chain 1 is an altcoin

No, anything on "chain 1" as you put it, cannot be an altcoin.  Alternative clients are alternative clients, but until they fork the chain and that fork continues to grow alongside another fork, there is no argument about what is bitcoin and what is an altcoin, as bitcoin is the only surviving chain from the genesis block.  Any logic suggesting that changes which don't lead to two competing chains indefinitely is an altcoin is no different than logic suggesting core itself is an altcoin.  Moreover, worshipping core is like worshipping satoshi.  I'm constantly accused of being a big-blocker, but quite frankly, like most recent posts where this accusation has been flung, I'm not talking about big blocks, I'm talking about the idiocy and hypocrisy on both sides of the debate.

i said anything that is "not" on chain 1 is an altcoin, you said the same thing basically, in your first sentence

if they are here to change the fundamentals(without no valid reason and without any needed improvement, like the 21M market cap) that made bitcoin great then they are clearly making  an altcoin, that's how i see it

I certainly agree with that half of your quoted comment.  I could have bolded the other half for emphasis, but I thought my point was made in the rest of my rambling.  That point being that wallets/clients other than core can't be altcoins until/unless there is actually a fork in the chain.  The term altcoin shouldn't be thrown around the way it has.  "Hearn is threatening to create an altcoin with XT" would have been accurate toward the end.  "Hearn is risking creation of an altcoin with XT" would have been accurate much sooner.  "Hearn created an altcoin with XT" was never accurate.

ETA1: Re: "Hearn created an altcoin with XT" was never accurate: (to an extent that it mattered, as its pulse was gone before the discussed forced fork date that I don't even know to have or not ever been coded).

ETA2:  Don't mistake my use of the name Hearn for confusion as to who Gavin is.  Gavin provided coding support for multiple alternative clients, but he did not create them and I don't know whether he personally publicized him using his name (vs letting the creators do so).