"Bitcoin is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of cryptocurrency" - Gavin

[marky89]

Days after Segwit code is released in Bitcoin Core 0.13.0, Gavin Andresen is back doing the rounds arguing for bigger blocks. Anyone smell another coup attempt brewing here? I suppose we all should have seen this coming.

Bitcoin is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of cryptocurrency because it is failing to scale.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4z70jm/bitcoincoredev_bitcoin_core_0130_released/d6u5mpt

Now he argues that wanting to validate every Bitcoin transaction is "irrational." In other words, he suggests we toss the entire full node security model into the trash bin.

I HAVE done the research, your connection sucks compared to most of the rest of the world-- but why should the rest of the network be crippled because you have an irrational desire to validate every single Bitcoin transaction?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4z70jm/bitcoincoredev_bitcoin_core_0130_released/d6u0grb

This guy is a snake. Expect news to emerge in the coming weeks regarding new attempts to hard fork Bitcoin.

And remember: Always run a full node. Enforcing the consensus rules is your only security over your Bitcoin. Let's fork these assholes off our network when they try to change the rules.

[Redrose]

Frankly, I don't see how the hell he may find an alternative to the full nodes system validating all the transactions. How would be the chosen the good and the bad ones ?

[calkob]

Fully agree, well said.......

[richardsNY]

Frankly, I don't see how the hell he may find an alternative to the full nodes system validating all the transactions. How would be the chosen the good and the bad ones ?

Because there is no better solution than the nodes we have now. I see a node as some sort of vote. With that "vote" I can show everyone else what client I am supporting, and so can other people. I have 2 nodes running on VPS'es, and will continue to do so. Other than that, I block/ban nodes being from the other "parties" such as classic.

[Snorek]

Next thing Gavin will do is probably abandon sinking (in his mind) bitcoin ship, exactly like Mike Hearn did.
Because apparently bitcoin development process is not going exactly as Gavin would like it to be.
Instead of criticizing bitcoin node structure why doesn't he find a feasible solution which will benefit everyone?

[Sir Alpha_goy]

Days after Segwit code is released in Bitcoin Core 0.13.0, Gavin Andresen is back doing the rounds arguing for bigger blocks. Anyone smell another coup attempt brewing here? I suppose we all should have seen this coming.

Bitcoin is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of cryptocurrency because it is failing to scale.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4z70jm/bitcoincoredev_bitcoin_core_0130_released/d6u5mpt

Now he argues that wanting to validate every Bitcoin transaction is "irrational." In other words, he suggests we toss the entire full node security model into the trash bin.

I HAVE done the research, your connection sucks compared to most of the rest of the world-- but why should the rest of the network be crippled because you have an irrational desire to validate every single Bitcoin transaction?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4z70jm/bitcoincoredev_bitcoin_core_0130_released/d6u0grb

This guy is a snake. Expect news to emerge in the coming weeks regarding new attempts to hard fork Bitcoin.

And remember: Always run a full node. Enforcing the consensus rules is your only security over your Bitcoin. Let's fork these assholes off our network when they try to change the rules.

And expect another round of altcoin pumping as the ecosystem becomes just like Wall St. with all the fake news and fake infighting to back the price fluctuations.

 

MySpace indeed.

The whole thing.

[Sir Alpha_goy]

Next thing Gavin will do is probably abandon sinking (in his mind) bitcoin ship, exactly like Mike Hearn did.
Because apparently bitcoin development process is not going exactly as Gavin would like it to be.
Instead of criticizing bitcoin node structure why doesn't he find a feasible solution which will benefit everyone?

Like cars, ships were also designed to fail.

This one looks like an infant engineered it.

They say usually smart money leaves first.

The rest struggle to find life boats.

Land HO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Doamader]

Next thing Gavin will do is probably abandon sinking (in his mind) bitcoin ship, exactly like Mike Hearn did.
Because apparently bitcoin development process is not going exactly as Gavin would like it to be.
Instead of criticizing bitcoin node structure why doesn't he find a feasible solution which will benefit everyone?

This isnt the first time the core of bitcoin developement hasnt agree, we had already  a problem with them, and who paid the bill were bitcoin, because people need stabillity, if Gavin doesnt like the way bitcoin is advancing just left the project, making a thread saying it will end as myspace or anything else looks like a child crying because they arent supporting him.

[Sir Alpha_goy]

Next thing Gavin will do is probably abandon sinking (in his mind) bitcoin ship, exactly like Mike Hearn did.
Because apparently bitcoin development process is not going exactly as Gavin would like it to be.
Instead of criticizing bitcoin node structure why doesn't he find a feasible solution which will benefit everyone?

This isnt the first time the core of bitcoin developement hasnt agree, we had already  a problem with them, and who paid the bill were bitcoin, because people need stabillity, if Gavin doesnt like the way bitcoin is advancing just left the project, making a thread saying it will end as myspace or anything else looks like a child crying because they arent supporting him.

I bet Myspace thought the same thing when facebook came out....

Sad thing is that the whole Bitcoin ecosystem is about to become Myspace.

It won't be anything inside that breaks it though.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Satoshi expected the block size to be limited to 1MB for all time, that's why it is a consensus rule. It couldn't be changed even if Gregory wanted it to.

What does this mean for us?

Well, as the throughput of Bitcoin is about on par with a medium sized shopping centre... demand for the use of cryptocurrency will spread to other networks, like Monero (XMR), which has an adaptive blocksize.

In a sense, satoshi was brilliant to set 1MB in stone to encourage increased demand to move to other networks. It widens the attack surface, and now we will be decentralized because if Bitcoin remains fairly irrelevant due to its crippled capacity, thousands of other networks will rise to take its place.

Incredible guy, that satoshi, sacrificing his own potential personal wealth to keep our rasb pi nodes on costa rican dialup safe n sound.

[marky89]

Well, as the throughput of Bitcoin is about on par with a medium sized shopping centre...

Both bandwidth and non-bandwidth scaling mechanisms are in the works. Schnorr signatures will significantly reduce signature size, increasing capacity. Once Segwit takes care of malleability, Lightning will move some onchain throughput into offchain smart contracts. There are other possibilities, like batch validation and MAST to further optimize transaction/contract size, further increasing capacity. Segwit itself will also increase the block size. Weak blocks will help to reduce the externalities posed by increased throughput on the system.

Why do we need to break consensus, again?

[Wind_FURY]

I think Gavin does not need a blockchain for his idea of a payment platform. Maybe what he needs really is a database? Or some sort of private blockchain where he can do whatever he wants in it. But that defeats the purpose of why a blockchain is a "blockchain".

Anyhow maybe bitcoin is not where he is supposed to be and maybe he will fit right in with other development teams like the one in Ripple.

[geofflosophy]

Well, as the throughput of Bitcoin is about on par with a medium sized shopping centre...

Both bandwidth and non-bandwidth scaling mechanisms are in the works. Schnorr signatures will significantly reduce signature size, increasing capacity. Once Segwit takes care of malleability, Lightning will move some onchain throughput into offchain smart contracts. There are other possibilities, like batch validation and MAST to further optimize transaction/contract size, further increasing capacity. Segwit itself will also increase the block size. Weak blocks will help to reduce the externalities posed by increased throughput on the system.

Why do we need to break consensus, again?

Ultimately we will need bigger blocks and they will come, worst case miners will want to be able to fit more transactions in the blocks when the fees become more relevant. In the meantime we will be able to include many more transactions as a result of the SegWit changes, and transaction volume will have plenty of room to grow until it doesn't.

[davis196]

Days after Segwit code is released in Bitcoin Core 0.13.0, Gavin Andresen is back doing the rounds arguing for bigger blocks. Anyone smell another coup attempt brewing here? I suppose we all should have seen this coming.

Bitcoin is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of cryptocurrency because it is failing to scale.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4z70jm/bitcoincoredev_bitcoin_core_0130_released/d6u5mpt

Now he argues that wanting to validate every Bitcoin transaction is "irrational." In other words, he suggests we toss the entire full node security model into the trash bin.

I HAVE done the research, your connection sucks compared to most of the rest of the world-- but why should the rest of the network be crippled because you have an irrational desire to validate every single Bitcoin transaction?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4z70jm/bitcoincoredev_bitcoin_core_0130_released/d6u0grb

This guy is a snake. Expect news to emerge in the coming weeks regarding new attempts to hard fork Bitcoin.

And remember: Always run a full node. Enforcing the consensus rules is your only security over your Bitcoin. Let's fork these assholes off our network when they try to change the rules.

Bitcoin isn`t "the Myspace of cryptocurrencies" bitcoin is "the facebook".

Btc is failing to scale because of people like this one.

I don`t care about his "theory".

[thejaytiesto]

Gavin Andresen hasn't done shit for years now except complaining and crying about stuff, meanwhile Core devs have been working hard to get stuff like segwit working, you know, the real clever stuff beyond crying for a blocksize increase. Also let's remember that this idiot wanted 8mb increase which is insane and would have ruined Bitcoin. Some people never learn.

[pedrog]

Popular opinion is bitcoin is too big to fail or too big to become irrelevant, well, plenty of bigger enterprises have failed or are now irrelevant, myspace is a good example.

Concerns expressed by Gavin are shared amongst many of us for at least a couple years now, I'm of the opinion we've already passed the no return line some time ago, as people cannot build on the bitcoin network and many have been pushed out and had to build their own blockchains or build in some other blockchain, this is reflected on the current low value and the occasional pump without the possibility for growth.

[Cereberus]

It has been a while since I didn't hear from Gavin Andersen. I am glad he is alive first and he keep talking shit like he always did in the past. I am a bitcoin core supporter and the only real solution is to run a full node. Gavin has failed it big this time but this is something that happens when you sit all day and only keep talking instead of working, no one takes you for real when this happens and we should put these sayings straight to the trash bin.

[krishna1]

I honestly belive that the current nodes are working absolutly fine and if geven tryed to replace or wants to experiment something new then first should do it in a demo mode it will save his and our time

[pedrog]

It has been a while since I didn't hear from Gavin Andersen. I am glad he is alive first and he keep talking shit like he always did in the past. I am a bitcoin core supporter and the only real solution is to run a full node. Gavin has failed it big this time but this is something that happens when you sit all day and only keep talking instead of working, no one takes you for real when this happens and we should put these sayings straight to the trash bin.

Please take a moment to check the names of the people who contributed directly for the latest release:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1594650.0

[marky89]

Popular opinion is bitcoin is too big to fail or too big to become irrelevant, well, plenty of bigger enterprises have failed or are now irrelevant, myspace is a good example.

Concerns expressed by Gavin are shared amongst many of us for at least a couple years now, I'm of the opinion we've already passed the no return line some time ago, as people cannot build on the bitcoin network and many have been pushed out and had to build their own blockchains or build in some other blockchain, this is reflected on the current low value and the occasional pump without the possibility for growth.

Bad business models fail. Good businesses adapt, others will go bankrupt. Why didn't we change the consensus rules to encourage the Satoshi Dice model? Why should we change them for the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay? They are here to make money, and may be willing to do so at the cost of long term network health. What matters are p2p users. In the long term, sustainable business models will survive.