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

[Lauda]

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.

No. Go back to the cave that your crawled out. The rhetoric being spread by Gavin & co is bullshit; the market has decided what the block size should be. Gavin, Hearn, Ver, etc. all lack adequate skills and thus have to resort to social media to try and divert some support their way. Code up a better Bitcoin implementation, and let the market decide. Oh right, you can't.

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

I have no idea why he's on that list. Gavin has a singular commit in v0.13.0; a test that he wrote was used by someone else in their pull request.

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.

There you have it. He's wants to completely change the model that satoshi built. I wonder who influenced him.
Update: You missed the 'validating transactions' part.

[AliceGored]

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.

There you have it. He's wants to completely change the model that satoshi built. I wonder who influenced him.

Lol, no.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6269#msg6269

You must improve your shilling game, theymos is paying you for this crap?

[marky89]

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.

There you have it. He's wants to completely change the model that satoshi built. I wonder who influenced him.

Lol, no.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6269#msg6269

You must improve your shilling game, theymos is paying you for this crap?

That doesn't speak to whether widespread SPV use is particularly safe at this time. Fraud proofs may help, but some developers like Peter Todd doubt their viability. Satoshi isn't here to speak to the infrastructure and security mechanisms required to make this viable at scale, and he didn't imply that it was viable back then, or now. So let's not deceptively use his words, please.

[poncom]

I don't trust Gavin any more since he said he thought Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto.

First he made this statement.

I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt: Craig Wright is Satoshi

After Craig Wright refused to publicly sign a message with a known Satoshi key Gavin made this statement.

It’s certainly possible I was bamboozled.

After that fiasco anything he says lacks credibility. Gavin comparing Bitcoin to MySpace is meaningless because he's been wrong once too often.

[franky1]

if the debate is about nodes not fully validating.. seems core needs to answer a few questions too
core route:
old clients not fully validate segwit tx or segwit blocks
segwit allows no witness mode to limit clients by not validating transactions
segwit allows pruned mode to limit clients by not validating historic block data
seems not all core nodes will be full nodes either

if the debate is about blocksize.. seems core needs to answer a few questions too
4mb for core vs 2mb for other implementations
seems core wants to be known as being "big blockers"

if the debate is about hardforks.. seems core needs to answer a few questions too
luke-JR: "Using blockmaxweight prematurely may result in blocks larger than 1 MB being created when you later upgrade to 0.13.1, and the network today is not prepared for such larger blocks. Instead, continue to use blockmaxsize and reevaluate the network situation when 0.13.1 is released."

kind of funny that as luke JR points out an issue with core, (while he is still part of it) yet the other corporate paid devs want to shut him up
seems the REKT campaign against Luke-JR has begun
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4wc9a0/heated_discussion_in_bitcoincoredev_gmaxwell/

seems the bitcoin-core devs are ready to throw more people off the bitcoin bus if are not following the centralized roadmap

i now expect the usual trolls to not link discussions. not state statistics, numbers, data, to rebut the contents of my post.. but just ramble on a personal attack with multple insults that lack any factual detail or explanation. purely because of blind ignorant devotion to core.

have a nice day

[marcus_of_augustus]

"Gavin Andresen is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of bitcoin developers" - Mike Hearn

[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.

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.

Yes, bad business models fails, that's why we are concerned about the current state of the bitcoin network.

"Why should we change them for the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay?"

What are you talking about? Off-chain transactions is their business, less transactions on-chain is better for them, they can even settle between them using mySQL.

[Lauda]

-snip-
After that fiasco anything he says lacks credibility. Gavin comparing Bitcoin to MySpace is meaningless because he's been wrong once too often.

He's lost his credibility ever since the time that we needed 20 MB blocks right now, or the network would be doomed.

"Gavin Andresen is at serious risk of becoming the MySpace of bitcoin developers" - Mike Hearn

He's already joined the likes of Zander (currently the main Classic developer).

"Why should we change them for the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay?"

The primary reason behind a higher block size limit is increased user adoption, which will lead to a higher price point, ergo greed. Why should we change to fit the greed of certain companies?

[franky1]

The primary reason behind a higher block size limit is increased user adoption, which will lead to a higher price point, ergo greed. Why should we change to fit the greed of certain companies?

green writing = benefits EVERYONE, Users included
red writing = twisted opinion based on laudas misinformation

lauda.. you're failing miserably.. what the hell has on-chain capacity and popularity growth got to do with companies greed.
if bitcoin gets more popular EVERYONE benefits.

its sidechain solutions that are corporate centric, not on[bitcoin]chain solutions. because low on[bitcoin]chain capacity is not good for users both for cost of use and also how many can use it efficiently. however sidechain solutions are not good for bitcoin as a whole. because if its not on[bitcoin]chain. its not bitcoin

it really makes me laugh how the fanboys of centralizing and corporatizing the code that is slowly becoming less open to random individuals, are trying so hard to brush all their corporate desires into some weird tale that its others that want corporate dominance, not themselves.

its like facebook telling everyone myspace is a corporation and facebook is a open platform. just to convert everyone over to facebook. to then make the facebook corporation billions of profit at the expense of their users experience and freedoms

its time they wake up and realise which bed they have been sleeping in

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Gavin's shilling, trolling & FUD is getting boring. How many more failed takeover attempts is he going to make?

Nobody needs you any more Gavin, go away.