Re: Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork
The core developers, Gregory, Pieter, Luke and Matt are involved in a company Blockstream: https://www.blockstream.com/team/ .
Obviously they want Blockstream to be successful. Please tell me how Gavin is biased and the others aren't.
There are two sides to (almost) each story, and there definitely are hidden agendas involved here.
Obviously they want Blockstream to be successful. Please tell me how Gavin is biased and the others aren't.
There are two sides to (almost) each story, and there definitely are hidden agendas involved here.
One of the biggest problem of people is that they only accept what they were provided with. Medias exploit this easily.
BTW, where did Gavin threatens to quit Bitcoin development? And isn't this really Gavin's fork? The title is misleading.
Yes the thread title is misleading, simply it is not a threat :
What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
And there are also some interesting article on his
blog http://gavinandresen.ninja