Quote from: tvbcof on August 26, 2015, 05:43:51 PM

Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event. There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it. If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people.

If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"?

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on August 26, 2015, 05:51:12 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on August 26, 2015, 05:24:35 PM

I defended the guy for years past his 'best before' date. My bad. Believe it or not I have to be pretty confident about the rottenness of someone or something before I really open up on them/it.

If Gavin planned to foster good-will in doing his early facet stuff as a PR stunt, it was one of the most brilliant moves in Bitcoin history. I still doubt that he did and still feel it mostly likely that his elevation was one of those accidents of caprice. And also that if Bitcoin survives him it will be one of the epic saves of all time.

I've never supported Gavin and made that clear for years. Oh, not for intellectual or philosophical reasons but because he looks like one of those kids I used to beat up in high school. lol

Meaning that you notice that he seems to be someone who strongly believes in authority?

Quote from: Peter R on August 27, 2015, 02:57:43 AM

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Your question reflects a misunderstanding about the possible effects of an unnecessary hardfork:

Quote from: DJC

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasnt Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoins vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesnt want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess deux ex machina then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he wont use his God card and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isnt worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasnt tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.
[...]
Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an Inception like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesnt get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in collective consensus building money, free from authority, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, What is the rush? Why the urgency?

[source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (2015-08-19)]