Jump to content
Bitcoin Foundation

Gavin Andresen

Lifetime
  • Content count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

Gavin Andresen last won the day on June 26 2015

Gavin Andresen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

481 Excellent

1 Follower

About Gavin Andresen

  • Rank
    Administrator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Fees, Forks, and Other Things: Time To Take a Stand

    The bandwidth requirements are very modest for all the proposals. In general, bandwidth and hardware are cheap and getting cheaper all the time (even through the Great Firewall). People are expensive, and I believe the people cost is what is driving down the number of full nodes. For ordinary end users, it is just much more convenient to run an SPV wallet like Multibit or Electrum that doesn't have to be connected to the network all the time. And for all but the largest or most specialized Bitcoin businesses, it is more cost effective to rely on somebody else to keep a fleet of full nodes secure and up-to-date. And RE: there are no validation pools: true, but there could be: there is no reason why the task of validating blocks couldn't be distributed among a group of semi-trusted machines. That is not software I'm going to write, because I think SPV security is plenty good enough for now-- I run SPV wallets and I am not worried about a rogue miner wasting the block reward so somebody can try to trick me into thinking they paid me $11,000. If I WAS getting paid $11,000 from people I couldn't take to court and sue if they ripped me off I would certainly wait several confirmations before giving them whatever they're paing $11,000 for.
  2. Fees, Forks, and Other Things: Time To Take a Stand

    Colin (or Greg): if there are "a great number of flaws" I haven't already considered and written about at gavinandresen.ninja please email them to me. I believe Greg and Adam are mostly concerned that larger blocks will lead to fewer fully validating nodes, and I think we just have a disagreement about the size of that effect and how to balance network centralization (number of peers on the network) versus payment centralization (number of people able to hold and transact with bitcoins and not some bitcoin-linked alternative). There will be a hard fork to scale up, the only question is when, and with what new rules. I'll leave it to the Foundation Board on whether or not they want to take a position on when or how Bitcoin should scale up, or if they want to wade into the debate over whether there should be some governance process over the technology beyond "the code that people choose to run IS the only governance process."
  3. Please keep the feedback coming in

    Just a couple of things RE: "core development" : The Foundation has never, ever, controlled development. It has always been an arms-length relationship. Not a single feature request or line of code came from the Foundation. The Foundation was supporting development by paying Wladimir, Cory, Sergio and myself to work on Bitcoin Core. That support is gone, and it isn't coming back any time soon. We are all grown-ups, it is very nice that so many people are interested in how we support ourselves financially, but we will do what we each, individually, think is best. One of the most discouraging feelings of being an open source software developer is to have people treat you like you are their slave, telling you what you SHOULD be working on or how you SHOULD get paid (if you are lucky enough to get paid and aren't a volunteer). I, personally, think voting on priorities for development is a terrible idea. I might be wrong; please feel free to raise the money to hire somebody who would be willing to have development priorities set by majority rule, but I suspect anybody who has successfully managed a team and shipped a software product will decline your offer. Or, conversely, I would be very suspicious of anybody who would agree to work on "whatever The Community thinks best" -- NOBODY has expertise in all of the several dozen things The Community could decide should be this year's top development priority ("Privacy! WAIT! BLOCKSIZE LIMIT REACHED! Scalability! WAIT! Computing breakthrough: Quantum Computing Resistance!").
  4. Board Meeting Minutes (3/17/15 and 3/31/15)

    Ooh, first time I've ever been redacted! I can cross that off my bucket list... Also: I can verify that the March 17'th minutes are accurate and complete according to my best recollection.
  5. Strategic Proposal

    Funding for Wladimir and Cory and I is a distraction here-- we aren't going to be funded by the Foundation any more. As I said to a reporter: it's nice so many people are concerned about where our paychecks come from, but it is also very annoying. Jeff Garzik said on IRC yesterday he feels like he has to educate people on how open source software development works every couple of months, and it is tiring. If you don't like the way the bitcoin/bitcoin project on github is going, this is NOT the place to make suggestions. The bitcoin-development list would be the place, but you are very likely to be ignored if you are an "armchair quarterback" and not somebody who has actually actively participated in either Bitcoin Core or some other open source software project. If you REALLY don't like the way the bitcoin/bitcoin project on github is going, the time-tested way to fix things is to fork the code and do a better job than the elitist, statist, CIA-controlled, irresponsible, profit-seeking, ultra-conservative communists who are in control now. But, again: all of that is a distraction from the main issue here, which is what should happen to the Foundation going forward?
  6. "Reachable" Bitcoin Nodes

    See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/net.cpp#L962 Bitcon Core has had UPNP support for years now. If you want to improve it, please submit a pull request or hire somebody to improve it by submitting a pull request. Please include measurements or estimates on how much the improvement will improve connectivity.
  7. The truth about the Bitcoin Foundation

    Thanks Ciemon and Sebastian, that's helpful: and essentially the vision Patrick presented to the Board once it became clear fundraising to continue paying me and Wladimir and Cory (and Sergio part-time) wasn't going to work. The money has basically run out, and the money coming in from new memberships and renewals is not enough to fund "that vision". The Foundation isn't bankrupt, but the Board needs to decide whether the responsible thing to do is to continue the organization with a much smaller organization and vision or to dissolve it. I still think the best way to move forward with core dev funding is some type of not-for-profit legal entity, whether that is Olivier's crowdfunded Trust or something else (or both) I don't really care. I DO care that it is legal, transparent, and that I'm never put in the position of deciding how to divvy up a Big Pile Of Money. That puts me into a clear conflict of interest, and would be a very good way of generating resentment and envy among the core devs who aren't working for their own startups. What happens with future funding of core development is a separate issue to what happens with this Foundation over the next couple of months, though. EDIT: I should really have said, "the future employment status of Wladimir/Cory/Gavin/Sergio" -- development will happen even if we join other companies or decide to spend more time with our stamp collections. It will just take longer.
  8. The truth about the Bitcoin Foundation

    So, members: what DO you want the role of the Foundation to be going forward? I had an idealistic vision of the Foundation being a member-driven organization, but that never happened. Now would be a good time for you, the membership, to make me proud and come together and figure out a vision for the Foundation moving forward. What do you want to do, and how will that get paid for? "The Foundation will support core development" vision didn't work; I took a couple of weeks off from doing technical work to meet with people capable of funding that vision and it very quickly became clear most "deep pockets" don't trust that the Foundation would stick to that vision, or aren't willing to risk their reputations being closely associated with an organization that had two of its Board members resign in disgrace last year. Unfortunately I'm pessimistic about a coherent vision arising-- too many of the "squeaky wheels" here want to wallow in past mistakes. I expect what will happen is there will be lots of Monday-morning quarterbacking and discussion ("you lost HOW MUCH money on the Amsterdam conference? Conferences should MAKE MONEY, how could you be so stupid?" ... when all of the "yous", and the money, are long gone). And very little productive discussion of how to move forward. Please prove me wrong....
  9. Very low forum participation: causes?

    Mr Allen and Mr Hayes: If I were moderating, you would get temporary bans for being annoying and troll-ish. Brian is asking for constructive ideas on how to make the forums better. If you have no such ideas, then SHUT UP.
  10. Jim Harper: Candidate for the Bitcoin Foundation Board of Directors

    "Polls will be open February 13 – 19, 2015" https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/elections-update/
  11. Pivot

    Bitcoin Regulatory Theatre will henceforth be brought to you by Coin Center, Chamber of Digital Commerce, and the Digital Asset Transfer Authority. Decentralization is good.
  12. Jim Harper in Cato's 'Bitcoin will bite the dust' video.

    Tangentially related: email I sent to Professor Dowd last week:
  13. See my "Scalability Roadmap" blog post for technical details of how we'll scale up. Wladimir pulled "headers first" (one item on the roadmap) into what will become the 0.10 release yesterday; it makes syncing a new full node take a few hours instead of a few days.
  14. WebCrypto2014 'Trans-Identical Proposal' Position Paper Accepted

    What do you mean by "The Foundation's needs" ? I'm very skeptical of standards organizations that follow a top-down "Lets form a committee to define the requirements and write a specification, then have a bunch of people create implementations of that spec" process. If you had asked "what hardware token solutions are working in the Bitcoin space, and can the lessons learned be applied to more general authentication solutions for the Web (or combined with more general authentication solutions)" then that would be a more interesting discussion. But maybe a short one, because I don't think we know yet what the lessons are. In any case, you should get in touch with the people who are creating hardware tokens (e.g. Trezor and Mycelium). "The Foundation" isn't an expert on that topic.
  15. Bank of England on Digital Currencies

    I sent them this feedback:
×