Hacker News Reader

Comment by grubles | Hacker News Reader

Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing. Why has HN comment quality fallen so low...

Peter Todd said it was because he thought he was hacked [1]. Then two days later he posts a blog about wanting to submit a pull request for bigger blocks[2]. Interesting timing.

[1]https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/727078284345917441

[2]http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

> Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing

Citation desperately needed. Here's a contribution from literally the day before he had his commit access stolen.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/006cdf64dc932

Even if he did say that, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Him "no longer contributing" was not the reason his commit access was revoked. It was revoked as a power grab because he wanted to and had the power to increase the block size. Nothing more.

His access was revoked because having unused keys to the Bitcoin code is an attack vector.

Citation here BTW: https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1247592193319198720

> His access was revoked because having unused keys to the Bitcoin code is an attack vector.

Yes I agree this was the public justification for it. That being said, I'm certain they wouldn't have acted in the same way if it had been Luke jr or Greg Maxwell. They pulled his access because he wanted bigger blocks and he was ruining the official narrative.

I believe your citation but the point still stands.

And for future reference, a citation isn't generally accepted when it's just a screenshot you posted in a tweet you once made where the screenshot reveals a comment to a random reddit post with no visible url in it.

Hi Grubles!

Question: How do you think people will use BTC in the future? Do you think people will ever be able to buy coffee with it?

No, because people don’t use highly volatile speculative assets for everyday transactions.

But I know you’re referring to the transaction fees, and it would only be fair to point out that the cost of a lightning transaction is a few cents.

And it is only fair to point out that to use lightning you first need an on-chain transaction to enter it, and then you need to have another one in reserve so you don't lose your money. And then you need another one if you want to top it up with more money. And if the node you connect to goes down or you can't find a route you need to open a new channel...

Or you use a functional cryptocurrency that don't have these ridiculous limitations.

“A few cents” was the amortized cost of those transactions, if the lightning channel is indeed used for everyday activities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com