With bitcoin I'm uncertain. It's never lost its L1 bearer assurances. It's arguably harder and more decentralized than it's ever been. With crypto at large, I'd guess he'd be most disappointed in visible and active "founders". It's the second half of the bootstrapping problem subsequent projects never overcame. None of them can possibly be good people if they're judged upon a decentralized constitution.
reply
Not a damn thing. He should be so proud right now that it's a sin.
reply
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
reply
himself probably. Guy was HUMBLE
reply
reply
haha i guesss i was just tryna make you laugh
reply
I would think Gavin but he knew exactly who he was and it turned out for the best. Maybe CSW but he clearly imagined that scenario as well.
Maybe its just the fact that he couldn't stay.
reply
Agree. Gavin, IMO had some decent ideas and just wanted Bitcoin to grow. I give him a break regarding the blocksize wars. Everyone forgets that the ORIGINAL devs wanted it to be a P2P system with little friction, and Satoshi put in the blocksize limit only to prevent DDOS attacks as a temporary measure.
I'm not saying things can't change, but that was the framework Gavin had going into it all. Imagine a modest blocksize was implemented - like really modest. It might not have made much a difference. Layer 2 "solutions" have been slow to roll out etc etc. I think or hope history looks back on Gavin and cuts him some slack.
And great point. Gavin supported a fork instead of just getting stuck on a BIP or upgrade. So it did work out for the best atlfterall.
I read some blog post he made and he basically said he thought he was doing the best given what he knew. It came across as sympathetic.
Ossifying L1 seems like the good choice now, but hindsight is 20/20.
Agree on CSW. Guy couldn't be worse in every sense. Ick.
reply
NFT. Seems like a waste for our 2 mb block size.
reply