Gavin Andresen - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen

Éste detalle de Gavin no lo he conocido hasta hoy, creció en Australia, simpre me he preguntado qué criterio eligió Satoshi para elegir sustituto y dejarlo a cargo del Core en 2010.

Gavin Anderson Refutes Hacking Claim to Assert Craig Wright Is Satoshi https://t.co/FZ9ugZefKi https://t.co/ZFpdz2Xx7w

ha estado bien escuchar a Gavin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqfIrVg2s0U

"The Covert Hostile Takeover of Bitcoin in 2016 | Mysterious Hacking & "Toxic Influences"" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/qw48pfzj0rE

A "51% attack" means a bad guy getting as much computing power as the entire rest of the Bitcoin network combined, plus a little bit more. The Bitcoin wiki has a good summary of what a 51% attacker can and cannot do.

One of the things a 51% attacker can do is prevent any transactions or new blocks from anybody besides themselves from being accepted, effectively stopping all payments and shutting down the network.

That would be bad.

But it would also be obvious it was happening, and pretty easy to defend against. As I said on the Bitcoin Forums:
Something like "ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)" would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they'd pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people's transactions or have their chain rejected.
The code already has a notion of "bitcoin priority" that it uses to prevent transaction spam (sending gazillions of tiny transactions to yourself, just to make everybody else do the work of validating and storing them); extending that to influence the chain-fork-selection code wouldn't be hard.

The devil is in the details, of course, and the risk of introducing a new chain-acceptance rule (high) have to be weighed against the chances that somebody rich and irrational will try to pull off the attack (low, in my opinion, but maybe I'm not sufficiently paranoid about Big Banks or Big Government using Dirty Tricks to shut down Bitcoin). Maybe I'll code it up and keep it as a "Not To Be Used Except In Case of Emergency" branch.

Posted 1st May 2012 by Gavin Andresen https://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Bitcoin XT
Initial release August 15, 2015
Stable release
Release I / 22 April 2018;
Repository https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt

On June 10, 2014 Mike Hearn published a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP 64), calling for the addition of "a small P2P protocol extension that performs UTXO lookups given a set of outpoints."[5] On December 27, 2014 Hearn released version 0.10 of the client, with the BIP 64 changes.[6]

On June 22, 2015, Gavin Andresen published BIP 101 calling for an increase in the maximum block size. The changes would activate a fork allowing eight MB blocks (doubling in size every two years) once 75% of a stretch of 1,000 mined blocks is achieved after the beginning of 2016.[7] The new maximum transaction rate under XT would have been 24 transactions per second.[8]

On August 6, 2015 Andresen's BIP101 proposal was merged into the XT codebase.[9][10] Bip 101 was reverted[11] and the 2-MB block size bump of Bitcoin Classic was applied instead.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT

Satoshi’s Final Email to Gavin Andresen
April 26, 2011

https://nakamotostudies.org/emails/satoshis-final-email-to-gavin-andresen/

DUP HASH160 ... EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG
June 17, 2010, 11:38:31 AM

So I'm writing a little tool that dissects the Bitcoin wallet.dat, mainly because I want to understand better exactly how Bitcoin works.

And I see that the outputs of transactions have a value (number of bitcoins) and a bunch of bytes that are run through the little Forth-like scripting language built in to bitcoin.  E.g.:
['TxOut: value: 100.00 Script: DUP HASH160 6fad...ab90 EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG']

First: it make me a little nervous that bitcoin has a scripting language in it, even though it is a really simple scripting language (no loops, no pointers, nothing but math and crypto).  It makes me nervous because it is more complicated, and complication is the enemy of security.  It also makes it harder to create a second, compatible implementation.  But I think I can get over that.

Looking at the code, new transactions are verified by pushing the signature an then public key on the interpreter's stack and then running the TxOut script (did I get that right?).

Could I write code to create transactions with any valid script in the TxOut?
E.g. could I create a TxOut with a script of:   OP_2DROP OP_TRUE
... to create a coin that could be spent by anybody?

And is flexibility in the types of coins created the reason it is coded this way?

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?

Be very wary of relying on JavaScript for security on sites such as blockchain.info and brainwallet.org. The site can change the JavaScript at any time unless you take unusual precautions, and browsers are not generally known for their airtight security.

Gavin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611

Satoshi
"I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin"
MAY 2, 2016

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

From mid-2010 until April-2014, Gavin Andresen maintained control of the Bitcoin Core GitHub repository and was considered Bitcoin’s lead developer. On April 8, 2014, Andresen stepped down and van der Laan agreed to take over as Lead Maintainer of the Bitcoin repo. His salary is paid by MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative, where he works on Bitcoin development with Andresen and Cory Fields
https://www.weusecoins.com/wladimir-van-der-laan/

"No estaba seguro, y todavía no estoy seguro de cómo está involucrado Gavin en esto. Ya no es probable que haya sido hackeado, pero al menos está confundido. Cuando vimos la publicación del blog convencido de que encontró a Satoshi, lo más prudente era revocar su propiedad de la organización "bitcoin" en github, bajo la cual se encuentra el repositorio de Bitcoin Core de inmediato".

2016/05/06/
Wladimir J. van der Laan
laanwj
https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html

Ver "An evening with Gavin Andresen (Bitcoin Foundation) - San Francisco Bitcoin Meetup (HD) (Dec 2014)" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/07B-p9hSJT8

Ver "The Bitcoin Show: Special Bitcoin Conference Coverage: Gavin Andresen - 08/20/2011" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/0ljx4bbJrYE