Bitcoin Forum

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.obcepgw0g


With apologies to the length but Hearn does pack a lot of misrepresentations and lies into this article.


This is patently untrue as power dynamics within bitcoin are a complex interwoven level of game theory shared by miners, nodes, developers, merchants and payment processors, and users. Even if one were to make the false assumption that Miners control all the power, the reality is mining pools are either made up of thousands of individual miners who can and do redirect their hashing power or private pools with companies controlled by multiple investors and owners.  


If and when a fee event happens, bitcoin will be just fine. Wallets already can adjust for fees and tx fee pressures will be kept reasonable because they still need to compete with free off the chain solutions. Whether the Block size is raised to 2, 4, or 8 MB it will also be fine(in the short term) as long as corresponding sigop protections are included. The blocksize debate more has to do with bikeshedding and setting a long term direction for bitcoin than preventing a short term technical collapse.


Bitcoin functions as a payment rails system just fine, just ask Coinbase and bitpay.


False, I normal pay 3-5 pennies , and tx instantly get to their destination and confirm between 5 min to 1 hour like normal. CC txs take weeks to months to confirm.


RBF is opt in , and therefore payment processors won't accept this if they do 0 conf tx approvals.



Blocks are 60-70% full on average . We have yet to see a continuous backlog lasting more than a few hours max. This conf backlog doesn't prevent tx from being processed unlike when the Visa/paypal network goes down and you cannot make a payment at all.


People in China partially Control one small aspect of the bitcoin ecosystem and why shouldn't they? They do represent 19% of the worlds population. This comment is both misleading and xenophobic.


Most people are passionate but still friendly behind closed doors. The Blocksize debate has spurred decentralization of developer groups and new ideas which are good things. Sure there has been some unproductive infighting , but we will get through this and be stronger for it. "Civil wars" exist within and between all currencies anyways so this is nothing surprising.


Credit cards charge 2.8% to 7% in the US and 5-8% in many other countries. Bitcoins once had fees up to 40 cents a tx , and for the past few years normal fees have been consistently between 2-8 pennies per tx on the chain and free off the chain.  



Mining pools are controlled by many miners and interests , not individuals. Miners also share the control with many other competing interests and are limited in their ability to harm the bitcoin ecosystem if they so choose.



Bitcoin core has already come to a consensus on a scaling proposal - https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/ and various other implementations are developing theirs to propose to the community. Bitcoin Classic is another interesting implementations that appears to have found consensus around BIP102.


The Chinese miners want bitcoin to scale to at least 2MB in the short term, something that both Core and Classic accommodate.
Bitcoin will continue to scale with many other solutions and ultimately payment channels will allow it to scale to Visa like levels of TPS.
 

Coinbase was re-added to bitcoin.org. Mike conveniently left that important datapoint off.


There are more subreddits, more forums , and more information than ever before. The blocksize debate does sometimes create divisions in our ecosystem but the information is all there and easy for anyone to investigate.


The failure of XT has nothing to do with the lack of information. If anything there is too much information available , being repeated over and over , in many different venues.


Satoshi never intended to be used as an argument from authority and if he does he can always come back and contribute. We should not depend upon an authority figure but evidence, valid reasoning, and testing.



Hearn's calculations are wrong. More specifically they do not take into account TOR, decentralization in locations with bandwidth limitations, bandwidth softcaps imposed by ISP's, the true scale of historical bandwidth increases, and malicious actors attacking the system with sophisticated attacks.


The 45 developers who contributed to Bitcoin Core in 2015 could be replaced instantly if the community wanted with little effort. Ultimately, the nodes, miners and users control which code they use and no group of developers can force them to upgrade. In fact Bitcoin Core deliberately avoids and auto-update feature with their releases at the cost of usability to specifically insure that users have to actively choose all new features and can opt out simply by not upgrading.

... end of part one...

No apologies needed.

This article will be invaluable as a reference to which noobies and Gavinistas will be pointed for remedial How To Bitcoin lessons.

And it makes it much easier to demonstrate exactly why Coinbase, Bitfury, and the rest of the _Classic backers have jumped the shark.

You are doing yeoman's work here.  I appreciate and thank you for it.

Here's to another year of watching Hearn and Bitcoin's other adversaries getting #R3KT.

What a developer is this with only 4 commit in the last 6 years to bitcoin core? This guy is simple a joke  ;D

and i dont know that Hearn is a racist. What is wrong for chinese people to control hashpower. Are the Chinese people in the Hearns mind act like an organized crime syndicate that all of us have to afraid. If this hashpower was in the hands of white people Hearn will feel more safe?
This guy is completely a jerk.

bitcoin core is not the only implementation of bitcoin.

as long as other implementations follow the same rules and do the same checks, they too can be part of the same chain without forking..
mike hearns bitcoinJ is an example of this. and many businesses used his bitcoinJ instead of bitcoin-core

Wow - that is sort of a new low in the FUD war.  :-\

You guys will really go to any length won't you?  And just for readers to be clear.... Mike Hearns/XT is NOT involved in the current Bitcoin Classic Fork.  And I know you guys like to tie the two together - but REALLY a new low even for you.  Sad actually.  More reason we need to get this over and move on to Classic and a new Bitcoin Governance team.  A PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE TEAM.

You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves.

Hearn must be ashamed to say that bullshits.

It wasn't really that many though was it franky?

% wise it was a very small number.

Thank you OP for taking the time and effort in compiling this list of 'lies, FUD, and hyperbole'

This should be a sticky for the next week :)

Well, Mike Hearn is a traitorous idiot for many many reasons, but your attempts to take things out of context, solely to try and tie him (untruthfully) to teh current Bitcoin Classic Fork is not on him.... it is on you and your ilk.   I'd still take a sellout jerk like Mike Hearns 7 days a week and twice on Sundays before I would choose Blockstream/Core.  

Although, honestly, both sides really aren't that different.  Both Blockstream/Core & Hearn have demonstrated foolish, selfish, egotistical desires to control Bitcoin, and have proposed paths equally assured to destroying bitcoin.

AND both Blockstream/Core & Hearn have demonstrated how they act like spoiled little brats when they don't get their way, and are more than happy destroying the reputation of bitcoin and attempting to kill it if they can't have it all to themselves.

You've both just chosen different cliffs to leap off of, while trying to drag bitcoin with you.  Bunch of losers.

I really cant understand what is his problem with chinese people. I will ask you something and i am waiting an answer. Is Chinese people act like organized group because simple they are Chinese?
in this diagram

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

three different Chinese pools will act like a Chinese zerg because the explanation is that they are Chinese? You know this is bullshits? That Hearn write bullshits and this a racist reaction.

I think my original reply (above bold) pretty sums up the only rational response possible to such stupid and hateful coments.

This is not a hateful comment but a health reaction to a racist like hearn.

There are several wallets that use BitcoinJ. MultiBit, Hive, Android Wallet to name a few. I'm fairly certain that there are a lot of people who rely on BitcoinJ. I also use BitcoinJ in Java programs that I write that require access to the blockchain.

There is a racist in the room.... but it isn't Mike.  We really need to get this Classic Fork over with.  You blockstream/core people have no shame.  It's really not even funny.   I cannot wait to see you go.

I dont care about blockstream. I really care not to read all of that bullshits and not react. I dont know what you have in your mind but i cant see a flaw when the most hashpower is in the hands of Chinese people. I dont care if this hashpower was in American people, europe guys pakistan guys or whatever..

So, take a deep breathe and tells us all about your non-concerns.

Exactly!

If there are any Chinese (or Africans, or Russians, or Germans, etc.) reading this, I promise if Bitcoin gets taken over by the banker-puppet Hearns and Armstrongs of this World, it will NEVER HAPPEN to our community while I'm alive!

~~

Retailers don't tell NIKE how to build shoes, Wal-Mart doesn't tell Apple how to make iPhones, and Coinbase/Circle has no business getting involved and trying to control/subvert bitcoin core!

This seems like it should be a no brainer. It sure would help if core would get its act together and stand united.

The more totalitarian a country is the easier to confiscate all Bitcoin miner plants for their attack + shut up anyone who complain, and there is evidence similar things happening regularly for anyone who dont agree/cooperate with Chinese communistic party. So nothing racist or anti Chinese.


About OP, there are many things I dont agree with, but Im going to pick one: free off the chain Bitcoin transactions.
Good luck, why VISA/MC did not think about making their transactions free or cheap when it is so granted by you  ::)  These are basically the same offchain transactions.

and communist party will force miners to attack bitcoin network because for a not really knonw reason or because they are communists or chinese?

why not just stfu and read what he wrote?

I have already read and i can say to you stfu and answer to my questions.

the answer to your question is in what he wrote. the only racist is you. stfu. have mommy read it and explain it to you. any central location is bad, chinese miners get free or subsidized electricity. etc, etc. stop being sensitive and use the brain you were supposed to be born with, or simply admit that it is all over your head.......and then stfu.

Classic is just their next move. 20mb was too much, then they tried 8, now 2.. they all want big blocks at the end, and take nodes away from people.

ok i have 2 questions for you

1) do you run a full node right now?

2) what math theory or real life understanding of bandwidth and databloat reveals to you a happy amount for a block limit that you would upgrade to without resistance

i you use so many time shfu? what really problem you have?

and what about other altcoin like ehereum that the hashpower is in the hand of one only pool? I dont see a problem at all when each pool of bitcoin network has not 51% of network hashpower and i cant see chinese people to act like zerg because they are chinese.

Mike Hearn does address some valid concerns with the centralization of mining, which are often brought up by many core developers.
The 2 Problems I have with his comments concerning the scaremongering of "china controlling everything" are:

1) The reality is miners share power with many other groups and there exists a complex interwoven power dynamic between nodes, users, merchants, processors/banks/exchanges, developers, and miners. When developers discuss centralization of mining concerns among each other in private there is an understanding of these complex nuances already . Mike Hearn is being deliberately misleading about not discussing these complex power dynamics when he addresses the public. The public walks away from the article believing that a handful of developers and miners control the Bitcoin ecosystem which is patently false.

 2) Rather than focus bringing up xenophobic tribal fears when discussing China, he could have addressed the more underlying problem of mining centralization where the incentives have temporarily shifted to centralized mining and node count drop off. we do not know if this can be reversed and exactly how but there are several solutions to reverse this trend being developed.