Bitcoin Forum

http://i8.tietuku.com/0324aa006cd5727c.jpg

Mike in bitcoin core developer for six years, just for the bitcoin core fixes 3 BUG,the core developer is so "core"  ::)

We see,the top bitcoin core contributors developers contribute more than 200,more is 3000.

I can't believe it,why is his words so appealing.

https://bitcoin.org/en/development

if anyone if changing his mind because of an ex google employee who wrote some code for bitcoin, he should leave bitcoin too  ::)

bitcoin gives a fuck about Mike, Gavin, Maxwell or any other dev (i respect all by the way!)
there are hunderds of other devs in the world who will take their place. bitcoin will not fail. bitcoin will laugh.

I was wondering exactly what Hearn had brought to the Bitcoin table. What were the 3 bug fixes?

This is a big joke, and his contribution to the 98th,He has no respect for before people's efforts

Respect for his work but everyone get leave or apply for a job, he said 5 years someone says 6 years even though hope this will not affect the bitcoin community and bitcoin value.

Absolutely this. Some weak bitcoin holders reacted & the price has taken a hit but it's nothing we haven't seen before. We move on & hopefully never hear from Hearn again.

Good point, I don't really understand why this guy has so much notoriety within the Bitcoin community, the only thing I remember is the Lighthouse thing and he also left early. It sucks that Gmaxwell barely posts anymore because he got pissed off at all the trolls but at least I hope he keeps working hard.

This! ^^^^^ Nice reading posts from people that get it! :D

I agree, the storm will pass, but it's understandable that many investors and common people started to panic. Sadly Bitcoin always seem to get all the "bad" headlines, we all know how the press like more negative news than good ones.

I was also wondering what was his contribution to bitcoin developing team. Never heard of him before but that may happen i don't look at the credit for bitcoin development.

though mike hearne didnt contribute much to bitcoin core.. the funny thing is that bitcoin core is a blockstream effort.
many people with more commits appended to their name have done stupid things like spelling checks and other useless things.

i actually think that from the morals of decentralized mindsets, that hearne creating his own bitcoinJ (programmed in java) and used by many, has been a good thing for bitcoins decentralization. as people were not dependant on one source of code.

i myself have made a VB implementation (used to teach those who cant read c++ how bitcoin is structured at a more readable basic code level)
others have made C# implementations.

and to tell you the truth. reading every line of code and fully understanding it enough to translate it into another language requires both skill and patience. so i applaud hearne for that too..

however. by simply joining a biased third party (R3) who want to kill bitcoin. did him no favours
by offering a implementation that was drastically different (8mb limit) without making a poll or having wide spread discussions about appropriate limit rise, did him no favours
by then being the scapegoat to R3's agenda to try swaying peoples faith away from bitcoin, didnt do him any favours.

and if he has truly given up on the whole blockchain ecosystem. then i guess R3 have seen he is no longer useful to them, thus kicking him to the curb.

all in all it is just drama and politics, which will shadow bitcoin for a small amount of time before the light dawns on people that bitcoin doesnt care about politics.

if R3 did get a majority consensus, or blockstream did.. then it would not take long after either party inserts dodgy code, before the community realise and downgrade back to a version before any shenanigans happened. so in the long run, bitcoin wont ever die. it will just have accidents and then need rehab for a day or two to recover back to normal function. eventually learning not to travel down a one way street to cause accidents.

so i am not against hearn for making his own separate implementations from the stance of the morals of decentralization. and although his idea of 8mb blocks didnt play well with the community.. he should have seen this as a positive sign that consensus works. as the majority didnt like it.

yes he was butt hurt that he was not an overnight success like he was first time with bitcoinj.. but in a decentralized community.. success and ultimate power is the opposite of what should be achieved

to be honest. he should have made 6 implementations, while ofcourse not being affiliated by any biased party
EG
bitcoin iiT (2mb no increments programmed)
bitcoin iVT (4mb no increments programmed)
bitcoin ViiiT (8mb no increments programmed)
bitcoin iiXT (2mb increments after 2 years)
bitcoin iVXT (4mb increments after 2 years)
bitcoin ViiiXT (8mb increments after 2 years)

and then let people have multiple choices.

but simply dropping his dummy and crying because the majority did not choose his single implementation, is not what decentralized consensus is about.
anyone making implementations has to know for every 100 attempts you might get 1 success. and be happy that there are 99 other choices, rather then crying that you were not the choice that works

one major, was the possibility to connect to casual node and not only to a specific node, to reduce centralization

It's basically because traders start dumping when they hear news like that because they think other people would sell too and the price is going down but the truth is that no one has to sell at all and if no one sold, well the price wouldn't go down obviously. It's like an infinite loop

This is the "leading developer" that New York Times has in front page drama story?