Bitcoin Forum

correct me if I am wrong:

1) complained bitterly that people did not listen to him, and that no one in bitcoin land follows orders / instructions.

It is my understanding that bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized? so if you want to win people over you need to do it because they as a whole think your solution is better? you cannot just make them listen to you because "you know better" ?

2) claims bitcoin is dead because it doesn't scale up from 1MB, etc

I don't understand the bitcoin technical aspects very well, but here is my understanding - lets see there were too many transactions for a week in a row, and all the miners and others realized "ah crap we need to increase that limit", how hard could it possibly be to change the current code from 1mb to 2mb? does't seem like that would be difficult at all? if so again, what is this guy moaning about?

3) bitcoin is a failed experiment

For a failed experiment, I seem to have no problem spending bitcoins on stuff, so far I have bought over $500 000 of physical goods with bitcoin. How is that a failure?


And PS to Mr. Mike , you complain that you want to leave for a professional environment, but you leave bitcoin with the maturity of a 2 year old. Look in the mirror very carefully.

The only thing I can comment on (nothing technical) is that for me he is right so far, it is a failed experiment. Bitcoin is a complete hassle to adopt if that was the original intention. Decimals, wallets, authorization keys, address as long as a line of code, qr codes, brain wallets, paper wallets. Come on, no average person will use that, even relative tech savvy ones will have problems keeping up. It's just a complete hassle and so far it's not close to overcome that barrier.

Now don't get me wrong, it's a completely unique technology, as innovative as the internet was in the 90s, so there's plenty of time ahead for Bitcoin to actually evolve. However many feel that it will die and something else will replace it unless it adapts quickly, that's what always happens.

its definitely a hassle.

but in my opinion it is not meant to compete with the convenience of banks / credit cards.

For me, bitcoin is meant to compete with gold. If you have ever bought / stored / moved / sold physical gold, that is a REAL hassle.

So gold, which is a major pain in the ass, has an asset base of $9 trillion. But I doubt many would call gold a failed experiment?

1. Download Bitcoin software and copy to a USB key.

2. Install Bitcoin software on computer which isn't connected to the internet (or any network for that matter).

3. Run Bitcoin software.

4. Obtain Bitcoin address.

5. Have bitcoins sent to that address.

I agree. This is far, far too much hassle for the extremely tiny utility of monetary freedom.

The average person is drowning in debt. Of course they aren't going to use Bitcoin... LOL!

this message is not completely wrong, but is wrong for what concern timing, and approach.
E.g.
it's true that some problem arising, but has already stated:


A initial test was done and we are part of it...

Next one I hope fast tx... with "bigger blocks" ... yes when I see more than 10k txs stuck in the chain I become sad  ???  :(  :'(

Bitcoiners will continue to make delicious wine with Heam's sour grapes.

Bitcoin is decentralized network, but development has been very centralized.
There has been one main repository ("core") which almost everyone has
been relying on to publish code updates.

It is not just Mike Hearn who thinks that we need bigger blocks.
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.




The coding change is not difficult...but getting consensus is... Everyone has
to be running the same copy of Bitcoin more or less.

The main problem with getting consensus around a blocksize increase
is because "core" has an entrenched authority since they control the
core repository that everyone has been using and have been trusted
historically... yet they are the ones stonewalling the change...
and the fact that the same guys in "core" started a private company (Blockstream)
in the business of "blockchain technology" created a huge conflict of interest
for them which compounds the problem.




Well, I agree that Bitcoin isn't "failed".  It will rise again.
I actually appreciate Mike leaving Bitcoin in the way
he did and bringing certain issues to light....

Hopefully it will be a wakeup call for us
to reach consensus on a blocksize increase sooner
rather than later.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the mining pools have the final say on what bitcoin code we use as they have the muscle?

So if the miners don't see the need to change anything nothing will change no matter what any coders say?

Forget about him, he's gone. The community can now recover from the damage he tried & in some way succeeded in inflicting.

Sort of, but not exactly. 

Merchants and users have a say.

If miners use their hashing power till they
are blue in the face, but if no one else
supports their version of the coin, it
will have no adoption, no utility, no value,
and no price.

I guess but if miners adopt new code conversely everyone else will fall into place immediately.

I gathered from his blog which a read a couple of times that the imposed cap slows down the network and this will hinder the use of bitcoin as a payment method in ,say, shops also I didn't know that 2 of the Chinese mines own 50% of the global hash power which is ridiculous. I think he is right in saying that bitcoin is a failed experiment because it's not decentralized - a couple of people hold everything in a centralized manner.

Only if the "new code" is reasonable.

If its unreasonable, then even a small minority of hashing power on a different
fork will create an altcoin that will overtake the "main coin" in value and
everyone will quickly switch over.

You could argue that the 2 big pools have the most skin in the game and therefore the most incentive to see bitcoin succeed

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329377.0

I just don't get it how hard can it be to increase the blocksize mb size?

Or is everyone involved in bitcoin divas who have to have everything exactly their way?

I agree that it is a hassle to use, and is more like gold than like an active and dynamic currency. I have a community (forum) not bitcoin related, and whenever I try to speak to its members about Bitcoin, it sounds too complicated to them. In fact, they do not even answer the post although I am the admin. Just read, find it troublesome, and ignore.

Ok ask same people how much physical gold they own?

If answer is zero you will probably never sell them on bitcoin you targeting wrong audience.

Gavin and Garzik are part of Core. In fact, everyone on the Core dev team (except maybe Luke-jr) wants a capacity increase, including but not limited to block size increase. They even have a roadmap planned out here: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq. Part of the issue is that no one really agrees on the exact method of increasing the capacity of Bitcoin. The problem is getting consensus for a hard fork. The current plan is to use SegWit which will be deployed as a soft fork, which in general, is better than a hard fork.

It is very hard given that in order to increase the blocksize limit without forking the blockchain into multiple distinct and survivable blockchains, consensus must be reached. This means that everyone must agree to use the same rules. Everyone must upgrade their software. The problem of course is getting everyone to do it. This is why doing hard forks properly is such a pain and long drawn out process.

An economic majority will decide soon.  We've heard enough of this excuse for too long.

It isn't an excuse, it is a fact. There are immense numbers of differing opinions regarding this block size debate. It is among users, developers, miners, everyone. From what I see, practically everyone agrees that there should be an increase, yet I have not seen everyone agree to what to use. I see a lot of people who go with XT, I see many who stick with Core. Overall, I do not see any "economic majority" deciding anything. If you see it, could you perhaps point it out to me?

This is the essence of the problem. Core needs to decide between either 2MB or 4MB blocks and the storm will calm immediately.

my prediction: now that Hearns is gone, the block code size limit will be increased just in time to coincide with the July halvening....... And bitcoin reaches new all time highs.

Instead of the doom and gloom people love to spread.

What makes you think that will do that in the next (pick a number) months when they haven't done anything so far?


www.bitcoinclassic.com

And..? I don't see any particular economic majority agreeing on anything in the poll linked on the site: https://bitcoin.consider.it/ and I wouldn't consider that poll to be representative of the population.

we can always remind everyone to upgrade their software just to have that blocksize as well. wallet software usually prompts updates when being opened. armory does as far as i know so forcing users to do so is doable. users will sure update after all its about money.

I think Bitcoin classic because a number of prominent companies and developers are behind it.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be bitcoin classic.  I think sooner or later an economic majority
will get behind one solution.  

Necessity is the mother of invention.

yip. I work in IT full time.

Very often companies I would go into would be sitting on some old system that needed to be replaced, and I used to be very proactive in telling them to upgrade, change, etc

Often though companies would push back, and say we will wait and use the old system until it is very close to completely unworkable, and it used to drive me nuts, I used to get frustrated as hell, lost my cool, etc

But from watching events unfold, sometimes that old system would last long enough until some new technology or solution previously unavailable came around, and then the company would have scored double, firstly from getting more years out of the current system essentially for free, and secondly, a better and / or cheaper solution than was previously available presents itself.

So I learned its not always so clear cut and obvious.

I hope this is what will happen with bitcoin, when the upgrade finally comes, it will be very good and very agreed upon instead of a panic partisan type upgrade which bitcoin XT would have been.