Bitcoin Forum

Another perspective...

http://coinjournal.net/scaling-bitcoin-austin-hill-blip/ (http://coinjournal.net/scaling-bitcoin-austin-hill-blip/)

As most of the forum users think that bitcoin can't dead with this stupid speculations...

Mike Hearn is R3CEV's bitch now, he has sold his soul to the devil, now he has to keep pushing their agenda for life, since he will never be accepted within the Bitcoin community ever again.

Their next effort is going to be Bitcoin Classic, we already have paid shills flooding this forum with this crap to get gullible newbies impressed.

Bitcoin's been called dead before. What's interesting to me is that it seems to keep getting back up after being knocked down. And in case it doesn't, there's always Litecoin, NXT, DASH...

Can some people confirm/debunk the statement that about 50% of the hashing power is concentrated in china? If that's the case, then I can see why that is a BIG problem.

Yeah I think I heard of bitcoin's death first in 2013--it wasn't true then and it still isn't true, but that doesn't stop people from yelling it from the hilltops.  It's a neat new invention with numerous applications and I say that as long as it's useful for gambling, trading, and for dark marketplace goods it'll stick around.

It's a problem for decentralization...

I don't see having the majority of mining in China as a problem.

Even if China were to go dark, bitcoin transactions would continue uninterrupted. If a 51% attack is the concern, core should simply adopt our 51% attack defense system invented in 2013, a few years after Satoshi disappeared. It would need to be adapted and scaled, but it should work just fine.

It seems you can't click anywhere on the Web today without a "Bitcoin Has Failed" article quoting Mike Hearn.

First of all, Bitcoin is not the VISA Payments System.  It will never process millions of transactions per second on Black Friday while simultaneously juggling chainsaws and making love to your best friend's wife.  That's not what it was designed to do.  The fact that it lacks the capacity to do this isn't a bug.

The megabyte block size limit is an important parameter of the Bitcoin protocol, and the unintended consequences of changing it need to be more carefully considered.  That a couple of developers, who shall remain nameless, went off and did their own version, designed to fight with Bitcoin Core for ownership of the blockchain, was the height of foolishness.  Of course, no one should run their code.

If there is no consensus on bumping the block size, and it remains at a megabyte forever, Bitcoin will be fine. Transaction space in blocks is a finite resource for which we charge fees.  As those fees rise, Bitcoin will slowly and seamlessly transition to a model where tiny transactions are handled by exchanges such as Coinbase, and transaction space in blocks is used primarily for settlement between exchanges and parties making larger trades.  This will happen so slowly, you'll barely notice it.

It is the height of hubris for the former developers, having failed to impose their vision of the code on the rest of us, to run around telling the press "Bitcoin Has Failed."  They have failed.  Bitcoin is fine.

Like most things in the P2P world, Bitcoin will last as long as at least two people are running a client, and it does something useful.  ed2k hasn't gone away, and will probably be here forever, along with Bitcoin.

Very insightful. If Bitcoin doesn't change, will it be able to compete with what the R3 blockchain group will put out? I mean, the R3 group scabbed Hearn (among others), invested 9 billion USD in research alone (Bitcoins present marketcap is only 5.8 billion USD), and serves a huge US banking system with a platform and customer base already in place.  What impact will the product of R3CEV's investment have on Bitcoin?

People have been saying bitcoins gonna die very often and there's no reason for them to stop.They will keep and pushing that bitcoins gonna die while in reality it's just gonna rise.

I just hope that this incident generates the much needed attention on the current block size problem. Something has to be done about the current limitations on the bitcoin platform.

I have a feeling that it is going to draw attention to the block size problem, but the developers will most likely aim to solve the problem with less drama using existing infrastructure, in a way that it won't split the community.

Yes, I too hope the non-existent block size problem and Hearn's NYT-hyped reaction results in a Blockchain Alliance favored solution.

Let's call our anti-cypherpunk fork "PanoptiCoin."

How many times are we going to hear this over and over and over again.... to be exact ...89 times. To think a cat has only 9 lives and Bitcoin has 89.  ;D ;D

http://gizmodo.com/bitcoin-has-died-for-the-89th-time-1753216701

The NYT just showed how they shill for the banks, with that article they posted. Before the article was posted, it was announced by Charlie at R3 and shown on Youtube.  ::)

Mike wanted to have the cheaper bitcoins, because he sees the larger potential in the value. That's why he dump his bitcoins to push the price lower, and then spread the news through the blog post.
Unfortunately that is a common practice on our crypto world...

Mike Hearn is just a piece of shit who wants to burn them every single bridge behind him.

If he was such a messiah, why did he get into BTC in the first place?

It s easy to dump your BTC and then talk how it s shit.

But, as you can see, BTC s started recovering and in 2 weeks time, we ll be back to the pre-Mike price level.

thanks to mike hearn now the resistance between 350 and 400 is even stronge,r and the price is rock solid there

we can go to 400 more easily with a better stable value in the next future, 500 is near the corner, and when that is broken you will know where this thing is heading

You are right. Bitcoin will bounce back even to ATH. Then these kind of people will keep their mouth zipped. The recent $250 to $400 shift is an example for people still in love with bitcoin.

Mike the next job seems to be in contact with the bank.

This can explain the problem.

I believe that bitcoin will never die and will always maintain some kind of value.

I don't think Bitcoin is dead either.  But, I think it's getting ready to die soon....It's not dead, it's just dying.  There are too many scams, manipulations, and outright thefts for any serious consumer to trade-in their fiat for it. The arguing over block size is small.....because we won't need to increase the block size if there aren't any transactions on the ledger anyway, right?  Whatever the R3 group hired Hearn to help work on, might just throw the final five finger death punch at Bitcoin!  We need to come together and try to stop them....Right?

Huge minus man, you're blinded.

This is a psychological power move. Someone as well known as Mike Hearn cries "failed!" (unless you all accept my hard fork idea =})

Mike knows better than anyone that the success or failure of Bitcoin is driven ONLY buy the volume of people who decide to use it as a currency or store of value. So for him to say it has failed doesn't make any sense. It will not have failed unitl people stop using it...which could come from lack of interest or lack of ability.

Mike has always been pretty pro-centralization (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41b4zx/whiny_ragequitting/cz1ftj6?context=3).  R3CEV didn't change his thinking, they just appear to have matched it. I'm glad he found a space where his perspective was welcome and I'm sad he doesn't realize that doesn't mean that people who don't share it are wrong.

Bitcoin is more than just an arbitrary scarce asset. It's a decentralized ecash that set out to solve a specific set of problems around the level of trust required in traditional currency. If Bitcoin became functionally equivalent to a traditional payment processor-- a system with centralized and censored transaction processing then I think it would be fair to say that it failed at what it set out to do.  Perhaps it would be more correct to say that to those, like Mike, who didn't really care about that part of the system, Bitcoin couldn't have failed until it was no longer used. ::shrugs:: regardless, things fail all the time-- it might be sad, but there is no reason to throw a fit about it.

Bitcoin routes around attempts to centrally steer and control its destiny. Nothing Mike Hearn, nor anyone else, can do about that.

https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

Yeah i wonder how many times i have seen articles from scientists saying something is bad for you and defending something thats been around for years , and then you see where the money for the reserch came from and you understand why they say something like that. always look where they get their money from and you know why they abandon former beliefs and start bad mouthing.

Well yes many have said bitcoin is bad or broken.
But i have to agree some points of Hearn.
F.e. sending micro transactions. Isn't that the whole concept of bitcoin?

Watch Mike Hearn in 30 years in from here. He will wish he hadn't sold and will likely go back to Google or somewhere and work

for peanuts while we are real millionaires. He will be PISSED at himself for falling off the horse and not getting right back on the

horse so quickly. Welp, he'll have only himself to blame.

Mike Hearn, if you are stomped by the horses hooves, don't cry to me in 30 years.

Ahaha!.. It is very assertive man! But I think it would be true in 5-6 years.  8)

i also on of forum member that not believe that bitcoin can dead,but as a bitcoin expert,why mike hearn tell us like that?is this first time he had wrong with his speculation?really wonder

Bitcoin can't be dead yet. Too many people still supporting it minus Hearn and those few. They want to cause waves and fall off

the horse, which they may regret doing shortly. After btc goes through this blip, will rise after. If the horse stomps those who fell

off their horses and sold their btc, I don't know what to say to them, except doubters didn't give the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, they'll slam btc, but they'll wish they hadn't once it is over 1K USD a btc. Watch those horses hooves, fellas, they gonna hurt!!

Or what, Bitcoin will be d000med and die again?   ::)

Blockstream has been testing their segwit solution since last year and the code for Lightning was just make public.  So you can calm down now.

To be fair, he never said it was "dead".

Here's what he said:


Right now, I agree that the fundamentals are broken
as long as there is a civil war going over scalability.

However, that can change and it can change quickly.

How quickly is up to us.

"All things shall pass."

A little hiccup in the grand scheme of things.

People need to relax and, FFS, quit dumping their bitcoins because some self proclaimed prophet predicts doom and gloom.

Strange that I haven't heard of this Mike Hearn in over 5 years, I spent a lot of time on this forum looking for information. Let him go, he is just one dev.

The scalability issue needs to be solved sooner or later. Bitcoin will continue to function as a niche product if we don't change how many people could use it. That could be fine, but I don't want to be forced to use an altcoin if I don't have to. If we leave everything as is, fees will become so high that it will stop the growth rate. People will not use BTC today if they have to compete with other users for their transactions to go through. This was designed to be the endgame and to be worried about when it has seen mass adoption. The 1MB block size wasn't Satoshi's idea to begin with and was not introduced before 2010. Bitcoin will evolve as it has and therefore I support a gradual block size increase.

Bitcoin Classic it is.

The now commonplace, everyday miracle that is Bitcoin works fine, great even.  Your FUD about 'zomg borken fundurrmentals' is ridiculous.

Controversy is orthogonal, if not congenial (because Bitcoin runs on drama), to network health.

Idiot Gavinistas, Tooministas, and Buttcoiners (is there really a difference?) whining loudly does not affect the system's integrity.

https://medium.com/@ripper234/the-bitcoin-experiment-is-not-over-2edf8b63268b#.bz4i65tpt

Exactly, the press keeps printing, "Bitcoin's lead developer", ad nauseum. He was never bitcoin's lead developer.

Stopped reading right there.

What really gets me going is the fact that he devoids bitcoin, yet is going to develop a blockchain with 43 banks, what a traitor you are than, even worse than the devs holding back the blocksize due to investments, Mike is now doing the same....

The man is just looking out for himself I mean he needs to feed a family. Bitcoin Core was his job he was dissatisfied with his coworkers and his project so he left for another venture. It's human nature wouldn't you do the same if you had the chance?