Hearn Banned from #Bitcoin-dev

[RoadStress]

deserved.

Why?

[LiteCoinGuy]

hilarious!

[poeEDgar]

Devs have been saying for a long damn time that Hearn's role in Core development has been as a "cancer" that saps everyone's energy and constantly delays day-to-day work from being done. At some point, they will have gotten fed up. (Shrug)

Bitcoin is open source, Mike. Go fork off if you're unhappy, and if no one runs your shoddy code, you can fade off into irrelevance. (Oh, you've already begun that process )

[poeEDgar]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

LOL, months later, you are still spewing this crap all over my screen.

He was banned (and likely temporarily) because, as usual, he is polluting the technical forum with his inane, political badgering. Wasting everyone's time and energy, constantly pushing ideas that no devs want a part of and endlessly crying that the reason for this is the governance structure -- it's not. It's because he is a cancer, and his ideas and code are horrible. The vast majority of miners, users, devs understand this; that you apparently do not is of little concern to anyone.

Go ahead and run your alternative implementation. Go ahead and fork off another. No one is stopping anyone from forking the code. Understand that the vast majority of miners, users and devs will not touch or run shoddy code backed by horrible ideas. That is just a practical reality. It has nothing to do with this perceived "censorship" or "OMG there is only one implementation". It's simple: produce an alternative client that is worth running and developing and people will do so. XT was not that.

[VeritasSapere]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

Total nonsense, his ideas and intended direction for Bitcoin have been thoroughly rejected by the other developers, the miners and the userbase. For good reasons. Mike is at fault, he continues to attempt to beat this dead horse that no-one is interested in. Deliberately anti-social stuff, and no doubt intended to set the scene for shills like yourself to distort reality, for the umpteenth time. No-one's falling for it, for the umpteenth time.

Yet I am the one making arguments that you are not refuting, and you are the one using ad hominem and calling me a shill as always. Reason is on my side, other smart people reading this can decide for them selves which side of this discussion has more merit.

[VeritasSapere]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

LOL, months later, you are still spewing this crap all over my screen.

He was banned (and likely temporarily) because, as usual, he is polluting the technical forum with his inane, political badgering. Wasting everyone's time and energy, constantly pushing ideas that no devs want a part of and endlessly crying that the reason for this is the governance structure -- it's not. It's because he is a cancer, and his ideas and code are horrible. The vast majority of miners, users, devs understand this; that you apparently do not is of little concern to anyone.

Go ahead and run your alternative implementation. Go ahead and fork off another. No one is stopping anyone from forking the code. Understand that the vast majority of miners, users and devs will not touch or run shoddy code backed by horrible ideas. That is just a practical reality. It has nothing to do with this perceived "censorship" or "OMG there is only one implementation". It's simple: produce an alternative client that is worth running and developing and people will do so. XT was not that. At all. Give it up.

Just saying that his arguments have no merit because he is a cancer is not a valid argument. It is actually a problem that the developers do not want to defend themselves on political grounds. Since having one person in charge with five other people with veto power over the development of Bitcoin when there is only one main implementation is tantamount to centralization of power and is indefensible in terms of decentralization. I am glad that you can agree with me that we need more implementations of Bitcoin, so far we only have one alternative implementation to Bitcoin Core so to support that because we disagree with Core is most definitely defensible. We should all be united in our opposition of what is happening in Core and we need to realize the danger and problems that this presents.

[brg444]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

LOL, months later, you are still spewing this crap all over my screen.

He was banned (and likely temporarily) because, as usual, he is polluting the technical forum with his inane, political badgering. Wasting everyone's time and energy, constantly pushing ideas that no devs want a part of and endlessly crying that the reason for this is the governance structure -- it's not. It's because he is a cancer, and his ideas and code are horrible. The vast majority of miners, users, devs understand this; that you apparently do not is of little concern to anyone.

Go ahead and run your alternative implementation. Go ahead and fork off another. No one is stopping anyone from forking the code. Understand that the vast majority of miners, users and devs will not touch or run shoddy code backed by horrible ideas. That is just a practical reality. It has nothing to do with this perceived "censorship" or "OMG there is only one implementation". It's simple: produce an alternative client that is worth running and developing and people will do so. XT was not that. At all. Give it up.

Just saying that his arguments have no merit because he is a cancer is not a valid argument. It is actually a problem that the developers do not want to defend themselves on political grounds. Since having one person in charge with five other people with veto power over the development of Bitcoin when there is only one main implementation is tantamount to centralization of power and is indefensible in terms of decentralization. I am glad that you can agree with me that we need more implementations of Bitcoin, so far we only have one alternative implementation to Bitcoin Core so to support that because we disagree with Core is most definitely defensible. We should all be united in our opposition of what is happening in Core and we need to realize the danger and problems that this presents.

 

You're in for some rough times. Core is going to continue to prevail as it is simply composed of the best and brightest minds in the industry.

[poeEDgar]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

LOL, months later, you are still spewing this crap all over my screen.

He was banned (and likely temporarily) because, as usual, he is polluting the technical forum with his inane, political badgering. Wasting everyone's time and energy, constantly pushing ideas that no devs want a part of and endlessly crying that the reason for this is the governance structure -- it's not. It's because he is a cancer, and his ideas and code are horrible. The vast majority of miners, users, devs understand this; that you apparently do not is of little concern to anyone.

Go ahead and run your alternative implementation. Go ahead and fork off another. No one is stopping anyone from forking the code. Understand that the vast majority of miners, users and devs will not touch or run shoddy code backed by horrible ideas. That is just a practical reality. It has nothing to do with this perceived "censorship" or "OMG there is only one implementation". It's simple: produce an alternative client that is worth running and developing and people will do so. XT was not that. At all. Give it up.

Just saying that his arguments have no merit because he is a cancer is not a valid argument. It is actually a problem that the developers do not want to defend themselves on political grounds. Since having one person in charge with five other people with veto power over the development of Bitcoin when there is only one main implementation is tantamount to centralization of power and is indefensible in terms of decentralization. I am glad that you can agree with me that we need more implementations of Bitcoin, so far we only have one alternative implementation to Bitcoin Core so to support that because we disagree with Core is most definitely defensible. We should all be united in our opposition of what is happening in Core and we need to realize the danger and problems that this presents.

His ideas have been widely rejected on technical grounds. His blacklisting/redlisting ideas have also been widely rejected on political grounds. That he is a cancer is not the argument; it's the conclusion. I'm not going to dig through months/years of mailing list discussion because you don't have a grasp of history.

Prove this statement: "Centralization of bitcoin development causes centralization of the bitcoin protocol." Because I only care about the latter. This is a constant red herring. That bitcoin is a decentralized protocol doesn't state anything about its governance structure. The development process has always been centralized, and I don't view that as a problem per se. Please state exactly why it is. If you think the answer is "because BIP101 won't ever be implemented" you would be wrong. Miners' reaction to BIP100 (which was not an implementable code) and the undeniable rejection of miners/users to XT should be enough evidence that it never would have been implemented. It seems that you just want to fight reality as hard as you can.

I'm not united in opposition of "what is happening in Core". Core developers have done incredible work for bitcoin, and I don't see any issues, really. Prove that centralization of development is detrimental. (Do you have any idea how centralized bitcoin development was in 2008-2009?)

The only issue is this false sense of urgency that says we need to increase the block size limit yesterday. Well, blocks don't look full to me, so let's not rush into implementing fixes that lack technical merit. (I have, in the past, stated many reasons why BIP101 lacked technical merit and never received adequate retorts from you on those points. You always return to "governance issues" that don't address the point that we lack an alternative implementation that warrants being run on technical merit.)

Of course, being an "alternative" is not, on its face, a reason to run a client. That's insane.

Here -- I am releasing "Bitcoin 2.0" and raising the total coin supply to 84 million, while quadrupling the current block reward. Want to run my code? It's an alternative implementation! We need alternative implementations!

You realize that's what happened, right? An alternative client was released and it was overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds? Okay, well let's move on then.

[RoadStress]

Devs have been saying for a long damn time that Hearn's role in Core development has been as a "cancer" that saps everyone's energy and constantly delays day-to-day work from being done. At some point, they will have gotten fed up. (Shrug)

Bitcoin is open source, Mike. Go fork off if you're unhappy, and if no one runs your shoddy code, you can fade off into irrelevance. (Oh, you've already begun that process )

Proof of those devs?

[poeEDgar]

Devs have been saying for a long damn time that Hearn's role in Core development has been as a "cancer" that saps everyone's energy and constantly delays day-to-day work from being done. At some point, they will have gotten fed up. (Shrug)

Bitcoin is open source, Mike. Go fork off if you're unhappy, and if no one runs your shoddy code, you can fade off into irrelevance. (Oh, you've already begun that process )

Proof of those devs?

I suppose the word Wladimir used here was "toxic" -- not "cancer."

There is plenty more discussion of his antics over time, but I can't be bothered to read through endless badly-organized threads to link to them.



http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34221006/

I maintain that you should apologize to those who traverse this list.
 What you are saying is digging yourself a deeper hole and is not
merely embarrassing but is crossing a threshold in which you have used
words, albeit subtly, to attack a community.

If you refuse to apologize, I get it.  You have not apologized thus
far, and pressing for an apology is unlikely to get an (authentic)
one.  But then, you should voluntarily step back and let others do the
hard work of coming to the consensus that you seem to think is
impossible to accomplish based on how bitcoin is run.

I believe this matter will be resolved, but not with the "help" of
those who make threatening statements (and who are unable to apologize
for having made them).

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34219062/

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> > Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at
> > all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate
> > 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the
> > issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access
> > can then block any change.

And allegations that the project is "run like wikipedia" or "an edit war" are verifyably untrue.
Check the commit history.
How many reverts do you see? How many of those do you see that are not simply to get rid of unexpected bugs, to be re-merged later?

Not much more than two, in ~5500 commit over six years. I feel sorry for you that `getutxos` was rejected in a messy way, still you are so held up about it and keep repeating it as if it is a daily occurence. Disingenuous, at the least.

Wladimir

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34219655/

I doubt that other bitcoin software maintainers would agree with that sort
of toxic reasoning; contentious hard-forks are basically a weapon of war
that you can use against any other collaborator on any bitcoin project. Why
would anyone want to collaborate on such a hostile project? How would they
even trust each other?

[Sir Lagsalot]

He was warned but kept getting up everyone's nose. Mike has skills which can help Bitcoin but his attitude gets in the way.

[hdbuck]

Devs have been saying for a long damn time that Hearn's role in Core development has been as a "cancer" that saps everyone's energy and constantly delays day-to-day work from being done. At some point, they will have gotten fed up. (Shrug)

Bitcoin is open source, Mike. Go fork off if you're unhappy, and if no one runs your shoddy code, you can fade off into irrelevance. (Oh, you've already begun that process )

Proof of those devs?

I suppose the word Wladimir used here was "toxic" -- not "cancer."

There is plenty more discussion of his antics over time, but I can't be bothered to read through endless badly-organized threads to link to them.



http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34221006/

I maintain that you should apologize to those who traverse this list.
 What you are saying is digging yourself a deeper hole and is not
merely embarrassing but is crossing a threshold in which you have used
words, albeit subtly, to attack a community.

If you refuse to apologize, I get it.  You have not apologized thus
far, and pressing for an apology is unlikely to get an (authentic)
one.  But then, you should voluntarily step back and let others do the
hard work of coming to the consensus that you seem to think is
impossible to accomplish based on how bitcoin is run.

I believe this matter will be resolved, but not with the "help" of
those who make threatening statements (and who are unable to apologize
for having made them).

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34219062/

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> > Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at
> > all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate
> > 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the
> > issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access
> > can then block any change.

And allegations that the project is "run like wikipedia" or "an edit war" are verifyably untrue.
Check the commit history.
How many reverts do you see? How many of those do you see that are not simply to get rid of unexpected bugs, to be re-merged later?

Not much more than two, in ~5500 commit over six years. I feel sorry for you that `getutxos` was rejected in a messy way, still you are so held up about it and keep repeating it as if it is a daily occurence. Disingenuous, at the least.

Wladimir

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34219655/

I doubt that other bitcoin software maintainers would agree with that sort
of toxic reasoning; contentious hard-forks are basically a weapon of war
that you can use against any other collaborator on any bitcoin project. Why
would anyone want to collaborate on such a hostile project? How would they
even trust each other?

haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg

#reKt

[VeritasSapere]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

LOL, months later, you are still spewing this crap all over my screen.

He was banned (and likely temporarily) because, as usual, he is polluting the technical forum with his inane, political badgering. Wasting everyone's time and energy, constantly pushing ideas that no devs want a part of and endlessly crying that the reason for this is the governance structure -- it's not. It's because he is a cancer, and his ideas and code are horrible. The vast majority of miners, users, devs understand this; that you apparently do not is of little concern to anyone.

Go ahead and run your alternative implementation. Go ahead and fork off another. No one is stopping anyone from forking the code. Understand that the vast majority of miners, users and devs will not touch or run shoddy code backed by horrible ideas. That is just a practical reality. It has nothing to do with this perceived "censorship" or "OMG there is only one implementation". It's simple: produce an alternative client that is worth running and developing and people will do so. XT was not that. At all. Give it up.

Just saying that his arguments have no merit because he is a cancer is not a valid argument. It is actually a problem that the developers do not want to defend themselves on political grounds. Since having one person in charge with five other people with veto power over the development of Bitcoin when there is only one main implementation is tantamount to centralization of power and is indefensible in terms of decentralization. I am glad that you can agree with me that we need more implementations of Bitcoin, so far we only have one alternative implementation to Bitcoin Core so to support that because we disagree with Core is most definitely defensible. We should all be united in our opposition of what is happening in Core and we need to realize the danger and problems that this presents.

His ideas have been widely rejected on technical grounds. His blacklisting/redlisting ideas have also been widely rejected on political grounds. That he is a cancer is not the argument; it's the conclusion. I'm not going to dig through months/years of mailing list discussion because you don't have a grasp of history.

Prove this statement: "Centralization of bitcoin development causes centralization of the bitcoin protocol." Because I only care about the latter. This is a constant red herring. That bitcoin is a decentralized protocol doesn't state anything about its governance structure. The development process has always been centralized, and I don't view that as a problem per se. Please state exactly why it is. If you think the answer is "because BIP101 won't ever be implemented" you would be wrong. Miners' reaction to BIP100 (which was not an implementable code) and the undeniable rejection of miners/users to XT should be enough evidence that it never would have been implemented. It seems that you just want to fight reality as hard as you can.

I'm not united in opposition of "what is happening in Core". Core developers have done incredible work for bitcoin, and I don't see any issues, really. Prove that centralization of development is detrimental. (Do you have any idea how centralized bitcoin development was in 2008-2009?)

The only issue is this false sense of urgency that says we need to increase the block size limit yesterday. Well, blocks don't look full to me, so let's not rush into implementing fixes that lack technical merit. (I have, in the past, stated many reasons why BIP101 lacked technical merit and never received adequate retorts from you on those points. You always return to "governance issues" that don't address the point that we lack an alternative implementation that warrants being run on technical merit.)

Of course, being an "alternative" is not, on its face, a reason to run a client. That's insane.

Here -- I am releasing "Bitcoin 2.0" and raising the total coin supply to 84 million, while quadrupling the current block reward. Want to run my code? It's an alternative implementation! We need alternative implementations!

You realize that's what happened, right? An alternative client was released and it was overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds? Okay, well let's move on then.

That Mike Hearn is a cancer can not possibly be the conclusion of any rational argument.

If development is centralized then how do we stop the developers from adding centralization to the protocol level? The truth is development is open and anyone can develop an alternative client, this possibility has always existed and is an important aspect of Bitcoin governance. To answer your question directly, I would consider development centralization to become an issue if the blocksize is not increased within a reasonable time frame. I think that this has already happened, I would be content with any increase in the blocksize from Core or even just a plan or statement of the intend to increase the blocksize, yet we have not had any of these things come from Core.

I am aware of how centralized development has been during the early days of Bitcoin, however I think as Bitcoin matures development should become more decentralized, this is off political necessity. Gavin Andresen himself gave up control of Bitcoin Core and handed it over to some of the other Core developers, people should keep this in mind when they call him a tyrant or dictator, he did give up his power over the code base after all. Which is now being used to block Gavin from increasing the blocksize today.

We have indeed discussed the merit of BIP101, I felt like you failed to respond to my political arguments which I presume you still do not acknowledge.

I would not support a client that increases the supply of Bitcoin. I would support a client that increases the blocksize, by implementing BIP101. These are two very different things, it is an inaccurate comparison.

I do not think that we should wait before the blocks are full before we do a hard fork to increase the blocksize, doing a hard fork at short notice could cause many problems. If we waited to long to increase the blocksize and there was a spike in adoption transactions could become unreliable and much more expensive, this would not be good for Bitcoin. I refuse to just "trust" that this group of five people can all agree with each other before these problems occur. I have even acknowledged some of your technical criticisms and I would support a more conservative blocksize increase as soon at it is implemented in another client whether it be Core or another alternative implementation.

I disagree that BIP101 has been overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds. It is however irrelevant even if it was, our beliefs should not be based on what the majority believes, it should be based on the result of our own independent reasoning.

[VeritasSapere]

I do not find any of these quotes to be convincing evidence that there was sufficient grounds for banning Mike Hearn. Considering that these are also all quotes of other people attacking Mike Hearn. It would have been more convincing if you quoted Mike Hearn himself saying something that you think should have been justification for banning him. It does matter what we think of the developers however or even what their beliefs are, it should not be a popularity contest, what matters is what is in the code.

[brg444]

I disagree that BIP101 has been overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds. It is however irrelevant even if it was, our beliefs should not be based on what the majority believes, it should be based on the result of our own independent reasoning.

 

You're a clown. Plain & simple.

[poeEDgar]

That Mike Hearn is a cancer can not possibly be the conclusion of any rational argument.

Please see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1197613.msg12576154#msg12576154

If he wants to swallow his pride and learn how to cooperate with other contributors in a collaborative project, that would be another thing. He has merely ostracized himself. That is purely his own doing. Just look at his attitude. He is excising himself from bitcoin. Not my problem.

Indeed:

he's welcome back if he just starts talking about development, instead of questioning the project all the time

If development is centralized then how do we stop the developers from adding centralization to the protocol level?

Um, by not running such code.

I would consider development centralization to become an issue if the blocksize is not increased within a reasonable time frame. I think that this has already happened, I would be content with any increase in the blocksize from Core or even just a plan or statement of the intend to increase the blocksize, yet we have not had any of these things come from Core.

Disagree. Time is irrelevant without technically sound code to run. And Core developers (Adam Back, Jeff Garzik, others) have released several BIPs to address block capacity. You're just fixated on BIP101.

I am aware of how centralized development has been during the early days of Bitcoin, however I think as Bitcoin matures development should become more decentralized, this is off political necessity.

Why? Again:

Prove this statement: "Centralization of bitcoin development causes centralization of the bitcoin protocol." Because I only care about the latter. This is a constant red herring. That bitcoin is a decentralized protocol doesn't state anything about its governance structure. The development process has always been centralized, and I don't view that as a problem per se. Please state exactly why it is.

We have indeed discussed the merit of BIP101, I felt like you failed to respond to my political arguments which I presume you still do not acknowledge.

You still neglected to adequately address technical criticisms of BIP101, yet you are here advocating it. Actually, I have responded to your [irrelevant] political arguments (and I am continuing to here, against my better judgment). Feel free to quote such posts, and I will quote my responses.

I would not support a client that increases the supply of Bitcoin. I would support a client that increases the blocksize, by implementing BIP101. These are two very different things, it is an inaccurate comparison.

The community of devs, users and miners disagree with you. BIP101 has been roundly rejected.

I do not think that we should wait before the blocks are full before we do a hard fork to increase the blocksize, doing a hard fork at short notice could cause many problems. If we waited to long to increase the blocksize and there was a spike in adoption transactions could become unreliable and much more expensive, this would not be good for Bitcoin.

Not good for bitcoin, eh? I don't think a mass increase in orphaned blocks would be good for bitcoin, either. (Shrug)

Again, time is irrelevant without technically sound code to run.

Further, scaling is not merely limited to the context of block size. Addressing spam is another important issue that must be dealt with. And a hard fork may not be necessary (see Adam Back's proposal from May 2015).

I disagree that BIP101 has been overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds. It is however irrelevant even if it was, our beliefs should not be based on what the majority believes, it should be based on the result of our own independent reasoning.

Sounds like a real lonely island. I'll stay on the mainland, but thanks. If a simple majority =/= consensus, a minority isn't gonna do any better.

[poeEDgar]

I do not find any of these quotes to be convincing evidence that there was sufficient grounds for banning Mike Hearn. Considering that these are also all quotes of other people attacking Mike Hearn. It would have been more convincing if you quoted Mike Hearn himself saying something that you think should have been justification for banning him. It does matter what we think of the developers however or even what their beliefs are, it should not be a popularity contest, what matters is what is in the code.

You completely missed the point. There can be no progress on the code when "every pull [Hearn] touches turns into a cesspool." Bitcoin is a collaborative project. If he refuses to collaborate with the other devs and continues to try to force unpopular opinions in the face of significant criticism, collaboration is impossible. Hence why he forked the code.

Go ahead and continue to ignore other developers' opinions in favor of your own unbacked opinions. But your ignorance of the context of the mailing lists is not compelling.

Here's a few more tidbits on why Hearn has been ostracized:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvk0ko7
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvjxbb5
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvl1yae
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvk1cpx
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mvq61/scaling_bitcoin_092915/cvj8zf3

[Bit_Happy]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

"Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin"...
Is this possible, when we need a "vote" of 51% or higher for the network to verify blocks of any particular max size?
(Sorry, if I'm behind on current events)

[VeritasSapere]

This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

"Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin"...
Is this possible, when we need a "vote" of 51% or higher for the network to verify blocks of any particular max size?
(Sorry, if I'm behind on current events)

It is possible as long as the implementations are fully compatible with the Bitcoin protocol. However in the case of a change that is fundamental to the protocol, which makes previous versions incompatible with the new version is a hard fork. Increasing the blocksize will require a hard fork whether it is done by Core or an alternative implementation. Hypothetically it is possible if there was enough disagreement that Bitcoin could split, there would then be two Bitcoins essentially. This should not nesserally be seen as a 51% attack but more as an act of freedom and expression of personal beliefs. This avoids the problem of the tyranny of the majority. Cryptocurreny as a whole will therefore always remain free as long as enough people choose freedom.

[jonald_fyookball]

I do not find any of these quotes to be convincing evidence that there was sufficient grounds for banning Mike Hearn. Considering that these are also all quotes of other people attacking Mike Hearn. It would have been more convincing if you quoted Mike Hearn himself saying something that you think should have been justification for banning him. It does matter what we think of the developers however or even what their beliefs are, it should not be a popularity contest, what matters is what is in the code.

You completely missed the point. There can be no progress on the code when "every pull [Hearn] touches turns into a cesspool." Bitcoin is a collaborative project. If he refuses to collaborate with the other devs and continues to try to force unpopular opinions in the face of significant criticism, collaboration is impossible. Hence why he forked the code.

Go ahead and continue to ignore other developers' opinions in favor of your own unbacked opinions. But your ignorance of the context of the mailing lists is not compelling.

Here's a few more tidbits on why Hearn has been ostracized:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvk0ko7
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvjxbb5
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvl1yae
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvk1cpx
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mvq61/scaling_bitcoin_092915/cvj8zf3

None of that means the core devs are right to forestall the block increase, nor does it make their apparent conflict of interest with blockstream any less troubling.  Those very things make any silencing of Hearn suspicious.