Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2019, 12:02:25 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Adam Back asks Mike Hearn in AMA about scaling bitcoin by coming together!  (Read 1372 times)
MemoryDealers
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1035
Merit: 1050



View Profile WWW
November 08, 2015, 03:49:26 AM
 #1


This seems like a super super positive sign!

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-mike-hearn-creator-of-lighthouse-bitcoinj-and-bitcoin-xt-ask-me-anything-t2207-20.html#p6183

Try The Brand New Ethereum Game
50 Last Players Also Win The Bank
Works On Any iOS/Android Device With Standard Browser
Join Us On Telegram To Get Notified When You Can Win
COLOR PIXELS
AND WIN
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560902545
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560902545

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560902545
Reply with quote  #2

1560902545
Report to moderator
1560902545
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560902545

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560902545
Reply with quote  #2

1560902545
Report to moderator
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1070


Intergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 12:46:27 AM
 #2

I think Mike Hearn has atm the worst reputation in bitcoin community.

http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:02:36 AM
 #3

lel

if he is even too dumb to not go there he will be finished with ostracizing himself into cryptoshame Tongue
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 08:29:19 AM
 #4

BIP101 forced Adam to react and he is now proposing 2-4-8 all the time.
Core now has the choice to choose between raising the limit or to be forked off.
coinpr0n
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 11:20:29 AM
 #5

In his answer Mike Hearn basically blows him off. I guess he may really not see a solution but it seems to me as though he is just being stubborn at this point. Anyway, to each his own.

BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1019


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 01:04:39 PM
 #6

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 01:28:13 PM
 #7

The guy's a joke in the technical community.

He is so done, along with his shitcoin..

It's so not like Bitcoin needs him or his gavin pal or them corporation conglo-shit-gov-merate,

but fuck who would even want to be friend with such a dickhead in a first place?





Lmao, i know this is free ad homs - insert whining here - , I just cant help it.

Anyway, good riddance and have a nice day! Cheesy


edit: and roger, this is a new low coming from you pal.. are you getting bored in japan now or what?

Non inultus premor
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 01:34:23 PM
 #8

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.

Exactly.

I have argued in the past that anyone telling you that "you don't have to run a full node" is making a direct attempt at your monetary sovereignty and you should consider them an enemy of financial freedom.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:27:53 PM
 #9

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
  Satoshi Nakamoto
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:42:23 PM
 #10

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
 Satoshi Nakamoto

He also said this:

Quote
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency

This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist.

Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes)

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:50:16 PM
 #11

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
 Satoshi Nakamoto

He also said this:

Quote
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency

This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist.

Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes)

Adam: "2-4-8"

You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:52:43 PM
 #12

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
 Satoshi Nakamoto

He also said this:

Quote
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency

This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist.

Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes)

Adam: "2-4-8"

You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs.

You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:55:13 PM
 #13

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
 Satoshi Nakamoto

He also said this:

Quote
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency

This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist.

Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes)

Adam: "2-4-8"

You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs.

You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho.

Adam is forced to push now, which is great.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:57:50 PM
 #14

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
 Satoshi Nakamoto

He also said this:

Quote
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency

This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist.

Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes)

Adam: "2-4-8"

You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs.

You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho.

Adam is forced to push now, which is great.

No one cares about your love affair for Adam. He's not pushing anything he's merely brandishing a bone to occupy the retards' attention while adults are doing the work.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 09, 2015, 03:01:02 PM
 #15

Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.



The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
 Satoshi Nakamoto

He also said this:

Quote
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency

This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist.

Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes)

Adam: "2-4-8"

You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs.

You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho.

Adam is forced to push now, which is great.

No one cares about your love affair for Adam. He's not pushing anything he's merely brandishing a bone to occupy the retards' attention while adults are doing the work.

at least now he is done sucking on hearns dick to play with adams.. such an authority sucker.. hummm yumee yumeee Cheesy

ps: im guessing daddy issues. ^^
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1058


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 03:03:03 PM
 #16

It was Mike's arrogance that put him in this position in the first place. He wanted to seize control over Bitcoin and in doing so divided the developer community. He thought his alliance

with Gavin would put him in a better position and it failed. Now we are left with a divided community fighting each other over block sizes. We should just ignore this whole fiasco and

continue what we doing now, because it's working and we are nowhere near to capacity. {Let's just kick the can, down the road}  Roll Eyes

freebitcoin.TO WIN A  LAMBORGHINI!..

.
                                ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
                    ▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
                    ▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
                    ▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
                    ▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
                      ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
                           ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
                   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 03:07:47 PM
 #17

It was Mike's arrogance that put him in this position in the first place. He wanted to seize control over Bitcoin and in doing so divided the developer community. He thought his alliance

with Gavin would put him in a better position and it failed. Now we are left with a divided community fighting each other over block sizes. We should just ignore this whole fiasco and

continue what we doing now, because it's working and we are nowhere near to capacity. {Let's just kick the can, down the road}  Roll Eyes


Core devs are doing just that and putting in work right about now.

40 commits to the GitHub repo since the beginning on the month.

Last XT commit was October 23rd  Cheesy Cheesy

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1070


Intergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
November 10, 2015, 04:36:27 PM
 #18

and with only /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0C/   197 (3.68%)

http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!