Adam Back asks Mike Hearn in AMA about scaling bitcoin by coming together!

[MemoryDealers]

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

[1714920146]

1714920146

[chek2fire]

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

[hdbuck]

lel

if he is even too dumb to not go there he will be finished with ostracizing himself into cryptoshame

[Zarathustra]

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]

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]

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]

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!


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

[brg444]

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.

[Zarathustra]

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]

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:

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)

[Zarathustra]

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:

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]

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:

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.

[Zarathustra]

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:

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]

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:

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.

[hdbuck]

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:

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

ps: im guessing daddy issues. ^^

[Kprawn]

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}  

[brg444]

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}  

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 

[chek2fire]

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