.

[MicroGuy]

.

[1715254054]

1715254054

[1715254054]

1715254054

[1715254054]

1715254054

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

[HostFat]

Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

Yes.

Just look here and remember how much you had to pay before
http://estimatefee.appspot.com/

It will be worse day by day if no solution will happen.

[OgNasty]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

No.  I received a 0 fee transaction last night without any delay in confirming.

[Lauda]

Yes.
It will be worse day by day if no solution will happen.

Wrong. There is no problem at this very moment.

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

No.  I received a 0 fee transaction last night without any delay in confirming.

If you want to add additional insurance to the transaction include 2x the standard fee (which is very small). This way even if the blocks are full your transaction is most likely going to go through. The Network does not indeed have a problem at this very moment; anyone claiming otherwise is trying to manipulate/misinformed/spreading false information/other.

[iCEBREAKER]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

No, that's not true.  It's FUD generated for the sake of manufacturing dissent.

Bitcoin is just starting to work exactly as intended.

Properly competitive fees have never stopped granting proportionate transaction priority (IE, efficiently allocating scarce resources).

But fee market maturation, sufficient to ween Bitcoin off its declining block reward subsidies, is a worst-case doomsday scenario for Hearn's BIS Bankster buddies.

[iCEBREAKER]

  Hearn's "faith in humanity shaken" 

Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

Yes.

Just look here and remember how much you had to pay before
http://estimatefee.appspot.com/

   It will be worse day by day if no solution will happen.   

[fisheater22]

...
Bitcoin is just starting to work exactly as intended.

[foggyb]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

Never had a transaction not go through where it wasn't a 3rd party's fault in all my years in bitcoin. Sometimes it took over an hour, but that's not exactly the end of the world.

[keepdoing]

Love watching the Blockstream idiot hijaakers gloat. 

It's beautifully Ironic.  Today they gloat a Mike's failure to hijaak bitcoin.

Tomorrow we laugh at all of them for their failed hijaak attempt of Core.

www.BitcoinClassic.com #Winner.
* Classic isn't XT.  It has actual concensus, support, and is reasonable.  And let's remember this... as much as I think Mike Hearns is a traiterous ass, I totally respect him for being the first to standup and throw a punch at these hijaaking, whiny, lying, manipulating, censorship wielding, bitcoin crippling losers at Blockstream/Core.

Oh, and don't count Mike out yet.  He is in my guess a huge threat to Bitcoin.  I predict that when chaos around the Classic Fork is going strong - the R3CEV/Hyperledger/Bank team will strike with a Fiat Coin announcement.

[abs350]

If bitcoin is working then its working.

Even if transactions can take 1 hour to complete the fact is they complete and they are secure. That is still an improvement on anything before bitcoin.

If the time to complete becomes an issue people can use another chain for less than 1 hour. Bitcoin will always be number one since its got the first mover advantage. The miners dont switch to another sidechain so BTC is always stronger with more hashing power.

Mike Hearn is talking bull**** as usual.

[kelsey]

Oh, and don't count Mike out yet.  He is in my guess a huge threat to Bitcoin.  I predict that when chaos around the Classic Fork is going strong - the R3CEV/Hyperledger/Bank team will strike with a Fiat Coin announcement.

oh but that is counting him out 

[iCEBREAKER]

Love watching the Blockstream idiot hijaakers gloat.  

It's beautifully Ironic.  Today they gloat a Mike's failure to hijaak bitcoin.

Tomorrow we laugh at all of them for their failed hijaak attempt of Core.

www.BitcoinClassic.com #Winner.
* Classic isn't XT.  It has actual concensus, support, and is reasonable.  And let's remember this... as much as I think Mike Hearns is a traiterous ass, I totally respect him for being the first to standup and throw a punch at these hijaaking, whiny, lying, manipulating, censorship wielding, bitcoin crippling losers at Blockstream/Core.

Oh, and don't count Mike out yet.  He is in my guess a huge threat to Bitcoin.  I predict that when chaos around the Classic Fork is going strong - the R3CEV/Hyperledger/Bank team will strike with a Fiat Coin announcement.

What makes you think Blockstream is going to pull a Hearn (IE, write self-indulgent Goodbye Cruel World + Bitcoin Obiturary Medium post, rage quit, and rage dump) tomorrow?

All you Gavinistas' 6 months of whining and threats has accomplished is providing the rest of us with amusement.

You haven't moved the needle towards Gavinblocks at all, not one iota.

We warned you the outcome of your contentious vanity fork and governance coup attempts would be gridlock, which effectively preserves the 1MB status quo.

In response, you guys amped up the drama, using ridiculous bullet words like censorship/dictatorship/hijack/crippling/strangling to goad the Reddit mob into lighting their torches and stamping about chanting "rabble rabble rabble!"

How's that working for you?

Are you starting to understand why you can't win this fight, or do I need to make a new #REKT meme?  

[kelsey]

^ +21 mil what iCEBREAKER said  

[keepdoing]

Love watching the Blockstream idiot hijaakers gloat. 

It's beautifully Ironic.  Today they gloat a Mike's failure to hijaak bitcoin.

Tomorrow we laugh at all of them for their failed hijaak attempt of Core.

www.BitcoinClassic.com #Winner.
* Classic isn't XT.  It has actual concensus, support, and is reasonable.  And let's remember this... as much as I think Mike Hearns is a traiterous ass, I totally respect him for being the first to standup and throw a punch at these hijaaking, whiny, lying, manipulating, censorship wielding, bitcoin crippling losers at Blockstream/Core.

Oh, and don't count Mike out yet.  He is in my guess a huge threat to Bitcoin.  I predict that when chaos around the Classic Fork is going strong - the R3CEV/Hyperledger/Bank team will strike with a Fiat Coin announcement.

What makes you think Blockstream is going to pull a Hearn (IE, write self-indulgent Goodbye Cruel World + Bitcoin Obiturary Medium post, rage quit, and rage dump) tomorrow?

All you Gavinistas' 6 months of whining and threats has accomplished is proving us with amusement.

You haven't moved the needle towards Gavinblocks at all, not one iota.

We warned you the outcome of your contentious vanity fork and governance coup attempts would be gridlock, which effectively preserves the 1MB status quo.

In response, you guys amped up the drama, using ridiculous bullet words like censorship/hijack/crippling/strangling to goad the Reddit mob into lighting their torches and stamping about chaning "rabble rabble rabble!"

How's that working for you?

Are you starting to understand why you can't win this fight, or do I need to make a new #REKT meme?   

I think you missed my point.  The fight isn't going to be with Blockstream/Core.  The switch to Classic is a given based on support numbers.  The fight is going to be with Fiat Coin.  You lot won't be around for that - except as trouble making schrill cats yeowling and confusing stuff.

[mexxer-2]

-snip-

Either I've been too ignorant of the rants in the Bitcoin discussion, or(more likely) this is another wanna-be altcoin that is being backed by shills.

[stoat]

Lol "fiat coin"  hughwotmeigh? Unless you can enlighten me i don't see the threat.

[fisheater22]

Either I've been too ignorant of the rants in the Bitcoin discussion, or(more likely) this is another wanna-be altcoin that is being backed by shills.

[chopstick]

At this point I have no idea what to believe.

Someone please hold me.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Love to hear the old-timers' opinions.  It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time. 

My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much.  I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting.  Oh well, people come and go.

[BellaBitBit]

Love to hear the old-timers' opinions.  It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time. 

My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much.  I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting.  Oh well, people come and go.

count me in on wanting to hear from old school bitcoiners.  I do not know enough technically about some of the issues he brings up to understand 100% of it.

[iCEBREAKER]

Then:

The switch to XT is a given based on support numbers.

Now: 

The switch to Classic is a given based on support numbers.

I think you missed my point.

[mayax]

Hearn's "faith in humanity shaken" after people awaken to his EVIL plan to checkpoint blocks and SUBVERT longest chain!

Evil plan >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

~~

"The Bitcoin Believer Who Gave Up"

Mike Hearn, a British computer programmer, holed up in his two-bedroom apartment in Zurich over several days and nights last week, writing a cri de coeur.

Two years ago, Mr. Hearn quit a cushy programming job at Google’s Swiss headquarters to devote himself full time to what was his great passion: the virtual currency Bitcoin. He was one of a handful of developers around the world dedicated to maintaining the basic software that governs both the creation of new Bitcoins and the network on which the financial transactions take place.

But a nasty fight has torn apart the small brotherhood of Bitcoin developers and raised questions about the survival of the virtual currency. Mr. Hearn, until recently one of the most prominent leaders of the Bitcoin project, became so disillusioned that in December he sold the few hundred Bitcoins he had left and quietly took a job at a new start-up.

Read the entire story: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html?_r=0

~~

a normal attitude. he cashed out the BTC and he is living the life. he tried to "make" something(more cash) and he did not succeed.
nobody cares about BTC future or similiar shitsy. The cash is the most important  

[BellaBitBit]

Love to hear the old-timers' opinions.  It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time.  

My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much.  I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting.  Oh well, people come and go.

count me in on wanting to hear from old school bitcoiners.  I do not know enough technically about some of the issues he brings up to understand 100% of it.

[Non-technical explanation]

Fixing the blocksize does not require check-pointing and circumventing traditional means of consensus. Mike Hearn intended to force a change in bitcoin's behavior (hard fork) using a term he called the "economic consensus." This term can be used interchangeably with the word "banks."

Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (any perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed. His attitude was - screw mining consensus - and screw the miners in China. There is even a video on YouTube of him saying that, "if the Chinese miners don't like it, they should start their own Altcoin."

These types of statements, intentions, and beliefs are dangerous, and certainly not in the spirit of Satoshi's bitcoin.

Great! thanks,  I get it.  Given that China holds the most Bitcoin and does the most mining he had to have been crazy to say those things - or else this is some kind of plan to give BTC bad press.

[Bobsurplus]

Time to short da Bitcoin.
Who's shorting with me?

[Yakamoto]

Love to hear the old-timers' opinions.  It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time.  

My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much.  I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting.  Oh well, people come and go.

count me in on wanting to hear from old school bitcoiners.  I do not know enough technically about some of the issues he brings up to understand 100% of it.

[Non-technical explanation]

Fixing the blocksize does not require check-pointing and circumventing traditional means of consensus. Mike Hearn intended to force a change in bitcoin's behavior (hard fork) using a term he called the "economic consensus." This term can be used interchangeably with the word "banks."

Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (any perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed. His attitude was - screw mining consensus - and screw the miners in China. There is even a video on YouTube of him saying that, "if the Chinese miners don't like it, they should start their own Altcoin."

These types of statements, intentions, and beliefs are dangerous, and certainly not in the spirit of Satoshi's bitcoin.

Great! thanks,  I get it.  Given that China holds the most Bitcoin and does the most mining he had to have been crazy to say those things - or else this is some kind of plan to give BTC bad press.

Again, said it in other threads, will say it again now, he just wants to feel important again. His wants to bad-mouth Bitcoin and be a dick about it because he isn't relevant anymore. The Bitcoin foundation broke up, and now he's just a normal person.

It's a sad factor of human nature, but a very true factor, that he has to say bad things so people will look at him again and he'll get his mental superiority complex back on track.

Ignore him, he wants this to happen but it is not going to and thus there is no reason to give it any more attention. He's over and done with, and just looking for attention.

Happens with every company, every stock, and every aspect of society. He's nothing new.

[Kakmakr]

The wannabe benevolent dictator failed with XT and now he wants to blame hackers for it's demise.   What did he expect would happen if you try to sneak some <spyware> code into a BIP proposal? Did he think nobody will notice? He worked at Google with a traditional business management structure and he could not adapt to the free flow consensus structure.

He wanted to be the boss, and it failed and now he wants to be the victim, taking lonely walks in the park at night, pondering the strategy to take revenge and badmouthing Bitcoin in the media. This is where Gavin is different, because he did not turn his back on Bitcoin.

Spreading FUD in the media will not restore his reputation.  

[jbreher]

[Non-technical misrepresentation]

...

FTFY

[meono]

lol at the circle jerk in this thread.

actually this forum is now only full of idiots.

Wonder where the old timers go?

Thank you Thermos.

[jubalix]

this will sort itslef out either by fork or not. I am not that worried.

cuo bono for MH to make such a public commentary though.

[Stapleddiet]

Reminds me of Hari Seldon in the Isaac Asimov books. As a pleb I dont know what to make of it all, birthing pains and/or abortion. Crawls back to the comfortable darkness.

[theymos]

Love to hear the old-timers' opinions.  It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time. 

My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much.  I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting.  Oh well, people come and go.

Hearn's article is almost entirely inaccurate/misleading FUD.

It's possible that there will be some turbulence if we can't scale fast enough, but the Core devs have a plan that I think will probably alleviate problems in the short-term, and will almost certainly allow for massive scaling in the long-term. This plan includes an effective max block size increase to 2 MB in ~April. If any serious problems occur, it will be due to altcoins-in-disguise like XT and Classic trying to move Bitcoin development from something based on technical merit to something based on dictatorship or popularity.

Someone who could very well be Satoshi said:

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

[Quantus]

*sigh* another thread pandering fear and doubt.

Bitcoin was never meant to be free, freedom is not free and neither is Bitcoin.  As the block reward is cut in half again this Aug 2016 we will be facing further contraction of the mining community. This consolidation is the result of stagnating hardware deployment. Large corporate entities are restricting deployment of cutting edge mining gear to large farms and this is threatening the social economics of the Bitcoin mining network. By consolidating the best new hardware to only a few locations and reaping the majority of the rewards at lower cost our network as a whole is becoming antiquated.  But there is a solution, people don't like it but there is a solution and its the only way Bitcoin will survive. We need higher fees in the rage of 1 to 2 USD per transaction, that or to somehow grow our user base by a factor of 10 fold in the next seven months. We have run out of time the next block subsidy cut will only worsen the current situation, accelerating consolidation of the mining community until only one entity controls it all. We have been operating with a zero minimum transaction fee for years, its time to start paying for our network.

After we hit the 1MB limit (and I hope it comes as soon as possible) micro payments will be pushed off the network as fees rise and as a result more miners will reenter and reinvest in cutting edge hardware leading to a more stable, distributed and forward looking, vibrant mining community.

In time our community will grow allowing us to raise the block size, lower fees and allow micro payments once again and implement other features but we must work with the network we have now and not the network we hope to someday have. The Bitcoin community is entering troubled waters, to ensure our survival and reach our promised land we must grow our user base but well never get the chance if our network collapses under its own wight first. We must be prepared for a long winter with slow growth. It may take us decades but our success is inevitable.  

[Bitcoinpro]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

No.  I received a 0 fee transaction last night without any delay in confirming.

care to provide a transaction id

[Amph]

he will buy those coins again for cheaper, and anyway it does not mean anything, he can do what he believe to do with his money, bitcoin is here to stay no matter what a single man believe and it does not matter his position

bitcoin is decentralized remember, and satoshi went  away to not be seen as the ceo of bitcoin, still all good

[nonbody]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

No.  I received a 0 fee transaction last night without any delay in confirming.

care to provide a transaction id

It happens to me as well. If the transaction has higher level priority (means input amount is larger than 0.1BTC and coin age is high) Then regardless of how much of fees you included, the transactions will be includded in the next few blocks.https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

[crazyivan]

Mike Hearn is an ass. It s obvious he got out of crypto after this plan d failed.

In other words, if he cant have it, he s gonna trash-talk it so nobody else can have it.

Big time ass.

[chennuan]

I do not quite understand, this will be compared to the impact of bitcoin? 
look like, people are very passive in the face of it   

[freedomno1]

It's possible that there will be some turbulence if we can't scale fast enough, but the Core devs have a plan that I think will probably alleviate problems in the short-term, and will almost certainly allow for massive scaling in the long-term. This plan includes an effective max block size increase to 2 MB in ~April. If any serious problems occur, it will be due to altcoins-in-disguise like XT and Classic trying to move Bitcoin development from something based on technical merit to something based on dictatorship or popularity.

I haven't watched this drama unfold in a while so its productive to see some discussion was occurring off chain.
It's sad to see a Core Dev part ways but Bitcoin moves forward, 2MB is achievable by nodes and balancing halving with transaction fees becoming the next incentive for miners is a part of Bitcoins experiment only time will tell what choices were correct in the end.

Adding since no link was mentioned in Theymo's post
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq

Wonder where the old timers go?

Various places as a means to filter out the noise but they are around just lurking

[turkandjaydee]

This guy took a job as a banker shortly after. Just ... remember that.

[Quantus]

copy paste from part of Hearns rant

That’s when the denial of service attacks started. The attacks were so large that they disconnected entire regions from the internet:

    “I was DDos’d. It was a massive DDoS that took down my entire (rural) ISP. Everyone in five towns lost their internet service for several hours last summer because of these criminals. It definitely discouraged me from hosting nodes.”


LOL! may the Ddos be with you.

----------------
I look forward to the coming Ddos wars

[mayax]

This guy took a job as a banker shortly after. Just ... remember that.

wouldn't you take a such job and to earn a lot of money?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Hearn's article is almost entirely inaccurate/misleading FUD.

It's possible that there will be some turbulence if we can't scale fast enough, but the Core devs have a plan that I think will probably alleviate problems in the short-term, and will almost certainly allow for massive scaling in the long-term. This plan includes an effective max block size increase to 2 MB in ~April. If any serious problems occur, it will be due to altcoins-in-disguise like XT and Classic trying to move Bitcoin development from something based on technical merit to something based on dictatorship or popularity.

Highlighting the weasel words and italicizing the hand-washing.

[mayax]

tell that to those who are already losing a lot of money.

BTC lost 60 USD in few hours. it's a huge loss.

[turkandjaydee]

This guy took a job as a banker shortly after. Just ... remember that.

wouldn't you take a such job and to earn a lot of money?

its not the taking the job or leaving bitcoin is the problem. He purposedly said all kind of bad things about bitcoin one sided.
Its kinda obvious that he wants bitcoin to fail. Because?... back to my first post.

[mexxer-2]

tell that to those who are already losing a lot of money.

BTC lost 60 USD in few hours. it's a huge loss.

Eh cryptsy dump? Hearn's feeling doesn't mean crap

[iCEBREAKER]

BTC lost 60 USD in few hours. it's a huge loss.

Turn on your TV.  The markets are melting.  Again.

Oil down to $29.50, a 12 year low.

Blockstream's fault.  Obviously.

Dow down 400.

Why, thermos, why?  

[Namrekka]

I guess we are all doomed.

[Amph]

tell that to those who are already losing a lot of money.

BTC lost 60 USD in few hours. it's a huge loss.

what i don't like it's not the loss itself, it's the fact that bitcoin can lose so much value in no time because of one stupid drama

this maybe is not a big problem now, but what if when bitcoin will be fully adopted? going, for example, from 100k, to 70k sounds not good at all

[LFC_Bitcoin]

The best thing we can do now is just stop giving this punk 'air time'. This is what he wants, the entire community talking about him.

The sooner he's forgotten about the better. He's just a minor speed bump in bitcoin's journey but we've driven over him now, let's not even look at him in the rear view mirror.

[Namrekka]

The best thing we can do now is just stop giving this punk 'air time'. This is what he wants, the entire community talking about him.

The sooner he's forgotten about the better. He's just a minor speed bump in bitcoin's journey but we've driven over him now, let's not even look at him in the rear view mirror.

+1

[jbreher]

[Non-technical misrepresentation]

...

FTFY

Which part is misrepresented exactly? I think everything I stated can documented. 

Let us start with you defending the claim that his use of the term "economic consensus" is equivalent to "banks".

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

Next, let s discuss your implied claim that he meant to do harm to miners.

[defaultking]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

Yeah from what I've read bitcoin is many years away starting to even have a problem with this. Then once it starts having "congestion" it will be many years before it's even noticable.

[pedrog]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

Yeah from what I've read bitcoin is many years away starting to even have a problem with this. Then once it starts having "congestion" it will be many years before it's even noticable.

then you should stop reading about it and start actually using bitcoin and you'll see the problem is today not in "many years"...

[dranster]

The last thing I heard was that he joined Ethereum

[Bobsurplus]

The last thing I heard was that he joined Ethereum

The best part of the Times story is this:

"The two camps have broadly painted each other as, on one side, populists who are focused on expanding Bitcoin’s commercial potential and, on the other side, elitists who are more concerned with protecting its status as a radical challenger to existing currencies."

~~

Hearn is firmly in the former, only with a prejudice towards more control and ambition for dictatorial power. Basically, Hearn was Bitcoin's Hitler. Like Hearn, Hitler saw the masses as "inherently stupid", and not fit to govern themselves. His faith in humanity was shaken when he finally realized the bitcoin masses were awake and aware to his plan.

Bitcoin talks hitler?
I dont think so dude.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
BITCOIN WAS AN EXPERIMENT. I got here in 2012 and remember seeing everyone say that all the time.
Today no one says it and yall act like bitcoin has won the game.
Bitcoin lost dude.
You cant scale this shit the way it needs to be scaled.
Even of you moved some of the transactions off line sorta speak like with changetip you still have major problems.
I know its hard because you're probably bagholding btc but you need to realize that real eyes see real lies.
Bitcoin is dying. Sell now and save yourself the heartache.

But hey, what do I know? Im just some nobody bitcoiner.

 

[Zz]

So is Satoshi back for the first time now? Theymos mentioned that post as Maybe Satoshi but what are the chances? I think it's logical to show up this time as Satoshi, this problem have to be discussed more importantly than "is Dorian real Satoshi" threads.

[Bobsurplus]

I know its hard because you're probably bagholding btc but you need to realize that real eyes see real lies.

You're always a blast Bobsurplus! You should know I'm a protocol advocate; not a bitcoin investor!

Thanks man. You too homie.  But given you're all about the protocol you should know more then most regarding the issues Bitcoin is facing.

[SamusNi]

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

[YarkoL]

So what's the plan Bob?
You're going to buy a shitload?

[Bobsurplus]

So what's the plan Bob?
You're going to buy a shitload?

Got my orders set at $100-$150 to catch that last bounce worth catching.
Besides that
I'm out of btc and ltc completely and all in on Fiat!

What's your next move?

[YarkoL]

So what's the plan Bob?
You're going to buy a shitload?

Got my orders set at $100-$150 to catch that last bounce worth catching.
Besides that
I'm out of btc and ltc completely and all in on Fiat!

What's your next move?

I don't play these games, but if I did, I'd set my buy limit
higher than that. When miners switch to Classic, users to
Unlimited and Core has eaten its share of humble pie,
things are starting to look bright again.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn is definitely correct.

If you disagree, I suggest: get your head out of your arse and READ what he's saying:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.9mmfs7o10

REAL problems with Bitcoin community... thankfully this:

Still, all is not yet lost. Despite everything that has happened, in the past few weeks more members of the community have started picking things up from where I am putting them down. Where making an alternative to Core was once seen as renegade, there are now two more forks vying for attention (Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited). So far they’ve hit the same problems as XT but it’s possible a fresh set of faces could find a way to make progress.

[btcusury]

Hearn's article is almost entirely inaccurate/misleading FUD.

Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.

It's possible that there will be some turbulence if we can't scale fast enough, but the Core devs have a plan that I think will probably alleviate problems in the short-term, and will almost certainly allow for massive scaling in the long-term. This plan includes an effective max block size increase to 2 MB in ~April. If any serious problems occur, it will be due to altcoins-in-disguise like XT and Classic trying to move Bitcoin development from something based on technical merit to something based on dictatorship or popularity.

You mean "democracy"? (dictatorship+popularity)

Someone who could very well be Satoshi said:

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Why would Satoshi not sign his post, thus proving that it really is him? Surely that would be a big blow to the ph0rkers, no?

[mexicantarget]

I've been around this forum for near 6 years. I've read/seen bitcoin's death at least 20 times or even more, can't even remember anymore.
Do you know what happened after any "big scale" drama occurred? Price would go bonkers.

Most of this FUD happens for a reason.
Wait for $310, then sell your wife, sell your kids, because we're going for a new ATH.

[AZwarel]

Hearn is definitely correct.

If you disagree, I suggest: get your head out of your arse and READ what he's saying:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.9mmfs7o10

REAL problems with Bitcoin community... thankfully this:

Still, all is not yet lost. Despite everything that has happened, in the past few weeks more members of the community have started picking things up from where I am putting them down. Where making an alternative to Core was once seen as renegade, there are now two more forks vying for attention (Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited). So far they’ve hit the same problems as XT but it’s possible a fresh set of faces could find a way to make progress.

I have read it, and while i do not agree with everything (there are some fact problems as well), i strongly agree with the philosophical issues he mentions: there should not be censorship AT ALL about discussing the future way (blocksize, fee "market") of Bitcoin. The mere fact, that some opinions were suppressed shows which side is the elitist control freak, and which side is not. Technically, this whole debate about nodes (and mining and decentralization) being unable to be hosted with 2/4/8 whatever >1MB blocks is false. If someone has problems running a node with 1MB blocks today, he should not run it. This is SJW cultural marxism in the form of bottlenecking the network because some people with crap internet, or cheap PC can not run a full node, or mine, or operate a company in bad environment, "so none shall run a better one".

Yes, life isn't fair, in some regions of the world you won't be able to run a mining operation 'cause of the slow internet connection. This is not different from the fact that you also won't run mining operation in areas where electricity is expensive, or it is a desert climate, but you shouldn't hamper the growth of the network, because it is "unfair", and you want the same amount of nodes in Kongo jungle as in The Netherlands, in the name of decentralization! Because small blockers just do that. They find out more and more elaborate, complex, short-mid term "solutions", in the name of "fair" decentralization. Why it is a problem, that only bitcoin users with good PC/NET capabilities (or the ones with actual technical know-how, and OMG enough money!!) running nodes? Or the network needs 1 "poor African desert tribal node" for every US/Belgian one??

The blocksize on my HDD doesn't matter for me (and i guess for a lot of people who run a node out of pure ideology). I can and will spend another 100-200$ for another few TB to store it, in exchange, the number of the network users can growth (yes, they get "free blockspace - gasp - on my expense!!), and all my bitcoins will go up 100-200$, am still in +. Or i can do it just because i want to be nice There are i think 100 millions living with 10MB/s+ internet, and if only 1 in every 100.000 runs a node, it can keep up the decentralization. And yes, poor chinese miners and their Great Firewall. IDK! They mine there, because the state subsidizes electricity! It is a market distortion in the first place. Go move to Alaska, burn that cheap oil :-)

EDIT: Okay, i know the Hearn ragequit FUD was not good for the reputation, just wanted to point out the frustration about how political this whole debate became, and that we here may know "too much" to imagine a standard user's viewpoint. The needs of the "average user" is not only technical, they grasp ideas better (or only) than network security concepts burrowed under internal mailing lists. I have no chance to explain these to real life friends who are not hardcore bitcoiners reading forums 0-24, and all they can grasp from this debate is, as i have learned is: "space running out".

[jonald_fyookball]

1.   "When networks run out of capacity, they get really unreliable".

Yep.

Although I'm not an expert on "networks", I know this:
If you run a cluster of servers, you do not want any
one machine even NEAR 50%... 25% is better.
Yet people here naively assert that
50% blocks full are ok.  We are often
hitting peak levels.

2. Transactions have been growing since the summer. 

Check the charts.  Yes, they have.

3. China is responsible for not raising the limit.

(I really don't know if this is true or not.)

4. Censorship over "XT" happened.

Appears so.

5. Gregory Maxwell doesn't think Bitcoin can or should scale and
instead should be a settlement network.

Yep.

6. Maxwell founded a company that then hired several other developers. Not surprisingly, their views then started to change to align with that of their new boss.

Yep.

7.  Maxwell and the developers he had hired refused to contemplate any increase in the limit whatsoever. They were barely even willing to talk about the issue.

Yep.

8. Bogus conferences.

Yep.  Nothing was accomplished. 

[oblivi]

I just can't believe what Mike Hearn did. He first dumps all his Bitcoin, then he releases an article by the New York Time announcing the end of Bitcoin. Can't you believe it? This guy has absolutely no ethical value.

Hearn is definitely correct.

If you disagree, I suggest: get your head out of your arse and READ what he's saying:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.9mmfs7o10

REAL problems with Bitcoin community... thankfully this:

Still, all is not yet lost. Despite everything that has happened, in the past few weeks more members of the community have started picking things up from where I am putting them down. Where making an alternative to Core was once seen as renegade, there are now two more forks vying for attention (Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited). So far they’ve hit the same problems as XT but it’s possible a fresh set of faces could find a way to make progress.

I support BIP 101 and bigger blocks.

[theymos]

Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.

Pick out a few of the more interesting bits and I'll respond to them.

Why would Satoshi not sign his post, thus proving that it really is him? Surely that would be a big blow to the ph0rkers, no?

- Satoshi never signed his posts.
- He likely wouldn't want it to look like he was dictating Bitcoin's future.

[BitUsher]

Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.

Here is a detailed rebuttal ---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329647.0

There are so many lies that I had to break it up in 2 parts.

[Sitarow]

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?

I am not sure what your talking about as I am having no troubles with transaction speeds.

[AZwarel]

Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.

Here is a detailed rebuttal ---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329647.0

There are so many lies that I had to break it up in 2 parts.

Good read, now finish part 2, must read!

[af_newbie]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  There are already technologies to do fast transactions, not sure why someone would want
to change bitcoin to do that and more importantly why?  You don't need bitcoin to do fast transactions.  Ask Visa.  They did it and are very successful at it.

If you want a public ledger, irreversible transactions, cryptographically secured by best, distributed network (self supported), you might look at bitcoin.

I doubt R3 will have the brain power to pull this one off.  I think their first mistake was to hire Hearn.

Network effect will eat them live. What will happen, they will burn investors money and say, well, it was a good experiment.  
But if they get 40 banks to collaborate, who knows.  They might build their private blockchain to run it among themselves for inter-bank transactions but I'm
not sure where the hashrate will come from to secure it.  Who is going to pay for it?

I know one thing, banks are the worst places to work on innovative projects.  They are users of technology, they don't create anything new.

 

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

[BitUsher]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

You are correct about Hearn , but his opinion isn't even worthy of my contempt as he is a proven liar and has betrayed Bitcoin for the banks.

You are incorrect with regards to Gavin as he supports a settlement layer along with most of the 45 Core developers .

http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea

In fact he claims they are essential -

The “layer 2” services that are being built on top of the blockchain are absolutely necessary to get nearly instant real-time payments, micropayments and high volume machine-to-machine payments, to pick just three examples.

Why are you spreading misinformation? Repent!

[Arrakeen]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

LOL what?! And you understand bitcoin?  Who are you to know more than Hearn?

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  There are already technologies to do fast transactions, not sure why someone would want
to change bitcoin to do that and more importantly why?  You don't need bitcoin to do fast transactions.  Ask Visa.  They did it and are very successful at it.

Ok...so by your logic, bitcoin is trying to be like paypal simply because they want transactions to occur super fast.  WHO WOULDN'T?  Do you want to sit around and wait just to see if a transaction was successful?  Secondly, you're implying that Visa...is trying to be like....paypal...because they have super fast transactions....but they're successful...and okay in your book...but bitcoin?  HELL NO.  EVERYONE MUST OWN PAPER BTC WALLETS AND SNAIL MAIL THEM.

dude are you for real  

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

You are correct about Hearn , but his opinion isn't even worthy of my contempt as he is a proven liar and has betrayed Bitcoin for the banks.

You are incorrect with regards to Gavin as he supports a settlement layer along with most of the 45 Core developers .

http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea

In fact he claims they are essential -

The “layer 2” services that are being built on top of the blockchain are absolutely necessary to get nearly instant real-time payments, micropayments and high volume machine-to-machine payments, to pick just three examples.

Why are you spreading misinformation? Repent!

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

Anyway, the most important thing is we need to implement a scalability
solution ASAP.  Until that happens, Bitcoin is in "dangerous waters"
to quote Mike... and the market apparently agrees.

[MicroGuy]

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

Yes. But Gavin is trying to predict what the network will look like 20 years down the road. While forking is actually a healthy activity that should probably be done every few years. If you can accept that logic, then BIP101 is ridiculous.

Conservatism is the best approach. We should decide between 2MB or 4MB blocks and fork again down the road as needed. All this bitcoinclassic constitution nonsense is yet another distraction that is going to create more division and more delay.

[AZwarel]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

I guess this is the root of the problem, that different people want - and therefore grasp bitcoin  - different capabilities/usage. The question for me is what bitcoin can/should be used/capable off, or should one side "win", and change it to it's image? What is the goal exactly - more to just store of value, a digital gold, or a 100k txs/s payment channel?

Can we technically do both of these simultaneously or it is impossible within the blockchain and we need complementaries like LN etc.? Is allowing micro txs ON the main chain a bad or good thing? Should users compete for blockspace with fees as it is a scarce resource, and who should decide how much of it should be available (blocksize limit)? Can anyone or a group decide that at all, and if yes how?

IMO these are more ideological question than technical ones.

[af_newbie]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

Yes. But Gavin is trying to predict what the network will look like 20 years down the road. While forking is actually a healthy activity that should probably be done every few years. If you can accept that logic, then BIP101 is ridiculous.

Conservatism is the best approach. We should decide between 2MB or 4MB blocks and fork again down the road as needed. All this bitcoinclassic constitution nonsense is yet another distraction that is going to create more division and more delay.

Yes we SHOULD decide but who is WE?

Knock knock...hello... Don't you get it?

Bitcoin core/Blockstream/Maxwellhouse Koolaid refuses to raise it.  Are you going to sit and wait for Godot?

The only way to raise it is have another repository like Bitcoin Classic.

[BitUsher]

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

And Core doesn't either?  What sort of misleading propaganda are you spewing? Even Luke-JR is working on a soft serve hard fork option to force through an increase in maxBlockSize if there is a gridlock with a hardfork on scaling the main chain. Most of core is interested in scaling the main chain with flexcap, but perhaps just not as quickly as you prefer?

Please provide evidence if this is not the case , or repent for your misleading comments.

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

Anyway, the most important thing is we need to implement a scalability
solution ASAP.  Until that happens, Bitcoin is in "dangerous waters"
to quote Mike... and the market apparently agrees.

These are the two latest viable proposals ... both are fine IMHO, but I am slightly biased towards core because technically its better.

Classic - basically  BIP102 - Earliest March 1st ,16 but possibly in April /may to build up enough consensus (waiting for code and testnet)
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core + Segwit - Code completed, Been in testnet since Dec 31, expected april.
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

You have to have bigger blocks if you want more transactions, that's why.

It won't kill decentralization... many people have bought into that idea
and Blockstream would love for you to believe it, but
certainly we can raise the limit by a few MB for now.

And no, don't be silly...Hearn isn't going to start an altcoin.  
He's done with crypto obviously.



 

[jonald_fyookball]

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

And Core doesn't either?  What sort of misleading propaganda are you spewing?

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

[AZwarel]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

EDIT: Side note. I run a node. I do it for the fun, to learn, and out of speculative altruism. I have seen 3rd world workers sending home 100$ every week to their family. They have got charge a lot, around 10-15%. You say You pay for it. I do not mind if 100k 3rd world people can use blockchain txs and i supply the hardware for it. Why? Not because am so nice, because my stash of BTC will increase a lot more in value if we add millions of new users, than the cost of the upgraded hardware costs me. It is a WIN-WIN. That is speculative altruism, i can afford to invest money, to help more people to use a cheap way to transact. In turn my investment will increase in worth.

[af_newbie]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you.  At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day.  Storage is just one aspect.

[BitUsher]

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

Ok, I understand , You are one of those conspiracy theorists without evidence who doesn't take either their word or work in support of raising the capacity as any indication... Big, old bad Blockstream(never mind the other 40 devs) out to eat your children and all... Gotcha.

[Cconvert2G36]

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

Ok, I understand , You are one of those conspiracy theorists without evidence who doesn't take either their word or work in support of raising the capacity as any indication... Big, old bad Blockstream(never mind the other 40 devs) out to eat your children and all... Gotcha.

I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.

The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.

It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.

[AZwarel]

Against fee market at this stage:
Fees can not solve the transaction limit problem. It does not matter how high fees goes - actually it does, because after a given marginal value, more and more people will stop transacting, and just quit bitcoin.

It is simple math: if limit is 7/s, and we have a constant average >7/s incoming txs, than no matter how high fees goes up, the backlog just grows, and grows. Which will result a total halt of new txs/users, who can not, or do not want to outcompete against the smallest bidded fee for next n block. We can than calculate a minimum - a much higher than today - value of bitcoin/transaction which is still economically viable, and likely be paid by only those, who HAS to use bitcoin (criminal uses, capital flight for example).

Limiting the user base so early (the effective volume capacity of the network, aka the amount of money that can be moved in a given time period) also limits (hugely!) the market capitalization, aka the price of unit - so no million BTCs ever.

This will not be solved by Side/LN, etc, as long as BTC itself reaches mainstream, because it HAS to be very valuable on a per unit base, to be both able to facilitate gigantic value transfers (since it has a huge per unit price), and small amount transactions, which can now safely move on "off the block". But not before that, the combined value of offchain transactions (which will be 1000s more /s) must be a fragment of on chain value of BTC transactions, otherwise why don't just use offchain?

[AZwarel]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you.  At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day.  Storage is just one aspect.

Indeed, i do not see a problem. No professional or amateur user/miner should run a node/mining operation, who can not deal with OMG 3GB/day, or download 20MB in a few secs. I download a lot more per day, and have 300MB/s connection for 35 EUR/month. I think most people running nodes have at least 10th of these specifics, and i think 10 millions have better technical availability TODAY over the world right now.

The hardware/bandwith arguments are pure FUD in my opinion, simple statistical facts contradict them. Netflix is streaming HD+ content for millions, so how is a 2-4-20 MB sync/ avg 10 MINUTE is a problem?
Of course, that does not mean, there are not other problems, i give you that, but i refuse to accept the physical limitation fear. Software problems, yes, some.

[BitUsher]

I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.

The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.

It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.

I don't need to trust Classic or Core , and can review and judge the open source code based upon its own merits. I can even appreciate and am happy to use some of Mike Hearn's code- bitcoinJ who I despise, because I understand what it does.

This is the beauty of open source software.

If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.

Believe you me, I'm not going to touch Lightning network, if its centralized, closed source, has DRM, introduces too much risk. Until there is evidence that supports it has those traits I look forward to it.

[dranster]

Oh, people are comparing Hearn with Hitler now?
Hearn just made his opinion public in a wrong way and that has caused the recent crash in prices,
But it will be soon back up, just wait

[Cconvert2G36]

This is the beauty of open source software.

If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.

Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down).

[BitUsher]

Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down).

I genuinely would be happy with core + segwit or classic. Both are good and have smart people behind them.

Hearn just made his opinion public in a wrong way and that has caused the recent crash in prices,

Wrong way? He is a liar and fraud. There is no way he is that ignorant on how bitcoin works ...therefore he is shilling for R3...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329647.0

[AZwarel]

This is the beauty of open source software.

If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.

Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down).

I think your opinion does matter. We ARE the market, and if you "recruit" just a few people into bitcoin, as i and most here do - friends, family, coworkers-, and since we are still small in numbers, it does matter. Just a cheer up thought :-)

[loneranger]

If bitcoin is working then its working.

Even if transactions can take 1 hour to complete the fact is they complete and they are secure. That is still an improvement on anything before bitcoin.

If the time to complete becomes an issue people can use another chain for less than 1 hour. Bitcoin will always be number one since its got the first mover advantage. The miners dont switch to another sidechain so BTC is always stronger with more hashing power.

Mike Hearn is talking bull**** as usual.

I think the key difference in the transaction completion time and the number of transactions that can be handled is the fact that all of these transactions are PUBLIC and out of the hands of VISA and MasterCard. I'll take a 1 day completion time if it means that less of my information and spending habits are in the vast databases of VISA/MasterCard/NSA/USGOVT thankyaverymuch.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.

Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.

Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.

[MicroGuy]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.

Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.

Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.

Great work! You might actually be THE person that saved Bitcoin from the banks! 

[maokoto]

All that Hearn says may be true (I am not very updated on all that). However, Which is the interest in proclaiming dead a project in which you have been working for 5 years when other people still are going on working in it? I don't know. But I doubt that the interest is to just warn users.

[calkob]

At this point I have no idea what to believe.

Someone please hold me.

Me too, "can i have a hug"..................lol 

[Westin Landon Cox]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.

Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.

Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.

Great work! You might actually be THE person that saved Bitcoin from the banks!

To everyone: you're welcome.   

[Cryptogames]

Time will tell. Hearn is a big guy in the clique but it's still a lot of people involved.

[SamusNi]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329377

[jbreher]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that.

What's this then?

Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (and perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed.

[jonald_fyookball]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that.

What's this then?

Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (and perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed.

~~

What you don't seem to grasp is how he was going to bypass hashpower with checkpoints. You really need to get up-to-speed with what he's saying in this clip. I think you might be the only user here that doesn't understand what Mike had planned?

Here, try this one more time: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

~~

Yeah, thats Mike's "rule by authority" philosophy rearing its ugly head. 
That's why "everyone" hates Mike and XT...but that doesn't mean
he was wrong to try to increase blocksize and push for mainchain scaling.
Sadly, he's less harmful than those that are trying to do the opposite.

[jbreher]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that.

What's this then?

Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (and perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed.

~~

What you don't seem to grasp is how he was going to bypass hashpower with checkpoints. You really need to get up-to-speed with what he's saying in this clip. I think you might be the only user here that doesn't understand what Mike had planned?

Here, try this one more time: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

~~

Bait & switch much? Try what one more time? He's laying out a scenario where two different communities has different ideas at what constitutes the valid chain. In no way does this achieve your stated scenario whereby Coinbase and perhaps Bitpay are enough to totally overturn consensus.

[mayax]

who is coinbase or bitpay?

the chinesses will dictate the market.

[MicroGuy]

Bait & switch much? Try what one more time? He's laying out a scenario where two different communities has different ideas at what constitutes the valid chain. In no way does this achieve your stated scenario whereby Coinbase and perhaps Bitpay are enough to totally overturn consensus.

But there aren't two communities? What he's laying out is a scheme whereby one group plans to subvert the wishes/desires of another group.

He even went further by stating that, "if the Chinese don't like it, they should make their own Altcoin." What a guy!

[Amph]

who is coinbase or bitpay?

the chinesses will dictate the market.

they do not have big merchants that can do business abroad, so in that regard they are bonded with their users base only

and no the miners alone can not dictate anything, you need merchants also, to move bitcoin