.

[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.