Mike Hearn Leaves Bitcoin

[Abiky]

I don't recall seeing anyone in the last few years who would be deluded enough to believe BTC will replace fiat entirely and become the global currency. Many bitcoiners would not even see that as a desired outcome.
The best I could hope for is for Bitcoin to become a widely and actively used currency that exists as an alternative to fiat currencies, in parallel to them. I'm not cheering for a state-mandated use of Bitcoin.

But as for the usage of Bitcoin for everyday transactions - the biggest problem, aside from network congestion and associated high fees, is that only a very few people earn income in bitcoins. And nobody will be buying btc for fiat just to spend it on goods.

With Bitcoin being marketed as "digital Gold", we can never expect it to replace Fiat. Can we? Most people nowadays only invest in BTC with the hopes of becoming rich quick. It's seen as an investment tool rather than a currency. Besides, BTC's limited transaction capacity prevents it from being used as such. True digital cash needs to be scalable enough to handle high network load on a daily basis. It needs to serve the needs of people all around the world.

Bitcoin is decentralized, but it lacks convenience. On the other hand, "shitcoins" are convenient but they lack decentralization. Then there's the issue of governments putting "obstacles" to help prevent people from using BTC on top of Fiat. With this in mind, Bitcoin will always remain an alternative currency (instead of a direct replacement of Fiat). Perhaps, that's the reason why Mike Hearn left Bitcoin?

[tranthidung]

Technology is improving so is the Bitcoin scalability if the developer really is seeking out a true solution for the problem.  Remember there is no permanent in this world but change, scalability for Bitcoin is just a script away.  If developer find out and created a script that will make Bitcoin scale, then it can refute the statement of never reaching the adoption level because of what it is today.

It's not easy like you thought but I agree there is room for technical developments but so far, with what we have seen, Layer 2, side chains are solutions temporarily now.

For on chain solutions, we still have future ahead but it's not too easy for developers to find solutions technically.

If you are keen on temporary solutions, see some solutions and discussions in

• Sidechain Observer - Bitcoin L2 Projects & current state of development

I quote my post. Security, Scalability, Speed are in a pyramid and if you scale one thing up, one or two others will be affected down.

Generally when transaction speed is main concern, and priority is the speed, a blockchain must sacrifice other things including security. It's my understanding and if I move big fund, I don't pick these side chains that I only consider to use with small transactions.

Like if you want to get convenience and save your time, you use cross chain bridge, let's accept bigger risk. It's convenient, I agree but I don't like to take bigger risk.