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.

[Abiky]

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.

I don't think sidechains and L2s are temporary solutions. Especially with the core development team's reluctance to increase on-chain transaction capacity. Raising the block size (now block weight) is out of the picture. You can see why devs wants us to move to the flawed Lightning Network. I guess that's one of the few reasons why Mike Hearn left the project. Perhaps, we'll see him join forked chains such as Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV. Only time will tell. There were even rumors that Gavin Andressen was going to contribute to BCH's development.

All of the "greats" are completely disappointed with the path Bitcoin has taken lately. It's now even worse with the institutionalization of BTC. "Wall Street" has all of the cards to manipulate Bitcoin to its own benefit. Instead of going against the existing financial system (something Satoshi meant to avoid in the first place), Bitcoin has "bowed down" to it. The future is unpredictable, so I'd hope for the best.

[dezoel]

To be deluded means to be misled but I think it's not misleading when someone believes or say that Bitcoin will replace fiat or even become a global currency, though I guess that is because I also believe on it but for those who are like you who don't, you will say that there is no way. Oh well, we will only see if who among us is correct in the future.

Maybe if you will say in the past, then that is more believable because Bitcoin that time is still not known and it gained a lot of negative impressions. Your best hope right there is fortunately happening already in Bitcoin. Even though there are also people who buy and only HODL their BTC, BTC is still a currency, so you, saying that the coin is widely and actively used as a currency can still be the same as that. There's also people who literally use their BTC like a currency.

Even though there are known challenges in regards to this, they may not care at all because BTC still had some advantages. Even though a state-mandated use of BTC sounds cool, I think it can also be annoying especially to those poorer areas and then to those less techy individuals. If the state mandate the use of BTC, all workers will now also be paid by BTC of course.

[DooMAD]

All of the "greats" are completely disappointed with the path Bitcoin has taken lately. It's now even worse with the institutionalization of BTC. "Wall Street" has all of the cards to manipulate Bitcoin to its own benefit. Instead of going against the existing financial system (something Satoshi meant to avoid in the first place), Bitcoin has "bowed down" to it. The future is unpredictable, so I'd hope for the best.

Weaker systems are subverted more quickly.  The actions taken ensure that the base protocol remains strong.  Idealists can be disappointed if they like, but it doesn't change the fact that sensible people came to a sensible conclusion.  Institutional investors would have gotten involved regardless of how scaling was handled, so try not to conflate separate issues.

[Gladitorcomeback]

There's also people who literally use their BTC like a currency.

There can be, but the numbers will be very low due to the lack of opportunities to use Bitcoin as a currency. It doesn't make for someone to keep only Bitcoin on their mobile phone and roam around when they know they can't do everything with it since not every place accepts Bitcoin around the world unless you are in a special city or country where Bitcoin is legally accepted such as El Salvador.

I wouldn't say it's something that can't happen because that would be wrong, and I know it's happening in some places around the globe, but for it to become the norm, for every single Bitcoin holder in any part of the world to be able to use their Bitcoin to buy a coffee or go grocery shopping or pay for gas with their Bitcoin, it will still take some time.

Bitcoin still has a long way to go, we might have global adoption but we are not done yet.

[AprilioMP]

Mike Hearn Leaves Bitcoin

What do I care about people leaving Bitcoin including someone named Mike Hearn even though I found out from a google search that Mike Hearn is a former Bitcoin developer.
He left Bitcoin probably because his thinking has changed due to something that is not certain what the main reason is.
Why do I say what do I care, because Bitcoin will continue to run as time goes by.

Then regarding your feeling that Bitcoin is now chasing fiat profits. I am silent because I have never felt that way at all even though I cannot use Bitcoin like fiat to pay for goods and services.

[Z-tight]

All of the "greats" are completely disappointed with the path Bitcoin has taken lately. It's now even worse with the institutionalization of BTC. "Wall Street" has all of the cards to manipulate Bitcoin to its own benefit. Instead of going against the existing financial system (something Satoshi meant to avoid in the first place), Bitcoin has "bowed down" to it. The future is unpredictable, so I'd hope for the best.

I don't see the path that is so disappointing, there is also no institutionalization of BTC. BTC is free for everyone and it is censorship resistant, so institutional investors were always going to find interest in BTC, and there is nobody who can stop them from buying. Institutional investors can only manipulate the price of BTC, if anything, but they do not have any control of the BTC network, so it is not a problem for the network in my honest opinion.

[icalical]

This might be an ill-informed question, but I came across this recently and was wondering how we feel about BTC upgrades/improvements?

It feels like BTC is now chasing fiat gains over building a global p2p economy, hoping that lightning network or some other L2 solves the scaling problems for non-custodial transactions.

https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

That's fair question, however, Bitcoin remains focused on a vision of a global peer-to-peer economy, and into such upgrades lie the keys to solving its scaling issues. The Lightning Network provides for speedy and cheap transactions by processing them off-chain. Hence, congestion on the main blockchain is reduced. This approach is crucial in the maintenance of the non-custodial, decentralized nature of Bitcoin, while finding a suitable way to deal with faster transactions in great need. Improving at an unprecedented rate with over 16,000 nodes, Bitcoin is upgrading without sacrificing one speck of its old ideals.

[tbct_mt2]

That's fair question, however, Bitcoin remains focused on a vision of a global peer-to-peer economy, and into such upgrades lie the keys to solving its scaling issues.

Bitcoin developers have many things in their consideration and to-do lists, not only scalability. Scalability means nothing if scaling up means less secured blockchain. So far, we have Bitcoin as a biggest and most secured blockchain to use, that's good and altcoin blockchains can not compare to Bitcoin blockchain in security.

6 confirmations on Bitcoin blockchain in security equal to hundreds to thousands of confirmations on altcoin blockchains.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

The Lightning Network provides for speedy and cheap transactions by processing them off-chain. Hence, congestion on the main blockchain is reduced.

There are more solutions, not only Bitcoin Lightning Network.

Sidechain Observer - Bitcoin L2 Projects & current state of development

And blockchain, mempool congestions come from non-true Bitcoin users like Ordinals, Runes users who even don't have enough knowledge and idea about Bitcoin mempools and transaction fees as well as don't care about safety of their own capitals. If they buy bitcoin and hold it, they get profit but by purchasing Ordinals, Runes tokens, they lost money.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin developers have many things in their consideration and to-do lists, not only scalability. Scalability means nothing if scaling up means less secured blockchain. So far, we have Bitcoin as a biggest and most secured blockchain to use, that's good and altcoin blockchains can not compare to Bitcoin blockchain in security.

I wish more people could see things this way.  There's far too many myopic armchair pundits who can't conceive that it's a multi-faceted series of considerations and compromises.  Easy gains are rare and few seem to recognise it.

[Abiky]

Bitcoin developers have many things in their consideration and to-do lists, not only scalability. Scalability means nothing if scaling up means less secured blockchain. So far, we have Bitcoin as a biggest and most secured blockchain to use, that's good and altcoin blockchains can not compare to Bitcoin blockchain in security.

6 confirmations on Bitcoin blockchain in security equal to hundreds to thousands of confirmations on altcoin blockchains.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

There needs to be a balance between security and scalability. Focusing only on security, would hinder adoption of Bitcoin worldwide. Especially when fees will rise all the way to the moon. You'll get security by paying an ultra-high transaction fee. This favors the wealthy, while the poor is forced to look for other options.

Again, L2 networks like the Lightning Network and Stacks are NOT the solution. They're just a short-term fix. Raising the block size a bit will help keep up with daily demand, without sacrificing too much security/reliability/decentralization. I'd say raising the block size to 8mb would be perfectly safe. It all lies in the hands of developers and the community. Here's hoping Mike Hearn makes a comeback soon. The project needs as much "quality" developers as possible to remain resilient. The community already lost Mike Hearn and Gavin Andressen. Will Luke Dashjr be next? I hope not.

[tbct_mt2]

There needs to be a balance between security and scalability. Focusing only on security, would hinder adoption of Bitcoin worldwide. Especially when fees will rise all the way to the moon. You'll get security by paying an ultra-high transaction fee. This favors the wealthy, while the poor is forced to look for other options.

Altcoin developers break this important balance between Security and Scalability. They aim at Scalability and make it better, block size bigger, and even make it worse and terrible with super fast transaction speed; but they ignore another important factor Security.

They also make things more terrible by developing Cross-chain bridges that together with super fast block time and transaction speed, cause to horrible consequences from any hack. Then if hacks happen with massive costs, they tried to do something more terrible like Rollback blockchains.

People see things in different ways and have different interests but with me, altcoin blockchains are terrible in Security. I don't care about security of their blockchains but I must care about security and safety of my fund.