Topic: I am sorry to say, Mike Hearn was right. - page 2. (Read 2534 times)

When was Circle ever going to put their $138M in bitcoin development? This is a complete twist of logic, they were not putting anything in bitcoin development.


This is complete bullshit. The price is not being held back because of the block size or delayed confirmation times. Bitcoin has been seeing a steady and healthy bull run for the last year and a half despite this debate. There was clowns last year who claimed bitcoin couldn't reach a price of $500 because the network couldn't support it. Absolutely bullshit. BTC price will appreciate because bitcoin currently has great value and use as gold 2.0 even if it's not ready for daily shopping transactions yet. To say that Core is the reason that "loads of talent" aren't working on bitcoin is also complete bullshit.



Like I said, sell your coins and move on. If you are so convinced of your 'facts' then do us all a favor and move on instead of spreading baseless FUD

This may be true, however he was right that the network would come to a screeching halt, over the next few years.  Bitcoin price is just what speculators make it.  It does not indicate the functional progress/success of the system. 

The system is fucked because the MemPool is fucked, transaction times are fucked, fees are fucked.  So fucked that the companies with loads of money to spend developing cool shit are not spending that money developing bitcoin related stuff but moving away. 

Circle is moving their $138Million away from bitcoin development because Maxwell is a fucking dick.  This is a fact.  Say what you like about SegWit and LN, and 8MB blocks, but facts remain facts.  Companies with money are not going to build infrastructure that targets bitcoin because network congestion has totally crippled the system. 

This is past tense.  It already happened.  With 4MB blocks last year, bitcoin price would probably be at $3000 now.  Not only that, but loads of talent would be getting a check to build bitcoin related infrastructure (like wallets, etc).  All that work is NOT being done.  Armory is out of business.  Tresor is fucked.  AirBitz is abandoning their wallet.  The whole god-damned thing stopped - about the time Hearn left.  Maxwell and his love of proprietary off chain scaling has fucked this network.  Facts are facts.  No bullshit lines from Holliday are going to change that.

The Circle CEO is a shill who said bitcoin will die in 5-10 years. If you believe him then please, go ahead and sell your coins and get the fuck out.


Mike Hearn claimed that bitcoin was going to continue crashing in price until it's obsolete. He urged everyone to sell their coins when it was in the $300s... LOL @ saying he was "right". He left like a bitch, and he ended up being remembered as a bitch.

Is this really a good thing though?  I mean, price point isn't really an indicator of how good an asset is... rather I see price point as an indicator of how many "investors" there are speculating and trust in the asset as being valuable.  I feel that there has been the same amount of speculation going on, but just a slight increase in "trust" because of segwit... but if that goes south then, who knows what will happen.

Whether investors care about the fundamentals of block sizes or not, they will end up caring about it when the network gets so jammed that they can't send their coins to exchanges.

What effect does slow internet connections have on the network ?  i was always under the impression that speed didnt matter that much.  but yeah 512kb is pretty low, surely no one is using that these days......

this is a shitty thread but this is an angle that's often rolled out that doesn't quite ring true for me. that's like some fat mom in an arkansas backwater deciding she wants to run for president. you can certainly do so and no one's gonna stop you. no one's gonna pay you the slightest attention either.

Yes you keep talking comparing the theoretical limits of the current block size limit, to realistic 'expectations' of Segwit. A post such as this, is absurd at best:

Either compare theoretical to theoretical, or realistic to realistic.

thats an expectation with/near 100% segwit usage
thats an expectation with/near LEAN tx..

the reality is not everyone will do lean TX's
the reality is not everyone will do segwit TX's

so your overselling expectation instead of thinking of rational realistic

put it this way.. 2009-2016.. how many blocks actually achieved the expectation of 7tx/s

oh and here is another nugget. although bitcoin never even got to achieve 7tx/s (4500) in 7 years in any reasonable amount of blocks

the maths of compressed keys and lean tx was a 10tx MAX.. but like i said even 7tx/s(undersold) was a push to even dare try coming close to and never really seen as any real longterm actual utility.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Maximum_transaction_rate

so your 14tx/s example is not a realistic longterm actual utility. but an extreme theoretical based on 100% this 100% that.
however
the realistic is that segwits 4500(7tx/s) expectation is still pushing the boundary's of what we will actually get. but atleast its not overselling it like your trying.

in short. its far easier to say
"since 2009. we may actually see 4500 regularly after 2016 due to segwit, which we expected to get 7 years ago"

sidenote:
im still laughing at lauda's magic block
Inputs 9,124
Outputs 9,157
Transactions 8,885

how many times does lauda realistically thing we are going to see blocks with 97% of users not only using segwit. but also doing 1 in 1 out tx

Segwit is also technically an implementation of larger block sizes. Thus it is up to the miners/market/users on whether they want to adopt those or not.

Indeed. Just fork away now and the conflict is solved.

Step 1) Don't listen to OP. Step 2) Eat more popcorn.

That is a very clever gimmick.  Everyone understands quite clearly why this argument is just a convenient bit of nonsense to support the small block side.  

You fool nobody bringing this silly bit of schenanigans

I want you more "senior type" members to know that I am really enjoying this discussion and others like it on this board.  I personally find that my BTC transactions proceed through the blockchain at very acceptable speeds.  I have been around for a few years now and I know lots of talk is just that without backup evidence.  I just continue to hope that posts added to this thread will actually teach me something useful.  [popcorn]

You have an alternative to the 1MB limit for preventing spam then? Cool. What is it?

That's not why they failed. Their business model was horribly unsustainable. It's currently 15 cents for TX median size. You can easily go lower though.

Repeating the lie infinite number of times won't make it true for non-sheep users. You still are unable to list anything that would come close to a list of 'many' (not to mentioned 'many many').

You don't need Greg Maxwell's permission. This is Bitcoin. The code is open source. There is even a version that allows for larger block sizes. It's called Bitcoin Unlimited. All you need to do is run that software with whatever perimeter you want for the block size, then mine a block bigger than 1MB. That's it.

I think you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is. If the market truly wants larger blocks, the person who starts mining them is in a position to earn a ton of block rewards for himself before the rest of the miners move over to that fork. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Actions speak louder than words. If you truly believed what you keep repeating, nothing would stop you.

ChangeTip failed, along with all other microtransaction applications because tx fee went from .0000 US cents to about 20 US cents.  Many, many other application that are not settlement application also failed as a result of Maxwell/core/blockstream intentionally corrupting the system to drive demand for their LN which doesn't even exist today. 

No.  Actually Satoshi had it right.  The original Bitcoin had blocks without blocksize limit with full anticipation of on chain scaling.  Let's go back to the way Satoshi wanted it.  Big blocks.  Small blocks was intended as a temporary limit to control spam until an alternative was devised.

I wonder who paid for these posts.

None of those have anything to do with the block size limit. Most were hacked/scam/illegal. Try again.

Fuck you Lauda - you are so boring.  

Here are some of the many, many others: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/casualty-list-1026885  There are still further others too.

Can't do it because Greg Maxwell needs to cripple the network so their will be more demand for his Lightning off chain approach.  The thing is, if Greg agrees to go to 8MB today, blocks won't be full again until Lightning is ready.  That way, they can have their off chain scaling approach AND no network congestion for the next 3 - 5 years. 

The CEO of Circle, a genius? That is just a bad joke. I have to repeat myself here: