yip. I work in IT full time.
Very often companies I would go into would be sitting on some old system that needed to be replaced, and I used to be very proactive in telling them to upgrade, change, etc
Often though companies would push back, and say we will wait and use the old system until it is very close to completely unworkable, and it used to drive me nuts, I used to get frustrated as hell, lost my cool, etc
But from watching events unfold, sometimes that old system would last long enough until some new technology or solution previously unavailable came around, and then the company would have scored double, firstly from getting more years out of the current system essentially for free, and secondly, a better and / or cheaper solution than was previously available presents itself.
So I learned its not always so clear cut and obvious.
I hope this is what will happen with bitcoin, when the upgrade finally comes, it will be very good and very agreed upon instead of a panic partisan type upgrade which bitcoin XT would have been.
Topic: I don't understand what Mike Hearns is droning on about? (Read 1123 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Overall, I do not see any "economic majority" deciding anything. If you see it, could you perhaps point it out to me?
www.bitcoinclassic.com
I think Bitcoin classic because a number of prominent companies and developers are behind it.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be bitcoin classic. I think sooner or later an economic majority
will get behind one solution.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
we can always remind everyone to upgrade their software just to have that blocksize as well. wallet software usually prompts updates when being opened. armory does as far as i know so forcing users to do so is doable. users will sure update after all its about money.
Overall, I do not see any "economic majority" deciding anything. If you see it, could you perhaps point it out to me?
www.bitcoinclassic.com
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
It is not just Mike Hearn who thinks that we need bigger blocks.
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.
This is the essence of the problem. Core needs to decide between either 2MB or 4MB blocks and the storm will calm immediately.
What makes you think that will do that in the next (pick a number) months when they haven't done anything so far?
Overall, I do not see any "economic majority" deciding anything. If you see it, could you perhaps point it out to me?
www.bitcoinclassic.com
my prediction: now that Hearns is gone, the block code size limit will be increased just in time to coincide with the July halvening....... And bitcoin reaches new all time highs.
Instead of the doom and gloom people love to spread.
Instead of the doom and gloom people love to spread.
It is not just Mike Hearn who thinks that we need bigger blocks.
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.
This is the essence of the problem. Core needs to decide between either 2MB or 4MB blocks and the storm will calm immediately.
Part of the issue is that no one really agrees on the exact method of increasing the capacity of Bitcoin.
An economic majority will decide soon. We've heard enough of this excuse for too long.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Part of the issue is that no one really agrees on the exact method of increasing the capacity of Bitcoin.
An economic majority will decide soon. We've heard enough of this excuse for too long.
It is not just Mike Hearn who thinks that we need bigger blocks.
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.
Gavin and Garzik are part of Core. In fact, everyone on the Core dev team (except maybe Luke-jr) wants a capacity increase, including but not limited to block size increase. They even have a roadmap planned out here: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq. Part of the issue is that no one really agrees on the exact method of increasing the capacity of Bitcoin. The problem is getting consensus for a hard fork. The current plan is to use SegWit which will be deployed as a soft fork, which in general, is better than a hard fork.Gavin, Jeff Garzik, and a whole slew of industry leaders and
miners also think we need bigger blocks... Yet core has refused
to deliver that.
I just don't get it how hard can it be to increase the blocksize mb size?
Or is everyone involved in bitcoin divas who have to have everything exactly their way?
It is very hard given that in order to increase the blocksize limit without forking the blockchain into multiple distinct and survivable blockchains, consensus must be reached. This means that everyone must agree to use the same rules. Everyone must upgrade their software. The problem of course is getting everyone to do it. This is why doing hard forks properly is such a pain and long drawn out process. Or is everyone involved in bitcoin divas who have to have everything exactly their way?
I agree that it is a hassle to use, and is more like gold than like an active and dynamic currency. I have a community (forum) not bitcoin related, and whenever I try to speak to its members about Bitcoin, it sounds too complicated to them. In fact, they do not even answer the post although I am the admin. Just read, find it troublesome, and ignore.
Ok ask same people how much physical gold they own?
If answer is zero you will probably never sell them on bitcoin you targeting wrong audience.
I agree that it is a hassle to use, and is more like gold than like an active and dynamic currency. I have a community (forum) not bitcoin related, and whenever I try to speak to its members about Bitcoin, it sounds too complicated to them. In fact, they do not even answer the post although I am the admin. Just read, find it troublesome, and ignore.
I just don't get it how hard can it be to increase the blocksize mb size?
Or is everyone involved in bitcoin divas who have to have everything exactly their way?
Or is everyone involved in bitcoin divas who have to have everything exactly their way?
You could argue that the 2 big pools have the most skin in the game and therefore the most incentive to see bitcoin succeed
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I guess but if miners adopt new code conversely everyone else will fall into place immediately.
Only if the "new code" is reasonable.
If its unreasonable, then even a small minority of hashing power on a different
fork will create an altcoin that will overtake the "main coin" in value and
everyone will quickly switch over.
I gathered from his blog which a read a couple of times that the imposed cap slows down the network and this will hinder the use of bitcoin as a payment method in ,say, shops also I didn't know that 2 of the Chinese mines own 50% of the global hash power which is ridiculous. I think he is right in saying that bitcoin is a failed experiment because it's not decentralized - a couple of people hold everything in a centralized manner.
I guess but if miners adopt new code conversely everyone else will fall into place immediately.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the mining pools have the final say on what bitcoin code we use as they have the muscle?
So if the miners don't see the need to change anything nothing will change no matter what any coders say?
So if the miners don't see the need to change anything nothing will change no matter what any coders say?
Sort of, but not exactly.
Merchants and users have a say.
If miners use their hashing power till they
are blue in the face, but if no one else
supports their version of the coin, it
will have no adoption, no utility, no value,
and no price.
correct me if I am wrong:
1) complained bitterly that people did not listen to him, and that no one in bitcoin land follows orders / instructions.
It is my understanding that bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized? so if you want to win people over you need to do it because they as a whole think your solution is better? you cannot just make them listen to you because "you know better" ?
2) claims bitcoin is dead because it doesn't scale up from 1MB, etc
I don't understand the bitcoin technical aspects very well, but here is my understanding - lets see there were too many transactions for a week in a row, and all the miners and others realized "ah crap we need to increase that limit", how hard could it possibly be to change the current code from 1mb to 2mb? does't seem like that would be difficult at all? if so again, what is this guy moaning about?
3) bitcoin is a failed experiment
For a failed experiment, I seem to have no problem spending bitcoins on stuff, so far I have bought over $500 000 of physical goods with bitcoin. How is that a failure?
And PS to Mr. Mike , you complain that you want to leave for a professional environment, but you leave bitcoin with the maturity of a 2 year old. Look in the mirror very carefully.
1) complained bitterly that people did not listen to him, and that no one in bitcoin land follows orders / instructions.
It is my understanding that bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized? so if you want to win people over you need to do it because they as a whole think your solution is better? you cannot just make them listen to you because "you know better" ?
2) claims bitcoin is dead because it doesn't scale up from 1MB, etc
I don't understand the bitcoin technical aspects very well, but here is my understanding - lets see there were too many transactions for a week in a row, and all the miners and others realized "ah crap we need to increase that limit", how hard could it possibly be to change the current code from 1mb to 2mb? does't seem like that would be difficult at all? if so again, what is this guy moaning about?
3) bitcoin is a failed experiment
For a failed experiment, I seem to have no problem spending bitcoins on stuff, so far I have bought over $500 000 of physical goods with bitcoin. How is that a failure?
And PS to Mr. Mike , you complain that you want to leave for a professional environment, but you leave bitcoin with the maturity of a 2 year old. Look in the mirror very carefully.
Forget about him, he's gone. The community can now recover from the damage he tried & in some way succeeded in inflicting.
Jump to: