Topic: Mike Hearn is wrong. Bitcoin isn't dead - page 2. (Read 2364 times)
I don't think Bitcoin is dead either. But, I think it's getting ready to die soon....It's not dead, it's just dying. There are too many scams, manipulations, and outright thefts for any serious consumer to trade-in their fiat for it. The arguing over block size is small.....because we won't need to increase the block size if there aren't any transactions on the ledger anyway, right? Whatever the R3 group hired Hearn to help work on, might just throw the final five finger death punch at Bitcoin! We need to come together and try to stop them....Right?
I believe that bitcoin will never die and will always maintain some kind of value.
Mike the next job seems to be in contact with the bank.
This can explain the problem.
This can explain the problem.
Mike Hearn is just a piece of shit who wants to burn them every single bridge behind him.
If he was such a messiah, why did he get into BTC in the first place?
It s easy to dump your BTC and then talk how it s shit.
But, as you can see, BTC s started recovering and in 2 weeks time, we ll be back to the pre-Mike price level.
If he was such a messiah, why did he get into BTC in the first place?
It s easy to dump your BTC and then talk how it s shit.
But, as you can see, BTC s started recovering and in 2 weeks time, we ll be back to the pre-Mike price level.
You are right. Bitcoin will bounce back even to ATH. Then these kind of people will keep their mouth zipped. The recent $250 to $400 shift is an example for people still in love with bitcoin.
thanks to mike hearn now the resistance between 350 and 400 is even stronge,r and the price is rock solid there
we can go to 400 more easily with a better stable value in the next future, 500 is near the corner, and when that is broken you will know where this thing is heading
we can go to 400 more easily with a better stable value in the next future, 500 is near the corner, and when that is broken you will know where this thing is heading
Mike Hearn is just a piece of shit who wants to burn them every single bridge behind him.
If he was such a messiah, why did he get into BTC in the first place?
It s easy to dump your BTC and then talk how it s shit.
But, as you can see, BTC s started recovering and in 2 weeks time, we ll be back to the pre-Mike price level.
If he was such a messiah, why did he get into BTC in the first place?
It s easy to dump your BTC and then talk how it s shit.
But, as you can see, BTC s started recovering and in 2 weeks time, we ll be back to the pre-Mike price level.
Mike wanted to have the cheaper bitcoins, because he sees the larger potential in the value. That's why he dump his bitcoins to push the price lower, and then spread the news through the blog post.
Unfortunately that is a common practice on our crypto world...
Unfortunately that is a common practice on our crypto world...
How many times are we going to hear this over and over and over again.... to be exact ...89 times. To think a cat has only 9 lives and Bitcoin has 89. 
http://gizmodo.com/bitcoin-has-died-for-the-89th-time-1753216701
The NYT just showed how they shill for the banks, with that article they posted. Before the article was posted, it was announced by Charlie at R3 and shown on Youtube.
http://gizmodo.com/bitcoin-has-died-for-the-89th-time-1753216701
The NYT just showed how they shill for the banks, with that article they posted. Before the article was posted, it was announced by Charlie at R3 and shown on Youtube.
I just hope that this incident generates the much needed attention on the current block size problem. Something has to be done about the current limitations on the bitcoin platform.
Yes, I too hope the non-existent block size problem and Hearn's NYT-hyped reaction results in a Blockchain Alliance favored solution.
Let's call our anti-cypherpunk fork "PanoptiCoin."
I just hope that this incident generates the much needed attention on the current block size problem. Something has to be done about the current limitations on the bitcoin platform.
I have a feeling that it is going to draw attention to the block size problem, but the developers will most likely aim to solve the problem with less drama using existing infrastructure, in a way that it won't split the community. 
I just hope that this incident generates the much needed attention on the current block size problem. Something has to be done about the current limitations on the bitcoin platform.
Bitcoin's been called dead before. What's interesting to me is that it seems to keep getting back up after being knocked down.
People have been saying bitcoins gonna die very often and there's no reason for them to stop.They will keep and pushing that bitcoins gonna die while in reality it's just gonna rise.
It seems you can't click anywhere on the Web today without a "Bitcoin Has Failed" article quoting Mike Hearn.
First of all, Bitcoin is not the VISA Payments System. It will never process millions of transactions per second on Black Friday while simultaneously juggling chainsaws and making love to your best friend's wife. That's not what it was designed to do. The fact that it lacks the capacity to do this isn't a bug.
The megabyte block size limit is an important parameter of the Bitcoin protocol, and the unintended consequences of changing it need to be more carefully considered. That a couple of developers, who shall remain nameless, went off and did their own version, designed to fight with Bitcoin Core for ownership of the blockchain, was the height of foolishness. Of course, no one should run their code.
If there is no consensus on bumping the block size, and it remains at a megabyte forever, Bitcoin will be fine. Transaction space in blocks is a finite resource for which we charge fees. As those fees rise, Bitcoin will slowly and seamlessly transition to a model where tiny transactions are handled by exchanges such as Coinbase, and transaction space in blocks is used primarily for settlement between exchanges and parties making larger trades. This will happen so slowly, you'll barely notice it.
It is the height of hubris for the former developers, having failed to impose their vision of the code on the rest of us, to run around telling the press "Bitcoin Has Failed." They have failed. Bitcoin is fine.
Like most things in the P2P world, Bitcoin will last as long as at least two people are running a client, and it does something useful. ed2k hasn't gone away, and will probably be here forever, along with Bitcoin.
First of all, Bitcoin is not the VISA Payments System. It will never process millions of transactions per second on Black Friday while simultaneously juggling chainsaws and making love to your best friend's wife. That's not what it was designed to do. The fact that it lacks the capacity to do this isn't a bug.
The megabyte block size limit is an important parameter of the Bitcoin protocol, and the unintended consequences of changing it need to be more carefully considered. That a couple of developers, who shall remain nameless, went off and did their own version, designed to fight with Bitcoin Core for ownership of the blockchain, was the height of foolishness. Of course, no one should run their code.
If there is no consensus on bumping the block size, and it remains at a megabyte forever, Bitcoin will be fine. Transaction space in blocks is a finite resource for which we charge fees. As those fees rise, Bitcoin will slowly and seamlessly transition to a model where tiny transactions are handled by exchanges such as Coinbase, and transaction space in blocks is used primarily for settlement between exchanges and parties making larger trades. This will happen so slowly, you'll barely notice it.
It is the height of hubris for the former developers, having failed to impose their vision of the code on the rest of us, to run around telling the press "Bitcoin Has Failed." They have failed. Bitcoin is fine.
Like most things in the P2P world, Bitcoin will last as long as at least two people are running a client, and it does something useful. ed2k hasn't gone away, and will probably be here forever, along with Bitcoin.
Very insightful. If Bitcoin doesn't change, will it be able to compete with what the R3 blockchain group will put out? I mean, the R3 group scabbed Hearn (among others), invested 9 billion USD in research alone (Bitcoins present marketcap is only 5.8 billion USD), and serves a huge US banking system with a platform and customer base already in place. What impact will the product of R3CEV's investment have on Bitcoin?
It seems you can't click anywhere on the Web today without a "Bitcoin Has Failed" article quoting Mike Hearn.
First of all, Bitcoin is not the VISA Payments System. It will never process millions of transactions per second on Black Friday while simultaneously juggling chainsaws and making love to your best friend's wife. That's not what it was designed to do. The fact that it lacks the capacity to do this isn't a bug.
The megabyte block size limit is an important parameter of the Bitcoin protocol, and the unintended consequences of changing it need to be more carefully considered. That a couple of developers, who shall remain nameless, went off and did their own version, designed to fight with Bitcoin Core for ownership of the blockchain, was the height of foolishness. Of course, no one should run their code.
If there is no consensus on bumping the block size, and it remains at a megabyte forever, Bitcoin will be fine. Transaction space in blocks is a finite resource for which we charge fees. As those fees rise, Bitcoin will slowly and seamlessly transition to a model where tiny transactions are handled by exchanges such as Coinbase, and transaction space in blocks is used primarily for settlement between exchanges and parties making larger trades. This will happen so slowly, you'll barely notice it.
It is the height of hubris for the former developers, having failed to impose their vision of the code on the rest of us, to run around telling the press "Bitcoin Has Failed." They have failed. Bitcoin is fine.
Like most things in the P2P world, Bitcoin will last as long as at least two people are running a client, and it does something useful. ed2k hasn't gone away, and will probably be here forever, along with Bitcoin.
First of all, Bitcoin is not the VISA Payments System. It will never process millions of transactions per second on Black Friday while simultaneously juggling chainsaws and making love to your best friend's wife. That's not what it was designed to do. The fact that it lacks the capacity to do this isn't a bug.
The megabyte block size limit is an important parameter of the Bitcoin protocol, and the unintended consequences of changing it need to be more carefully considered. That a couple of developers, who shall remain nameless, went off and did their own version, designed to fight with Bitcoin Core for ownership of the blockchain, was the height of foolishness. Of course, no one should run their code.
If there is no consensus on bumping the block size, and it remains at a megabyte forever, Bitcoin will be fine. Transaction space in blocks is a finite resource for which we charge fees. As those fees rise, Bitcoin will slowly and seamlessly transition to a model where tiny transactions are handled by exchanges such as Coinbase, and transaction space in blocks is used primarily for settlement between exchanges and parties making larger trades. This will happen so slowly, you'll barely notice it.
It is the height of hubris for the former developers, having failed to impose their vision of the code on the rest of us, to run around telling the press "Bitcoin Has Failed." They have failed. Bitcoin is fine.
Like most things in the P2P world, Bitcoin will last as long as at least two people are running a client, and it does something useful. ed2k hasn't gone away, and will probably be here forever, along with Bitcoin.
Can some people confirm/debunk the statement that about 50% of the hashing power is concentrated in china? If that's the case, then I can see why that is a BIG problem.
It's a problem for decentralization...
I don't see having the majority of mining in China as a problem.
Even if China were to go dark, bitcoin transactions would continue uninterrupted. If a 51% attack is the concern, core should simply adopt our 51% attack defense system invented in 2013, a few years after Satoshi disappeared. It would need to be adapted and scaled, but it should work just fine.
Can some people confirm/debunk the statement that about 50% of the hashing power is concentrated in china? If that's the case, then I can see why that is a BIG problem.
It's a problem for decentralization...
Yeah I think I heard of bitcoin's death first in 2013--it wasn't true then and it still isn't true, but that doesn't stop people from yelling it from the hilltops. It's a neat new invention with numerous applications and I say that as long as it's useful for gambling, trading, and for dark marketplace goods it'll stick around.
Can some people confirm/debunk the statement that about 50% of the hashing power is concentrated in china? If that's the case, then I can see why that is a BIG problem.
Bitcoin's been called dead before. What's interesting to me is that it seems to keep getting back up after being knocked down. And in case it doesn't, there's always Litecoin, NXT, DASH...
Jump to: