All I see about the developer Mike Hearn statements is just about someone who have lost confidence in the process, if Satoshi lost confidence in Bitcoin I believe it wouldn't have come this far. Everyone is free to their own decisions but instead of us resigning to fate why don't we make research of how to solve a problem that we feel weak about. Literally, there is no way Bitcoin wouldn't experience some challenges of which I also do think about what Mike Hearn said about the blockchain being full but does it mean there cannot be a possible solution to expanding the capacity of the blockchain to be able to accommodate the records of every transactions? Hopefully there will always be a way out. About high transactions fees and the ability to cancel transactions i think if not for congestion in mempool, transactions can be confirmed almost immediately. And the high congestion is also the reason for high fees so definitely with time everything will be fixed.
We should understand that Bitcoin is still in the developing process so certain challenges are expected but should we lost focus and allow the efforts of it's creator Satoshi nakamoto to go in vain? I stand with Bitcoin till eternity, if it fails, I fail with it
Topic: Mike Hearn Leaves Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 1226 times)
bitcoin fee's dont need to 'bump' up so high so fast but certain devs put code in to ensure fee's go up in unnecessary increments by default, its all done to make bitcoin annoying to promote how people should avoid bitcoin and instead choose another network
nothing has been done in the last 7 years to make bitcoin (a true tx byte count) leaner
nothing has been done in the last 7 years to make fee's min defaults depreciate, even when bitcoins market price has appreciated by x factor
the whole game is to push normal everyday people out of bitcoin and leave bitcoin just for the elites. much like how fiat made wire transfer a headache to push normal people into using credit cards
(LN is not settled payments but instead IOU's, same as credit cards(especially when using inbound balance channels))
there are ways that bitcoin can become leaner tx size on average, which means more tx per block. and ontop of that by then utilising the full 4mb space that is now deemed network safe, using it for full access tx data and not just the(1:3) witness part(3) segregated from the tx data(1). even more transactions could have been allowed compared to 7 years ago.. meaning there would be less congestion, and more transactions to allow each individual to pay less.. but instead they wanted to have tx's that could be 4mb PER tx of useless junk data and ontop of that have 'bump' defaults that push fee's up quickly when it gets congested by junk.
nothing has been done in the last 7 years to make bitcoin (a true tx byte count) leaner
nothing has been done in the last 7 years to make fee's min defaults depreciate, even when bitcoins market price has appreciated by x factor
the whole game is to push normal everyday people out of bitcoin and leave bitcoin just for the elites. much like how fiat made wire transfer a headache to push normal people into using credit cards
(LN is not settled payments but instead IOU's, same as credit cards(especially when using inbound balance channels))
there are ways that bitcoin can become leaner tx size on average, which means more tx per block. and ontop of that by then utilising the full 4mb space that is now deemed network safe, using it for full access tx data and not just the(1:3) witness part(3) segregated from the tx data(1). even more transactions could have been allowed compared to 7 years ago.. meaning there would be less congestion, and more transactions to allow each individual to pay less.. but instead they wanted to have tx's that could be 4mb PER tx of useless junk data and ontop of that have 'bump' defaults that push fee's up quickly when it gets congested by junk.
Are we ignoring the fact that fees can go up at any time?
Doesn't this signal that the protocol isn't as resilient as we need it to be for a global p2p economy?
Doesn't this signal that the protocol isn't as resilient as we need it to be for a global p2p economy?
That's what makes it resilient. Only shitcoins promise to have cheap fees at all times and they invariably collapse the moment they encounter a hint of congestion and suddenly fail to deliver on that promise. Dynamic fees are a necessity. You might not like it, but it's how it has to be.
Are we ignoring the fact that fees can go up at any time?
Doesn't this signal that the protocol isn't as resilient as we need it to be for a global p2p economy?
Doesn't this signal that the protocol isn't as resilient as we need it to be for a global p2p economy?
I think the thread shows how people feel about upgrading Bitcoin. These are very sensitive issues, on which people have strong opinions. It's impressive that we managed to do Segwit, even, as that also met significant resistance and prompted the emergence of Bitcoin clones with other modifications. Things like the Lightning Network are perceived very strongly by different people. Some believe that Bitcoin is impractical without such solutions, while others think that such projects betray Bitcoin's original vision and pose serious risks to decentralization.
But it's been 8 years since Hearn's post, and Bitcoin is still up and running, still thriving, and the on-chain fees are very acceptable most of the time.
But it's been 8 years since Hearn's post, and Bitcoin is still up and running, still thriving, and the on-chain fees are very acceptable most of the time.
Monero is the Swiss account of today and it works TODAY. I am using it daily for small purchases and it's great 
Swiss accounts can be used to buy anything without any specialized infra though. How are you currently buying stuff with Monero? (Let's assume that the vendor doesn't directly accept it).
Still on this aspect, there is no controversies here because both the bitcoin network and the LN are serving the same purpose on helping the users to have a better experience and i don't think each one can have a better application than each other from what they are serving already now, the two will remain relevant as ever because they continue in serving their same purpose.
Lightning Network is something different but Bitcoin itself is actually fine the way it is currently. I feel like we can already use it for payments without issue - as long as someone like Rodarmor doesn't invent another money-grab to increase network fees with.
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
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
This is actually a great topic. I don’t know any of the current btc devs but I’d love to hear what the most advanced cryptographers here have to say about them.
I am with you on the other part of this. I don’t currently give a fuck about Ordinals and crap like that. I want to see a faster p2p payment network, like you mention.
The other thing I want to see is Satoshis proposed 2 party escrow system. I know this isn’t an easy task (something Gmaxwell has discussed with me specifically, and I’ve heard Szabo go into some detail about it, so I know it’s nothing easy to accomplish.. but if I could program at an elite level, man I’d be working day and night to create that.
Of course you are right. LN and Bitcoin are two entirely different things and they should not be confused to be the same thing or "upgrades" of the same thing. But LN is built on top of Bitcoin and can therefore be considered part of the Bitcoin ecosystem- with a useful function (reduce fees and transaction times). And as it is part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, it should be considered and respected as such. Otherwise we risk souring the further development of the Bitcoin ecosystem.
The good thing about Bitcoin is that it can be continously improved thanks to its open source nature. It will always be an "experiment". I wouldn't call it a "failed experiment" like Mike Hearn did, especially when the coin is relatively new to the world. 15 years is nothing compared to the number of years both Gold and the Fiat money system has been around with us. I'd say Bitcoin is on a good path to replace banks in the future. Or at least, become a solid alternative. The LN still has its issues, but that doesn't mean its the end of the world. If developers put their efforts into it, the LN could become a "force to reckon with". On-chain scaling coupled with off-chain scaling will help Bitcoin reach the masses.
If you're still not happy about the way BTC is developing, you can always choose among the zillions of altcoins listed on the market. They're faster and cheaper than BTC (although often unreliable). It's good to see Bitcoin "chugging along" as usual without Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. If it survived that, it can survive anything.
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.
Still on this aspect, there is no controversies here because both the bitcoin network and the LN are serving the same purpose on helping the users to have a better experience and i don't think each one can have a better application than each other from what they are serving already now, the two will remain relevant as ever because they continue in serving their same purpose.
seem some ill informed people are using this topic to promote a completely different network that is trying to steal users, fame and integrity of bitcoin, whilst not actually having any of the security elements of bitcoin
LN is a completely different network. if you analyse it you will notice:
its does not have a blockchain.
nor is it fixed to only support and work with bitcoin
its payments are not even measured in sats but produce onion packets(payments) measured in msats which is a currency unit bitcoin does NOT understand
to use LN you are abandoning using bitcoin.
your payments are not settled(confirmed)
mining pools do not collect fees when doing LN Msat payments
the flaws of LN are a known risk to users funds
the flaws do not guarantee users will get settled amounts they are shown to be owed whilst in LN
the flaws allow funds to be stolen
if bitcoin was a debit account of real value, LN is the credit card of iou funds which can leave people in debt(loss)
LN is not the solution to scaling bitcoin because its actually an attempt to steal people away from using bitcoin. to scale bitcoin is meant to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions on bitcoin and allow more ability for people to use bitcoin.
dont be fooled into thinking LN is the better version of bitcoin. everyone knows how the fiat system failed the public due to the debt system mainly caused by credit cards.. so LN is repeating this error. dont get stuck in LN. instead ask core (centralised group of bitcoin) to do better for bitcoin by scaling bitcoin, not their sponsored subnetwork they wish to push people over to
LN is a completely different network. if you analyse it you will notice:
its does not have a blockchain.
nor is it fixed to only support and work with bitcoin
its payments are not even measured in sats but produce onion packets(payments) measured in msats which is a currency unit bitcoin does NOT understand
to use LN you are abandoning using bitcoin.
your payments are not settled(confirmed)
mining pools do not collect fees when doing LN Msat payments
the flaws of LN are a known risk to users funds
the flaws do not guarantee users will get settled amounts they are shown to be owed whilst in LN
the flaws allow funds to be stolen
if bitcoin was a debit account of real value, LN is the credit card of iou funds which can leave people in debt(loss)
LN is not the solution to scaling bitcoin because its actually an attempt to steal people away from using bitcoin. to scale bitcoin is meant to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions on bitcoin and allow more ability for people to use bitcoin.
dont be fooled into thinking LN is the better version of bitcoin. everyone knows how the fiat system failed the public due to the debt system mainly caused by credit cards.. so LN is repeating this error. dont get stuck in LN. instead ask core (centralised group of bitcoin) to do better for bitcoin by scaling bitcoin, not their sponsored subnetwork they wish to push people over to
Of course you are right. LN and Bitcoin are two entirely different things and they should not be confused to be the same thing or "upgrades" of the same thing. But LN is built on top of Bitcoin and can therefore be considered part of the Bitcoin ecosystem- with a useful function (reduce fees and transaction times). And as it is part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, it should be considered and respected as such. Otherwise we risk souring the further development of the Bitcoin ecosystem.
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
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
Mike Hearn was always slightly "out of kilter" in terms of their views about how Bitcoin should work. Some of it didn't really fit with the underlying ethos. I'd take anything said in that blog with a healthy amount of skepticism. It's their vision that failed (and rightly so).
And it's simple-minded speculators who are chasing fiat gains. Just because they're loud and numerous, doesn't mean they're representive of the community as a whole.
I think this is the issue... How hard is it for the core devs to come together and agree on a BIP that defines the purpose of bitcoin.
Bitcoin is either digital gold or it's here to replace fiat. The narrative seems to bounce between the two and while I think it's solved digital gold, the people who wanted to replace fiat are left wanting. Meanwhile the culture seems to have literally forced them out to go build their own solutions.
doomad doesnt want people to be bitcoiners(nor does his grasshopper apprentices blackhatcoiner and windfury) yet he does believe in the monarchy central control of certain core devs being the only "representatives of bitcoin" who should control what bitcoin does, as long as its in the direction of getting people to abandon bitcoin to pursue other networks
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
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
Mike Hearn was always slightly "out of kilter" in terms of their views about how Bitcoin should work. Some of it didn't really fit with the underlying ethos. I'd take anything said in that blog with a healthy amount of skepticism. It's their vision that failed (and rightly so).
And it's simple-minded speculators who are chasing fiat gains. Just because they're loud and numerous, doesn't mean they're representive of the community as a whole.
//EDIT: Although, in credit to Mike Hearn, at least he had the decency to give up and leave when everyone made it clear that his ideas were terrible and he was never going to get the awful things he wanted to implement. Unlike franky1, whose ideas are even more repellent and is even less likely to be supported by anyone, but he still hangs around like a foetid shit smear, raving like a lunatic.
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
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
Yeah. I remember when good 'ol Mike Hearn used to spread FUD about Bitcoin that it was a "failed experiment". It's now 2024 and Bitcoin is bigger and stronger than ever. Market prices are a lot higher than they were a few years ago. Mike missed out the opportunity to cash out big time.
mpoletiek asks about the upgrades/"improvements".... but abiky mentions the market prices(chasing fiat gains)
the blockchain continues and there is a market. but when a developer talks about the development of bitcoin having issues (centralised dev group acting like a monarchy, where they have softened the verification rules and other things which have allowed 4x bloat whilst not really 4x the transaction count), should show that bitcoin has not developed effectively in the last 7+ years
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
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
Yeah. I remember when good 'ol Mike Hearn used to spread FUD about Bitcoin that it was a "failed experiment". It's now 2024 and Bitcoin is bigger and stronger than ever. Market prices are a lot higher than they were a few years ago. Mike missed out the opportunity to cash out big time.
What really "failed" is Bitcoin's Lightning Network. The L2 scaling solution has been unable to attract the masses into it. Besides being full of bugs (experimental), the network has a slight learning curve. This means newbies will have a hard time trying to understand how the LN works. It's somewhat complicated to use.
What good does near-instant and cheap transactions have if the network itself is centralized and difficult to use? What really works is on-chain scaling. To avoid centralization issues, developers should raise the block size at a slow and steady pace. Anyways, that's my point of view. I wonder if someday Mike Hearn will change its mind about Bitcoin? I could only imagine...
As I understand it BTC doesn't have the bandwidth required to use it as money (TPS). Therefore, something else is needed to make this possible?
Either by upgrading BTC or building something "like" lightning network?
Is it a proper critique of lightning network that it's not simple enough for most people to use it as money in a non-custodial way?
Either by upgrading BTC or building something "like" lightning network?
Is it a proper critique of lightning network that it's not simple enough for most people to use it as money in a non-custodial way?
Bitcoin is money already. Unfortunately, however, it may not be the everyday money that people imagine. It could be a money for final settlement though. If it can't be used to buy a cup of coffee, a sachet of toothpaste, a packet of salt, or a piece of banana at the convenience store next door, then it can only be a limited form of money. It is money nonetheless.
We've been advised to keep our coins in cold wallets but it is also widely acceptable to keep small amounts in hot custodial wallets for small transactions every once in a while. This same approach could be employed in the use of on-chain and off-chain networks in payments.
The Lightning Network I'm afraid isn't only not simple for the common folks, it might be flawed also.
I think Bitcoin is still missing the "Acceptable" property of money. Mostly due to slow TPS and volatility. LN's complexity forced most TX's to go custodial so while it works... kinda missed it's intended use-case no?
seem some ill informed people are using this topic to promote a completely different network that is trying to steal users, fame and integrity of bitcoin, whilst not actually having any of the security elements of bitcoin
LN is a completely different network. if you analyse it you will notice:
its does not have a blockchain.
nor is it fixed to only support and work with bitcoin
its payments are not even measured in sats but produce onion packets(payments) measured in msats which is a currency unit bitcoin does NOT understand
to use LN you are abandoning using bitcoin.
your payments are not settled(confirmed)
mining pools do not collect fees when doing LN Msat payments
the flaws of LN are a known risk to users funds
the flaws do not guarantee users will get settled amounts they are shown to be owed whilst in LN
the flaws allow funds to be stolen
if bitcoin was a debit account of real value, LN is the credit card of iou funds which can leave people in debt(loss)
LN is not the solution to scaling bitcoin because its actually an attempt to steal people away from using bitcoin. to scale bitcoin is meant to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions on bitcoin and allow more ability for people to use bitcoin.
dont be fooled into thinking LN is the better version of bitcoin. everyone knows how the fiat system failed the public due to the debt system mainly caused by credit cards.. so LN is repeating this error. dont get stuck in LN. instead ask core (centralised group of bitcoin) to do better for bitcoin by scaling bitcoin, not their sponsored subnetwork they wish to push people over to
LN is a completely different network. if you analyse it you will notice:
its does not have a blockchain.
nor is it fixed to only support and work with bitcoin
its payments are not even measured in sats but produce onion packets(payments) measured in msats which is a currency unit bitcoin does NOT understand
to use LN you are abandoning using bitcoin.
your payments are not settled(confirmed)
mining pools do not collect fees when doing LN Msat payments
the flaws of LN are a known risk to users funds
the flaws do not guarantee users will get settled amounts they are shown to be owed whilst in LN
the flaws allow funds to be stolen
if bitcoin was a debit account of real value, LN is the credit card of iou funds which can leave people in debt(loss)
LN is not the solution to scaling bitcoin because its actually an attempt to steal people away from using bitcoin. to scale bitcoin is meant to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions on bitcoin and allow more ability for people to use bitcoin.
dont be fooled into thinking LN is the better version of bitcoin. everyone knows how the fiat system failed the public due to the debt system mainly caused by credit cards.. so LN is repeating this error. dont get stuck in LN. instead ask core (centralised group of bitcoin) to do better for bitcoin by scaling bitcoin, not their sponsored subnetwork they wish to push people over to
You know, dude, I'm just now clarifying what LN (Lightning Network) can do that you say. Actually, even before I really wanted to use it and try it, to be honest, because of what I read and said that it's cheaper, it is said that the fee using LN is also a solution when there is congestion in the bitcoin network.
But since you said this, it seems that I have lost interest in using this LN because it turns out that it only alienates the holders of Bitcoin without realizing that it is missing from the very concept of Bitcoin and how it really works. Thanks for this information.
its only cheaper if you abandon bitcoin.. and perform enough payments on another system to counter the overall costs of multiple payments would have cost if you didnt use the other system
by this i mean its not cheaper if you just one day want to use LN just once or twice whilst bitcoin is congested.. because to even get to use LN you have to lock funds up and plan spending habits ahead of time to lock enough to then use LN for long enough that the lock-in and unlock costs(bitcoin fee's) are countered by the overall costs of the other systems payments made inbetween
LN's purpose is not a solution of just making bitcoin fees cheaper. it doesnt work like that. its about stop using bitcoin to use something else which pretends to offer cheaper fee's but only if you use the other system enough without returning to bitcoin.
the foolish thing of those promoting LN in times of bitcoin congestion is that to get into LN during a bitcoin congestion is to pay that high fee during congestion to lock funds. meaning you then have to be stuck in LN and HOPE the recipient you want to pay also uses LN to send to. and repeatedly send to over time to cumilatively then become cheaper.
As I understand it BTC doesn't have the bandwidth required to use it as money (TPS). Therefore, something else is needed to make this possible?
Either by upgrading BTC or building something "like" lightning network?
Is it a proper critique of lightning network that it's not simple enough for most people to use it as money in a non-custodial way?
Either by upgrading BTC or building something "like" lightning network?
Is it a proper critique of lightning network that it's not simple enough for most people to use it as money in a non-custodial way?
Bitcoin is money already. Unfortunately, however, it may not be the everyday money that people imagine. It could be a money for final settlement though. If it can't be used to buy a cup of coffee, a sachet of toothpaste, a packet of salt, or a piece of banana at the convenience store next door, then it can only be a limited form of money. It is money nonetheless.
We've been advised to keep our coins in cold wallets but it is also widely acceptable to keep small amounts in hot custodial wallets for small transactions every once in a while. This same approach could be employed in the use of on-chain and off-chain networks in payments.
The Lightning Network I'm afraid isn't only not simple for the common folks, it might be flawed also.
seem some ill informed people are using this topic to promote a completely different network that is trying to steal users, fame and integrity of bitcoin, whilst not actually having any of the security elements of bitcoin
LN is a completely different network. if you analyse it you will notice:
its does not have a blockchain.
nor is it fixed to only support and work with bitcoin
its payments are not even measured in sats but produce onion packets(payments) measured in msats which is a currency unit bitcoin does NOT understand
to use LN you are abandoning using bitcoin.
your payments are not settled(confirmed)
mining pools do not collect fees when doing LN Msat payments
the flaws of LN are a known risk to users funds
the flaws do not guarantee users will get settled amounts they are shown to be owed whilst in LN
the flaws allow funds to be stolen
if bitcoin was a debit account of real value, LN is the credit card of iou funds which can leave people in debt(loss)
LN is not the solution to scaling bitcoin because its actually an attempt to steal people away from using bitcoin. to scale bitcoin is meant to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions on bitcoin and allow more ability for people to use bitcoin.
dont be fooled into thinking LN is the better version of bitcoin. everyone knows how the fiat system failed the public due to the debt system mainly caused by credit cards.. so LN is repeating this error. dont get stuck in LN. instead ask core (centralised group of bitcoin) to do better for bitcoin by scaling bitcoin, not their sponsored subnetwork they wish to push people over to
LN is a completely different network. if you analyse it you will notice:
its does not have a blockchain.
nor is it fixed to only support and work with bitcoin
its payments are not even measured in sats but produce onion packets(payments) measured in msats which is a currency unit bitcoin does NOT understand
to use LN you are abandoning using bitcoin.
your payments are not settled(confirmed)
mining pools do not collect fees when doing LN Msat payments
the flaws of LN are a known risk to users funds
the flaws do not guarantee users will get settled amounts they are shown to be owed whilst in LN
the flaws allow funds to be stolen
if bitcoin was a debit account of real value, LN is the credit card of iou funds which can leave people in debt(loss)
LN is not the solution to scaling bitcoin because its actually an attempt to steal people away from using bitcoin. to scale bitcoin is meant to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions on bitcoin and allow more ability for people to use bitcoin.
dont be fooled into thinking LN is the better version of bitcoin. everyone knows how the fiat system failed the public due to the debt system mainly caused by credit cards.. so LN is repeating this error. dont get stuck in LN. instead ask core (centralised group of bitcoin) to do better for bitcoin by scaling bitcoin, not their sponsored subnetwork they wish to push people over to
You know, dude, I'm just now clarifying what LN (Lightning Network) can do that you say. Actually, even before I really wanted to use it and try it, to be honest, because of what I read and said that it's cheaper, it is said that the fee using LN is also a solution when there is congestion in the bitcoin network.
But since you said this, it seems that I have lost interest in using this LN because it turns out that it only alienates the holders of Bitcoin without realizing that it is missing from the very concept of Bitcoin and how it really works. Thanks for this information.
Loads of these high net worth, high bitcoin stash guys fell off the wagon & turned to shitcoins or trying to change bitcoin to match what they want. I think a lot of those guys have big egos & are used to getting their own way, they aren’t used to not being able to be an ultimate decision maker in life. Look at the likes of Roger Ver, same thing with him. This is why decentralisation is one of the best features with bitcoin because it doesn’t matter how much money you have, there are no heroes.
Well, he is only one person. No single individual can topple the existence of btc market. They can come and go but it doesn't mean, the world of btc will stop just because they announce their exit in this market.
Do take note, the ban in crypto of one of the top economies in the world, China, didn't collapse the btc market. What more of a single individual who can't manipulate this market because he doesn't have the amount to create a wave in this market? So yes, let people leave on this market and for sure, a lot more are going in.
Jump to: