Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" - page 4.

Hellot

hero member

Activity: 679

Merit: 526

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: Hellot on September 02, 2015, 01:30:51 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:22:25 PM

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal. If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things. It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core.
Hard to argue with that.

That isn't evidence that it is broken.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Hellot on September 02, 2015, 01:30:51 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:22:25 PM

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal. If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things. It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core.
Hard to argue with that.

Hellot

hero member

Activity: 679

Merit: 526

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:22:25 PM

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal. If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things. It's a straw man argument.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Already answered what doesnt make sense in my original response to the "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" thread

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 01:07:43 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:43:11 PM

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense. Blockstream's don't.

Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks? More important,
why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102?

Yes. Largely broken, half baked bunch of non sense.

What exactly doesn't make sense in Blockstream's comment?

I seen you commenting in another thread spouting about intellectual honesty, boy sometimes it looks to me as if we're not reading the same conversations.

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:43:11 PM

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense. Blockstream's don't.

Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks? More important,
why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102?

Yes. Largely broken, half baked bunch of non sense.

What exactly doesn't make sense in Blockstream's comment?

I seen you commenting in another thread spouting about intellectual honesty, boy sometimes it looks to me as if we're not reading the same conversations.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:43:11 PM

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense. Blockstream's don't.

Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks? More important,
why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102?

poeEDgar

sr. member

Activity: 299

Merit: 250

Quote from: HostFat on September 02, 2015, 12:55:22 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

Speak for yourself. Don't put opinions on the mouth of others.

Yeah, it was an opinion. And I stand by it. I have faith in the bitcoin community not to destroy itself (as misplaced as that faith may be).

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

Speak for yourself. Don't put opinions on the mouth of others.

poeEDgar

sr. member

Activity: 299

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:43:11 PM

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

poeEDgar

sr. member

Activity: 299

Merit: 250

Quote from: HostFat on September 02, 2015, 12:39:33 PM

None is pushing anyone to run some code on your computer.
You are free to run the code that you prefer.

You are free to run the code from the """consensus model""" of the Bitcon Core, or the benevolent "maintainers" of the Bitcoin XT. (but there should be even other models, why not?)

Ah, but should we refrain from discussing the merits of any of the options? Or do you discourage that?

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

None is pushing anyone to run some code on your computer.
You are free to run the code that you prefer.

You are free to run the code from the """consensus model""" of the Bitcon Core, or the benevolent "maintainers" of the Bitcoin XT. (but there should be even other models, why not?)

poeEDgar

sr. member

Activity: 299

Merit: 250

It's funny. The XT guys keep saying "the development process is centralized" as if it means something (in fact, that's a red herring and a moot point that has nothing to do with decentralization of the bitcoin protocol). And yet, they are willing to back Hearn's contention that bitcoin needs a benevolent "maintainer" that will push his own ideas forward when the other devs disagree.

That's all well and good, but don't be surprised when we oppose bad ideas pushed by such benevolent "maintainers."

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

It's funny how Mike believes that some kind of a dictator should exist in a decentralized network to decide for all of us. It's just contradicting one of the main concepts of bitcoin lol. Do you XT guys really want centralization to happen in bitcoin because Mike believes that there is no such thing as 'consensus building process'? So in case there really is no such thing (there wasn't any, even Luke-jr admitted), they as the main devs of their proposal would make the decision for all of us to fix things? No, just no.

Quote

The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin.

Not an anti-Gavin here, but dude, let's face it, after Satoshi left bitcoin, Gavin was not the only one who developed it, there are other devs in the project contributing too. Yes, he was the lead dev, but it isn't right that all credits on bitcoin development should go to him.

chrisvl

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1006

Trainman

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

If you read well between the lines, you can see all the info

Even if there was not a good/real decision making process, I can understand that. Bitcoin is still young.
But the current course of actions tell that in the future there will be a decision making process, which has to be made good.

Mike still doesn't seem to like that. Understandable, it'll make his decisions look foolish.

IIOII

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1012

Quote from: Hellot on September 02, 2015, 10:56:09 AM

The only thing Mike Hearn will agree with is himself. He appears to want no other solution than the one that makes him the decision maker.

"To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities."

He is complaining about people getting together to discuss paths forward and his complaint is that "nobody can write it down". The process can't be written down because it is constantly evolving and Hearn will evolve or not be a factor.

Couldn't have said it better!

However it's important to note that lead Altcoin-bully Mike Hearn has never been a relevant factor in Bitcoin Core development. It is really strange that he is given such a huge media presence.

Hellot

hero member

Activity: 679

Merit: 526

The only thing Mike Hearn will agree with is himself. He appears to want no other solution than the one that makes him the decision maker.

"To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities."

He is complaining about people getting together to discuss paths forward and his complaint is that "nobody can write it down". The process can't be written down because it is constantly evolving and Hearn will evolve or not be a factor.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?