Topic: Poll: Mike H. Interview - Convincing or not? - page 7. (Read 4964 times)

Don't concern yourself with him. He lives in bizarro world and desires a corporate takeover of Bitcoin

Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case?

To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all.

thx for sharing. good interview.

BIP100 has no chance of going through. Don't get fooled by "miners votes"

Playing down BIP100 and playing the fool with Chinese miners, is not a good idea... and that is what he is trying to do. He is using the "fear factor" again to force people to look at

XT as the solution. He also wants to make a soft and cozy place for all the developers who are not part of the Core team.

If and when BIP 100 goes through, XT will be quickly forgotten. I had to smile when I saw the first comment on that video... " do not install bitcoin xt trojan "

What I've learned from this is that XT nodes are masking themselves as Core to avoid DOS attacks.
We need Core nodes to pretend they are XT to counter that! Oh, wait... No!

The above only demonstrates that Bitcoin consensus rules need to be rigid and simple so that everyone involved could just remember them and be able to verify if the need arises. A static limit on block size held for a certain (long enough) period of time satisfies that condition in the best possible way.

I also believe that Bitcoin's ledger needs to remain transparent and traceable to prevent corruption and illegal activity on all levels (including that of ruling elites), this should be done in a decentralized way, though an exact solution isn't fairly clear at the moment. It won't solve the problem completely as other competing solutions will provide better anonymity options, but the main monetary backbone for the society needs to be clear.

To put it simply, Bitcoin is an inclusive technology not exclusive and therefore governments will be involved in this one way or another as it is a PoWer play for them. What's important is that the network rules are enforced by the majority of its users and not a small group of select few. The current static limit of 1MB needs to prove itself in action and serve this purpose in order for Bitcoin to be sustainable over the long periods of time and maintain its value.

 

nailed it

Hearn will do anything in XT to get the control. It would take a second for him to throw away BIP 101 and embrace BIP 100. His goal is very clear. To be at the epicenter of bitcoin development.

That idea would never gain consensus. My solution is a compromise that works and has a chance of winning consensus.

Maybe we can add that option in a poll. That would be nice. Some people don't care about the 'corporate' words but instead I want to see actions.
I want devs to change bitcoin to be better, and not talk how it can be great while arguing with each other in the meantime.

The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all.

He looks like the type of bloke who'd invite you to stay at his house, throw you down a well while you're having a piss in the garden and spend the entire night trying to guilt trip your girlfriend into moving his cock around. Thus I don't find him a comforting presence.

You should also add another option:
"Haven't seen it, Don't care" 

He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.

Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.

The question is not really appropriate. There was nothing to "convince". I would say it was a fair interview and it was interesting to hear his side of the story.


He had to say that to make XT sound good  

Other interesting points you can hear for yourself:

12:57  Banks using blockchain not bitcoin
14:12  Other solution if xt is off the table
19:16  Animosity amoung devs  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySoLPnGBelw&feature=youtu.be