Topic: State of Alt. Coins - Post Mike Hearn Announcement? - page 2. (Read 2086 times)

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.

The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.

Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.

So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.

http://www.coindesk.com/scalability-debate-bitcoin-xt-proposal-stalls/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mike-hearn-says-bitcoin-has-failed-and-sees-a-price-plunge-in-the-future/
http://www.coindesk.com/cryptsy-bankruptcy-millions-bitcoin-stolen/

It opens the door wide open for better altcoin to kill Bitcoin.

However for the short-term this is appears to be the crash to below $150, that I predicted last year. The crash should bottom roughly March. Amazing the crash is coming right on time as gold has also warned it is ready to crash below $1000 (headed to below $850 by March).

This is necessary to reset everything. Then we start anew and look for the technology that can improve upon Bitcoin.

This is fabulous day for me. My diligence has paid off and I could be in the driver's seat.

It opens the door wide open for better altcoin to kill Bitcoin.

I am not appealing to his authority and I in fact criticized him by quoting the part about he is working for/with 42 big banks, which says something about his motives and biases.

However it is a fact that what he says about China controlling Bitcoin mining and this having potentially very negative impacts. Whether you want the block size to increase or stay the same, you can't argue that is decentralization when miners in China will decide for the rest of the world.

And the "fundamentals are broken" in numerous ways.

It will get very interesting when the block reward halves this year. If the price doesn't move up, the Chinese miners might start extracting high transaction fees. By constraining the protocol block size (by refusing to adopt large block sizes and controlling 51% of the PoW), they can do this without causing the market to think Bitcoin has fallen to an attack. Otherwise they'd need to do an active 51% attack on the longest chain to enforce higher transaction fees. But really it is no distinction and Bitcoin has already fallen to a 51% attack.