Slashdot Mirror
Big Trouble for Bitcoin (medium.com)
TheCoop1984 writes: A blog post by ex-Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn has highlighted dysfunctional management right at the top of Bitcoin development. He says it is clear Bitcoin is on the verge of collapse, and lays out several compelling reasons why. Quoting: "What was meant to be a new, decentralized form of money that lacked 'systemically important institutions' and 'too big to fail' has become something even worse: a system completely controlled by just a handful of people. Worse still, the network is on the brink of technical collapse. The mechanisms that should have prevented this outcome have broken down, and as a result there’s no longer much reason to think Bitcoin can actually be better than the existing financial system." Is the end of Bitcoin on the horizon?
>been around for centuries
Sorry but the current one is form 1971 after the fall of the Bretton Woods system, and that one only lasted from 1944. Before the world was one the gold standard but it was destroyed by government fiat money in the begging of 1900.
You can even argue that we have an new system from 2008 with extreme low interest rates and free money for the connected from government controlled central banks.
No, man. The blockchain is the innovation that will last. That's the value.
All of the banks you hate are going in big time with it. Everything will be centralized in the approval of transactions, but the approval will be cemented and publicly available. This means that people trying to manipulate those transactions will be exposed to all. Weather those are inside traders, drug traffickers, money launderers, tax cheats, they'll have more eyeballs looking at there activities.
https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v... This case was me. I incremented a number at the end of a public URL and did 15 months in prison, and am only out now because of a successful federal criminal appeal. The government has been harassing me for 15 years.
This is one of the most mis-informed posts I've read on Slashdot.
I work in the bitcoin space and know quite a bit about it. Bitcoin has a scaling problem: we're already maxing out the 1mb block size and transactions are starting to take more and more time to confirm - the system is starting to suffer and slow. There is no chance of bitcoin scaling to support more transactions if the block size stays static. The block size was initially introduced to stop spam attacks from affecting the network, however those issues have since been mitigated.
>> Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn want you to switch to something called Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Unlimited or some other fork of Bitcoin that is under unilateral control so that they can centralize Bitcoin to a dangerous degree...
Absolute rubbish. If you look at the code for BitcoinXT, which is simply BIP101 attached to bitcoin core, you will see that it allows the blocksize to increase if consensus is reached by miners. I know Gavin personally and it's his ambition to see bitcoin mature into something even bigger than it is today. With the current blocksize locked up to 1mb, this isn't possible. Gavin (and others) have introduced plans to solve this issue. Where's your plan?
>>Now reflect for a moment that the only major industry supporter of the Bitcoin XT proposal is Coinbase...
Coinbase merely ran XT on a test node to help run bitcoin simulations using larger block sizes. They also wanted to be prepared and understand its operation should XT ever go mainstream. I wouldn't say that they support it, however they are doing their own due diligence to determine if XT is the way to go. Nothing wrong with that. Many others are doing the same thing.
I'm asking myself why someone like yourself would spend so much time on a post with such an extreme (and negative) view? Do you lack the vision of a bigger picture? What's your motivation to publicly misinform others? Why are you trying so hard to spread FUD which ultimately damages the bitcoin ecosystem? Have you put in short orders on bitcoin for some kind of exit strategy for coins you're currently holding?
If you want to have an extreme and negative view of things, that's fine. My concern is that others who read this won't know that they're reading worthless FUD.