Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 15, 2016, 09:01:18 PM

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Hearn) is not a kind of an argument we expect in such thread.

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. Wink

Edit: what Hearn has discovered is what the upthread discussion between CoinCube and I concluded. That is the world government and he and his bankster buddies want can't be obtained with centralization of mining. They will be forced to admit to decentralization, else everything fails (Dark Age).