Quote from: ImI on January 16, 2016, 12:16:44 AM

Quote from: AZwarel on January 16, 2016, 12:09:48 AM

Quote from: ImI on January 15, 2016, 11:31:27 PM

Quote from: Divitiae miserae on January 15, 2016, 11:26:58 PM

Quote from: CuntChocula on January 15, 2016, 11:24:54 PM

So this is all because of Mike? Sad

Mike only stated facts. Small blockians are those to blame.

Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary!

Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen!

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship. Ofc, he should not go to the stupid mainstream media, who want the blood of bitcoin.
Still, he raised good points in his blog post (not in the NYT article!!!) about that there should NOT be a fee market, which is arising artificially, based on an old DoS prevention mechanism (which was always thought to
be temporary!). There is no fee market (or shouldn't be), this is system with a >6bil$ market cap, with less than 0,1% world population using it, and they ALREADY want to develop a blockage with transaction throughput?? Just count: doesn't matter, how high fees go - it is still impossible to do more than 4-7 ts/s!!! Fees do not solve this hardcap!! People will just not transact.

That's why the Harn "whistleblow" in MSM caused panic sell, many realized we MUST act NOW. Check out, 70% of big miners/ processing companies /exchanges already signed Bitcoin Classic https://bitcoinclassic.com/ after 2 days...

Or will they be just censored again? You mean 70-80% of the industry can be censored? :-)

Its not a "whistleblow" cause the public and MSM dont care about such details, all they understand is that Bitcoin has inner fights going on. You see a whistleblow is usually something that wakes up important players that take action then, but in this case who did he wake up? Nobody, cause all important players are already aware of the issue. To cause a crash and to demolish the image of Bitcoin in public further is just what it is an asshole action.

He may have had some valid point, nevertheless his NYT article overshadows this completely as we did know those things before. Also his medium article is full of bullshit also, i would say 75% is just crap and 25% is valid concern.

Agree with the MSM part, they don't care or know, which is funny btw

. I do not mind "inner fights", or that it turned out to the public that we have those. In my POW, the whole point of a decentralized system, is that there can BE differing views! Am not here to judge, it may seems he hurted BTC for now, but we do not know the future, this might forced something which will be beneficial in the long run - if nothing else, cheap coins for me :-D. I focus on the 25% valid concern; those are still problems to be sold!