Quote from: dropt on January 16, 2016, 01:56:51 AM

Quote from: oblivi on January 16, 2016, 12:55:55 AM

He will never be part of Core again, and Core is all that matters as we have seen with XT, no body ran nodes for that piece of shit, and nobody will run nodes for Bitcoin Classic and other alt wannabes. They are fighting a losing battle.

I will be running a Classic node, and as of right now, at least 50% of the miners and others like Coinbase intend to as well.

Because you are clueless, no disrespect. Anyone with a brain would never give trust to some developers that have never demonstrated shit and have clear connections to banks/CIA and an underlying agenda vs supporting developers that have delivered fantastic and creative stuff like seg wit or CT amongst a million other entries that are for the betterment of the experience and to decentralize nodes and keep it more anonymous. Let's remember Mike Hearn only had 3 entries in github for Core lol. Im going to quote this fantastic reddit post that tells it like it is

Quote

So far the core dev community has years of substantial and successful contributions under its belt, while the alt implementations have a smattering of developers who have not yet publicly proven (besides perhaps Gavin--although his early mistakes with block size estimates is concerning) they have the skills and endurance necessary to maintain a full node implementation. Perhaps now it is time that we focus on the personalities who many want to trust Bitcoin's future. Let us see if they can improve the speed at which signatures are validated by 7x. Or if they can devise privacy preserving protocols like Confidential Transactions. Or can they figure out ways to improve traversal times across a merkle tree? Can they implement HD functionality into a wallet without any coin-crushing bugs? Can they successfully modularize their implementation without breaking everything? If so, let's welcome them with open arms.

But Mike is at R3 now, which seems like a better fit for him ideologically. He can govern the rules with relative impunity and there is not a huge community of open source developers, researchers and enthusiasts to disagree with. I will admit, his posts are very convincing at first blush, but ultimately they are nothing more than a one sided appeal to the those in the community who have unrealistic or incomplete understandings of the technical challenges faced by developers maintaining a consensus critical, validation-heavy, distributed system that operates within an adversarial environment. Mike always enjoyed attacking Blockstream, but when survey his past behavior it becomes clear that his motives were not always pure. Why else would you leave with such a nasty, public farewell?

Quote from: disclaimer201 on January 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: oblivi on January 16, 2016, 12:55:55 AM

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on January 15, 2016, 07:58:52 PM

Mike Hearn was responsible for the flash crash this past August with the hard intro of XT, so this makes twice he has moved the market. He should never be allowed near bitcoin again as he has proven himself arrogant and reckless. The market recovered from August and will recover from this also just give it some time.

He will never be part of Core again, and Core is all that matters as we have seen with XT, no body ran nodes for that piece of shit, and nobody will run nodes for Bitcoin Classic and other alt wannabes. They are fighting a losing battle.

XT was utter BS, but Bitcoin Classic is the way to go imo. Why would anyone stick to core with 1MB block sizes as if it was 2010? It doesn't allow Bitcoin to scale and will create absurd fees for all users the more BTC is adopted. Bitcoin Classic is simply another hard fork in the evolultion of Bitcoin. If you want to be a hardcore purist, the current version of Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin either, it's a fork! BTC has been forked several times to adapt to requirements of usability and growth.

Because we don't need 2MB when segwit is around the corner and trusting some random devs vs time tested devs is stupid. If you don't understand how risk/reward segwit is better than a hard fork for a 1MB increase you got some reading to do.