The War on Bitcoin Has Only Just Begun With Mike Hearn Leaving -

The War on Bitcoin Has Only Just Begun With Mike Hearn Leaving


Unlike what people might believe right now, Bitcoin has not failed by any means. Even though Mike Hearn outlined the sentence how “Bitcoin has failed” in his opinion, the ecosystem is trucking along nicely and carries on with or without him. Mainstream media outlets are rubbing their hands to spread more negativity about Bitcoin to mainstream consumers. Political games are slowly entering the Bitcoin world, and this will not be the last attack made against the digital currency.

Also read: Number of Ethereum Nodes Grows Exponentially

Redefining The Mike Hearn Meaning of Failure In Bitcoin

Bitcoinist_Bitcoin Has Not Failed Mike Hearn

A title such as “Bitcoin has failed” can be interpreted in a variety of ways. First and foremost, there is the most obvious conclusion the popular digital currency will not grow any further, and how people should cash out while they still have the chance. This is the message spread by mainstream media outlets all over the world, as they love selling bad news about Bitcoin at any given moment.

The people who are knowledgeable about Bitcoin and mainstream media outlets could use some of these people to get their facts straight – will gladly tell you Bitcoin has not failed by any means. The concept of failure in the digital currency world is vastly different from any other financial sector in existence today, as the entire Bitcoin project can not just “fail” because one person’s advice is not being followed.  

A recent video by Max Keiser and Simon Dixon of BnkToTheFuture details exactly this statement. Both gentlemen strongly feel this announcement by Mike Hearn is a political game in favor of bankchains. With so many major financial players looking to harness blockchain technology for their own purposes, their private blockchain alternative will be far more secure in their opinion.

Truth be told, the departure of Mike Hearn is not something that people didn’t anticipate. Even though he raised some interesting points, a lot of people felt Hearn was nothing more than a strawman planted to gain inside knowledge of the Bitcoin ecosystem and take it to the banks at a later date. If you can’t beat the technology, join them at an opportune time, as the saying goes.

Making an announcement about how Bitcoin has failed is just a stab in the back of the digital currency community. Don’t be mistaken in thinking this will be the last attack on the Bitcoin ecosystem, as the political games have only just begun. Keiser and Dixon even went as far as saying how “the war on Bitcoin” has only just started, and they could very well be right.

Conflicting Messages From Banks And Mainstream Media

Bitcoinist_War on Bitcoin

A few days before the announcement was made by Mike Hearn, the Royal Bank of Scotland announced how investors should get rid of all other financial assets, and put their funds into long-term investments, such as high-value bonds. In a way, people could see this as a validation of Bitcoin as well, as the digital currency operates outside of the realm of traditional finance, and it is a long-term investment. After all, a lot of the banks are in favor of the blockchain, and Bitcoin is an instrument issued on this technology. 

Mainstream media tends to spin these articles as a way to nudge investors towards more traditional commodities, such as precious metals. However, as Simon Dixon explained in the video, gold does not hedge against financial uncertainty by any means.Cash is not a valid option as well, as looking for currencies to hold in cash is quite risky. Bitcoin is the only currency scalable and secure financial tool, which is a lot more than just a traditional “currency” itself.


What are your thoughts on the ongoing war on Bitcoin? What will be the next play by the powers that be who want to stop the march of digital currency? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Youtube

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Mike Hearn

Jp Buntinx

Jp Buntinx

JP Buntinx is a freelance Bitcoin writer and Bitcoin journalist for various digital currency news outlets around the world. In other notes, Jean-Pierre is an active member of the Belgian Bitcoin Association, and occasionally attends various Bitcoin Meetups in Ghent and Brussels

  • Mike is not good for Bitcoin. Obviously, i must say thanks to start the change form Core to other alternatives without blockstrean with us, but his backdoors on XT was not good for Bitcoin community.

  • Milly Bitcoin

    Are you saying Bitcoin is better by allowing a tiny handful of developers with weird agendas to control the software?

  • No, I said that is good the change. ¿Why?

    Bitcoin is open source and it developement must be done by the community, no by a group of arogant devs with personal business motivation like Core.

    Lets give Bitcoin to the community and give the the posibility to develop anything and trust it by the supervision of the community itself. No one say nothing to actual Core Devs because they are arrogant. Now, the must left and work on his business that they love and, if they like, develop and contribute to Bitcoin Classic or other Bitcoin project.

  • Milly Bitcoin

    Your entire premise is faulty as you think there is some kind of “community” that all have the same goals. In fact it is just a collection of people who are interested in Bitcoin for a variety of reasons. Your position comes from the need to have a centralized authority in control. Your second mistake is not understanding incentives for the developers of Bitcoin. A highly skilled developer can’t just work for nothing on Bitcoin development no matter how much they love it. Bitcoin development is designed so that people with an economic incentive to change the system are the ones that are going to hire developers. The kooks with weird agendas who can’t get hired are going to eventually fade away because they are not going to be able to make a living developing software without pay.

    Many of developers have agendas, many are arrogant, and many know about the software but are completely clueless about how the rest of the world operates. Mike Hearn often gives a rational viewpoint. All the issues he raised are valid but, as Gavin said, he is probably exaggerating because he is frustrated. After dealing with some of the kooks and weirdoes involved in Bitcoin development it is no surprise that he went over the edge.

  • votingmachine

    I don’t read it as “over the edge”. He might be wrong, but I read his position and it is very well thought out and well reasoned. He may be wrong, but he has to accept his own considerations of the situation.

    Briefly summarizing his argument:
    1. Bitcoin is up against the transaction limit already.
    2. Not raising the transaction limit will create inefficiency, which will incentivize dis-adoption.
    3. Raising the transaction limit is a significant fork.
    4. There is no consensus currently.
    5. Miners and users are no longer aligned in interests.
    6. Miner opposition to a fork is an insurmountable barrier.

    So his frustration is obvious. And his reason to move on is obvious. There are parts of his argument that are strictly an interpretation. #1 is probably slightly exaggerated. #2 is debated still. #5 is not necessarily a permanent state … interests could easily align again.

    Everyone has to make their own choices on things. I see the reasoning Mike used, and he reached his decision point. That decision point will be different, and reading comments sections, many disagree. It is reasonable to disagree with his assessment. Or to agree. The many ad hominem attacks seem misplaced. I see your criticism as valid. But even you use a somewhat loaded term, in “over the edge”. Everyone draws lines beyond which they will not go. Mike drew one, and cogently stated the basis for that.

    I am somewhat surprised at the claim in #1. I thought there was still quite a bit of room before any real limitation had real impact. I think the limit is an imminent wall, but not the issue with the severity Mike sees. I agree with the rest of his argument, although I see #4 and #5 as things that might be changed. His experience is well documented in his post, but I would still think that the miners will eventually semi-re-align with some expansion, and a half-assed consensus will be better than failure.

    I don’t have a dog in this race. IMO, his reasoning for moving on to something other than bitcoin makes sense. He might be wrong, but he has to make the call, and I cannot criticize him for being hasty, or acting without thinking.

  • votingmachine

    Mostly because it is funny, but the proper summary of his argument should be:

    You can’t stick a fork in it … it’s done.

  • Milly Bitcoin

    by “over the edge” I just mean that public announcement of quitting. I think he likes the work and he will eventually do it again after taking a breather. Bitcoin is very high pressure and dealing with some of the people involved would send many people “over the edge.”

  • votingmachine

    Ahh, my bad, I read it in the “lost his head” end of the phrase.

    Do you find his assessment that the transaction limit is an imminent problem, and quite possibly already more than an inconvenience now, accurate?

    I see that DDoS can easily swamp the 1 Mb limit. I saw that as a weak spot a long time ago, but everyone was sure that the limit would get raised at any moment. It has been a long time that bitcoin had a FUTURE problem, and everyone seemed confident that the problem would be dealt with long before then. I don’t have a sense of whether the issue really is still off in the future or is here now.

  • Milly Bitcoin

    Gavin has a good explanation somewhere. Basically, because people see the potential that the system can’t handle it then people don’t use it. For instance, someone wants to start a new service that uses many transactions. They look at the state of the Bitcoin network and decide not to start the company so the transaction rate stays lower (and so does adoption). You can’t really measure that directly. It is really a “soft crash” rather than some big event.

    One issue is a common term used in government. The “low hanging fruit.” Everyone tackles the problems that are easily solved and they put off the hard stuff until later. The block size problem is hard and nobody can really predict what will happen since the network is not static and people do reactive things. Developers don’t want to be responsible if something goes wrong so things don’t happen. Many people are worried that government will take over Bitcoin but I worry that Bitcoin will turn out to be just like government. lol

  • clos

    Bitcoin fails on so many levels, we loved its radical privacy (anonymity) (NOT) its trustless decentralised network (NOT) its potential as a currency (NOT), we hoped for adoption (NOT) we saw mining as innovative but its (NOT) we thought we could circumvent regulators (NOT), we saw sidechains as a means of leveraging Bitcoin integrity (NOT), we imagined it would be directed and guided technology (NOT) we thought it would attract VC money (NOT) we thought folk would ache to spend it (NOT) lastly we didn’t see it would simply be a Chinese service for corrupt cadres to expatriate funds and would only serve as a messenger for banks to maximise profits by using superior blockchain technology…Bitcoin might limp along but it has not met one of its promises and in my opinion never will.

  • We cant not have developers on Core working in personal business Like LN and BlockStream and add, without consensus, RBF.

    This is not good for Bitcoin.

  • Milly Bitcoin

    Who will pay them? They are generally highly specialized technical experts who can command 6-figure salaries. They can add anything they want and you can decide which software to run. This is the reality of decentralization and why it is not the answer to every problem.