Topic: [2016-11-06] Roger Ver Considers Offering Double Block Rewards To Bitcoin Miners (Read 1212 times)

Solo miners constitute a considerable percentage of miners and they do not find bitcoin mining profitable anymore. I guess Rogers is just trying to give them an incentive not to stop mining

It's not throwing gasoline on anything to point out that as soon as anyone holds a different opinion to core developers that person is immediately labelled dishonest.  Someone dared to commit the (apparently egregious) crime of displaying independent thought and having a mind of their own.  People somehow feel strong indignation at this supposed betrayal.  If you don't agree, this means you're throwing gasoline on the fire and fabricating internal struggles.   

Fuck intentions and honesty.  Your preconceptions about them don't matter.  Code doesn't have intentions and it can't lie.  If the effects of the code are neutral and obvious, I don't care who coded it or how low your opinion of them is.  The code will speak for itself and the market will choose the code.  This thing is self-regulating.  It doesn't have to be a witch hunt unless you want to turn it into one.  This all boils down to the mindset of "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me and reinforce the status quo or scary consequences will happen". 

To summarise:

I don't care who you do and don't trust in a trustless system; I don't care who you think should be in control of a system that no one controls; I don't care who you think has permission to edit the code in a permissionless system.

Is there any way I can possibly make that any more clear?

That only holds true for people with honest proposals. You seem to be trying to prop up the idea that all the previous hard-fork proposals were well-intentioned, it should be pretty obvious to those with a little discernment that the real idea is to pressurise and destablise Bitcoin with fabricated internal struggles.


You, DooMAD, are throwing gasoline on that particular fire every chance you get. Why?

The only thing I interrupted was a growing dog pile of insult hurling and accusations.  I'm all for using forums as an open exchange of ideas, but that's clearly not was I was seeing being demonstrated here.  See this thing we're doing now?  This is slightly closer to resembling a discussion.  Again, you're more than welcome to have your little bandwagons, but that's gonna get called out too.  You call it rail-roading, I call it testing the resilience of your ideas.  If they're as strong as you claim, they'll hold up.  Just like Bitcoin.



Things aren't nearly as rigid as you portray, though.  There's still quite a bit of theory and optimism involved in all this.  The general assumption is that SegWit will be an improvement, but we don't know that with absolute certainty yet.  The situation will continue to be somewhat more fluid until we see SegWit in action and people are satisfied that it's a sufficient enough progression to quell the unease.  Personally, I'd like there to be a 'Plan B' available if it doesn't achieve that.  So let's try to keep an open mind and see how this plays out.

I've been around a long time.

The only alt worth a shit was namecoin, and the only reason that didn't take off is (so far) there hasn't been outright DNS censorship globally. I think if it ever came to it, Namecoin would be more useful -- although it isn't without its own problems.

Second runner-up is LTC, but only for "washing" or "tumbling" coins - as an alt itself its intrinsically a inferior clone with the scaling problems of a hyperactive confirmation time decrease.

The rest -- all dogfood, or dogshit, however you want to look at it -- and that includes Ethereum, XT, and the other soon-to-be-has-beens.

This post says it all -- http://woobull.com/data-visualisation-118-coins-plotted-over-time-this-is-why-hodl-alt-coin-indexes-dont-work/

As for those trying to characterize Ver as some champion of blockchain diversity, please don't embarrass yourselves any further. Its obvious Ver is only in this racket for himself and could give two shits about the Bitcoin userbase.

I'm not the one trying to shut down discussion of the various proposed Bitcoin forks, stating "let the free-market take it's course". How is that supposed to happen, if you keep turning up rail-roading discussions about these forks?


People discussing fork proposals is part of the free-market process, whether you like what they're saying or not. If people like Roger Ver continue to act deceptively, that's gonna get called out. If you don't like that, the free-market is not for you.

Of course the market often results in vast elimination of bad ideas. Bitcoin Core already has convinced >90% of the market that it's the best solution. People already looked at the altcoin schemes offered by Andresen, Hearn and Ver and decided them to be inferior and outright dangerous alternatives.

The squad of paid trolls, narcissists and the easily deceived may continue to support Ver's altcoin schemes. However they won't prevent progress. The market is following progress with Bitcoin Core and SegWit.

UnlimitedCoin and Roger Ver will be soon considered a strange cult in the crypto scene. You know, the kind of people that predict doomsday every ten and a half years...

ya.ya.yo!

It stands to reason that I don't need to remind people who are developing alternative clients or supporting alternative solutions how a free market works because they're actively engaged in the spirit of the free market and not trying to preserve the status quo at the expense of personal freedom.  Why would I tell them what they can already clearly understand?

I say it when I see people who still haven't grasped the concept.  It's hardly my fault that the most frequent offenders are the ones who believe Core developers have some sort of dictatorial right and that anything that isn't Core is inherently bad.  Stop giving me a reason to say it if you don't like being reminded of how this system works. 

The market isn't some process of elimination.  Just because one entity has a significant market share, it doesn't necessarily mean other entities are wiped out.  As long as there are people out there who aren't absolutely certain about Core's roadmap, or feel concerned about developer centralisation, or whatever else they're unhappy with, there will be continued support for other proposals.  I'm sorry if that's somehow unacceptable to you.  But I can assure you, berating other people about ideas you happen to disagree with won't prevent them from looking at other ideas.  Core need to win these people over by proving that their product is the best in the market.  That's down to them.

I agree with you, the market has spoken out against these "suggestions", 3 times in a row.


Why do you only ever appear to argue for free-markets when people are trying to brow-beat the community with ideas they've rejected twice already? Your behaviour only ever has the effect of multiplying the efforts of the trolls that spend all-day every-day trying to ram this nonsense down our throats.


Why do you only pop up, talking your free-market = entertaining-bad-ideas-in-perpetuity rhetoric, in the context of widely derided ideas? Doesn't your free market spiel apply to other topics on Bitcointalk.org too? Really, why not?

If you want a harmonious circle jerk in an echo chamber, feel free to find one somewhere else.  Forums are about the open exchange of ideas and Bitcoin is about freedom.  If ideas aren't challenged, they may prove to be weak.  So, if anything, you should be thanking Roger Ver for testing the resilience of the market. 

Again, the market will decide one way or another and you can either learn to live with that or find another project that's more accommodating to any delicate protectionist tendencies you might have.  Ripple's still an option for fans of developer totalitarianism.  I'm pleased to say we don't have that here.  If you've got anything aside from more accusations of ill intent, by all means let us know. 

*ahem*

There was no drama, until people began to offer suspect arguments in favour of bad ideas. Not once. Not twice, but three times now. If you think it's a supposition too far to assume people like Mike Hearn or Roger Ver are simply trying to be helpful, not divisive, then you're very naive about real life. It appears you're only a fan of freedom when someone tries to deceive others in the free market.  Maybe you should work on that.


And this thread was entirely harmonious in the condemnation of Roger's bad behaviour. Until you turned up. Funny how you're always turning up to offer antagonistic views, isn't it?

The most balanced view you can have is that pool operators can do whatever they please with their own pool, developers can do whatever they want with the code and users can run whatever code they like.  Freedom.  Complete and utter.  You're more than welcome to moan about it and throw around as many accusations about ill intent as you like if you disagree, but the fact remains anyone is free to do as they please.  If you decide to operate a pool, you can pay as much or as little as you like and there's nothing anyone can say or do to stop you.  Roger Ver is free to do what he likes, not what you or anyone else thinks he should do with your apparent psychic powers to judge true motive.  It appears you're still only a fan of freedom until someone has a different view.  Maybe you should work on that.



This view is entirely correct that no one is in control.  As such, there's no way to "wrest control" from those who never had it to begin with.  Contributing code doesn't give you ownership or control of the entirety of Bitcoin forever.  It gives you control of whatever repo your code happens to be in.  Core devs are in control of Core's repository.  BU devs are in control of BU's repository.  People need to stop conflating local governance (repositories) with network governance (consensus).

If the market continues to choose the current consensus, that's fine.  But if the market does opt for change, that's equally fine.  It seems people still have a problem with that part.  Let the market do its thing.  Don't stifle free and open competition.



Touch melodramatic there, don't you think?  Again, you can only speculate about intent and, more importantly, if the actions of a lone individual could destroy Bitcoin, then it could be argued that the whole project was never worth a rub to begin with.  Bitcoin will continue to roll on and those who can't handle the rollercoaster will continue to whine every twist and turn of the way.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride.  The only drama here is what you bring to it.

He can still rage quit his alleged Bitcoin investment and sell his Bitcoin like Hearn presumably did. Then will release some kind of media story through one of his propaganda channels, depicting Bitcoin as a "failed project", because his altcoin clone was not adopted. That day will be a happy day for Bitcoin and I'll open a beer when it happens.

Ver is a pure narcissist like Hearn. All he cares about is adoration of every flatulence that leaves his intestine and the amount of fiat money he can make by manipulating people. He doesn't care what damage he might cause to others. He deserves to loose all credibility and become a lonely man.

ya.ya.yo!

There's nothing wrong with people coming up with well intended ideas for Bitcoin. Are you saying that all ideas should be accepted, no matter how bad they are?

That would make Roger a hero in my book. I hope you understand that a fundamental tenet of Bitcoin is that it is not controlled by anyone. If you want it to be controlled by the current project leaders, then doesn't that make you anti-bitcoin?

You're ignoring the facts.

Whatever happened here, it doesn't change the fact that Roger has launched or backed 3 separate failed attempts to wrest control of Bitcoin away from the current project leaders.




And he's not doing that 3 times in a row because he believes his own rhetoric. If the market spoke out strongly against the XT fork, libertarian Ver should have listened. If the market spoke out strongly against the Classic fork, libertarian Ver should have listened. Or are you going to start taking Roger's line of "all the horrible-worrible bigger boys are bullying me, Daaaaaaaaaad!".


Careful DooMAD, your post looks alot like someone trying to "open a flank" within Bitcoin. Being divisive for the sake of it might not be a "narrow viewpoint", but it's hardly the balanced view to be so open-minded that you're willing to speak up in favour of Bitcoin's (current) most egregious bad actor, "because forking mechanism valid".

He is already on a side road of bitcoin world. He chose his own path and is convinced that paying people to follow him will change mentality of everyone.
I am not sure if he can rage quit when he is not backing main bitcoin developing course at all.

So basically the news story isn't news at all, as Roger Ver is already paying pool members slightly more, but isn't actually considering offering double.  That was just a purely hypothetical example to explain to a clearly brain-damaged David López how basic numeracy works.  In terms of how the thread progresses from here, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict people will happily gloss over the comments based on the misinformation in the article (because people on this forum don't tend to apologise when they're caught in the wrong, but I'd be thoroughly impressed if any of the above posters did) and will instead pile on some fresh insults instead, because that's how it historically goes.  Ignore the facts, just try to discredit anyone and everyone who doesn't share your narrow viewpoint.

(or the thread will go silent after I've called out the obvious BS of it all)

Roger, you're the most shameless liar in all of Bitcoin. One journalist misrepresenting your (likely bad) ideas doesn't really compare to trying to destroy the Bitcoin project with carefully strategised, divisive lies.

You haven't succeeded in dividing or destroying Bitcoin, your efforts have been pretty pathetic. And yet you're still here. Without shame. Prepare for worldwide ostracism, you're going to be one seriously lonely "man".

This article is completely wrong, and the guy who posted it is a complete liar for intentionally misrepresenting what I said by taking it out of context.
I was explaining that the Bitcoin.com pool pays more than other mining pools.  He said this was possible,  so I explained to him how it was possible.

Here is the chat log so you can see for yourself what was going on:  http://pastebin.com/HGGCuJWM

The guy who lied on twitter should be ashamed.

More information here: https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-example-of-how-a-core-supporter-intentionally-misrepresents-the-truth-to-support-his-position-t12277.html

His idea to solve a argument by throwing money at it, is very entertaining. We should all get in on the action and suck him dry... then switch back

when we had our fill.  .... He will soon realize the people supporting his "cause" will abandon him, once his money runs out. In the beginning I

really thought the guy was a genuine Bitcoin supporter, then I realized he was in on this to make a quick buck. 

The more Roger Ver starts with talking (e.g. spreading nonsense), the more I find myself to be an idiot for having valued him as high level Bitcoiner back then. Actually, it's not only Roger as high level Bitcoiner that goes backwards in a quick fashion. Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, etc, do also fit in that category of backwards going people.

But let's pretend he will really give out 12.5BTC out of his pocket, to miners per found block.

Daily found blocks on average 140-150, but let's say 140 for easy statistical purposes.

1 day - 140 block x 12.5BTC reward = 1750BTC in total rewards.
7 days - 980 blocks x 12.5BTC reward = 12,250BTC in total rewards.
30 days - 4200 blocks x 12.5BTC reward = 52.500BTC in total rewards.

It will cost him 52.500BTC per month in order to do just that. It's beyond insane. Till when does he plan to continue this nonsense? Till his wallets run out of coins? It's obvious that he is looking to get mining farms on his side by letting them mine his version of what he believes to be the real Bitcoin, for a much better reward. It's a creative idea, I must admit that, but this completely ignores the fundamentals of Bitcoin we value so much.

Ver is simply an idiot that can't understand why nobody wants "in" on his stupid schemes.

Upping the mining reward for his idiocy is only the icing on the cake. He's failed to gain any substantial representation among miners, so he's doubling-down in a frantic bid to save face.

The result however, won't be to his liking -- he's a failed "icon" with delusions of grandeur just like Mike Hearn.

Good Riddance.

Facing defeat for his sleazy plan to obstruct Bitcoin progress to push his idiotic altcoin investments, Ver is now desperately trying to bribe miners to support his centralization prone altcoin. Hopefully he will distribute a lot of his personal coins before his scheme collapses. It would be a great idea if miners would agree among themselves to always mine a certain number of blocks for unlimited to drain Ver's funds and at a certain point in time suddenly directing all their hashpower to support Core and let Ver fork off.

I'm looking forward that Ver exits Bitcoin Hearn-style... his rage quit was really entertaining.

ya.ya.yo!

Roger Ver Considers Offering Double Block Rewards To Bitcoin Miners

Quite a few interesting discussions are taking place in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Roger Ver, one of the few prominent early Bitcoin adopters, recently issued an interesting statement. He discussing upping the Bitcoin block reward from 12.5 BTC back to 25 BTC, by paying half out of his own pocket. An intriguing marketing idea for Bitcoin Classic, although it raises a fair few questions as well.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/11/06/roger-ver-considers-offering-double-block-rewards-bitcoin-miners/