Topic: Roger Ver and blocksize - page 3. (Read 8116 times)

Development of Bitcoin consist of both, code and services, and both are equally important. So I thank to both for the effort to make Bitcoin better and more usefull.

Klassique isn't about transactions per second, Klassique is about sending a message.

That message ("we have ways of making Honey Badger give a shit") will be best propounded on the upcoming bamboozled.bitcoin.com site, which will serve as Craig Wright's personal vanity platform.  

Not necessarily trolling but he's has called Ver out on other occasions as well. Here's one I remember:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14708418

Great example of iCEBREAKER's Razor: "Sufficiently advanced thought leadership is indistinguishable from trolling."

What other sleazy subdomains can we suggest Bitcoin Judas use in his futile efforts to exploit the regrettably overpriced premium bitcoin dot com domain?

Porn.bitcoin.com and xxx.bitcoin.com would complement the casino for a seamless Las Vegas blackjack + hookers vibe.

TaxProtester.bitcoin.com, to cover political issues close to Roger's heart attorney and criminal record.

IhateGregMaxwell.bitcoin.com and FreeTx4EVA.bitcoin.com,  for all the latest anti-BlockSchemeNorthCorea agitprop.

WhinyRagequit.bitcoin.com, featuring all the latest maudlin Goodbye Cruel Bitcoin World self harm.

Dash.bitcoin.com, so the most pro-Klassique altcoin cult has a designated place to use Gavinista FUD for pumping their bad crypto/snake oil marketing instamined shitcoin.

A16Z.bitcoin.com and R3.bitcoin.com, for all the latest anti-cypherpunk, pro-authoritarian banksters with a Satoshi-wannabee predilection.

This is fun; I can't wait to hear what subs Gmax suggests!   

I can't agree at all.

Payment channels are _nothing_ like old centralized financial models.  Who is the trusted third party? No one.  

When you go on and on about "on chain" you're confusing a technical mechanism for a social or business business goal.  Everyone being able to transact with everyone else at low cost and without the risk of censorship or exposure to extraneous counterparty risk is a laudable goal.  "On chain"-- meaning transacting in a lock-step synchronous world wide flooding network-- is a technical mechanism. On that, to the best of our current understanding _cannot_ deliver that business/social goal.  Fortunately, we do know ways to deliver it.

It's like walking up to some aircraft engineers and demanding that the next design be exactly the same but have a wingspan twice as long, when really your goal was to double the number of pounds of cargo it could carry.  Maybe the change lets it carry more cargo, or maybe it just makes the plane unstable.  Regardless, a particular _mechanism_ was confused with the business goal, and as a result an end-run around the science and engineering that could, potentially, have actually met the goal if given a chance and allowed to make the required tradeoffs.

Of course, there is always someone out there that will tell you that you can solve any complex problem with this one weird trick.  But there is a word for them: Scammers and their patsies.  And right now, there is a whole clique of the Bitcoin old timers who were bamboozled by Craig Wright and his 419 scam which predominantly featured a ton of magical scalablity claims... it's going to take a while for their wide and greedy eyes to blink and realize they've been tricked, and that maybe these magical scaling claims were just as fraudulent as everything else.

This is actually a good point.

So GMAX is trolling Roger Ver. How come he didn't put #rekt in the thread title?


Of course, when he's right he's right.

LN uses nodes in the same way that the p2p Bitcoin network uses nodes. None of them are special. Anyone can run a node. Each node connects to multiple other nodes. None of them are centralised.


The hubs are the nodes and the spokes are the connections between the nodes.


Instead of wondering about it you could research it. If any node goes offline before its channels are closed, the channel will be closed when the timelocked transaction becomes valid, after a suitable delay.

Did you recently buy this account from the original Franky? I seem to remember talking with Franky a few years ago and he seemed smarter then. It could just be that he was agreeing with me then. That can make me think people are smart when in fact they're just repeating something they've read.

in another topic lauda pretended LN doesnt use hubs..
now he is saying there are no central intermediataries..

here i have done a screenshot a video from a video on a website lauda himself linked as his fountain off knowledge


hubs and intermediaries...

im guessing he will rebut talking about the spokes.. (users sending transactions) but will pretend the hub(intermediary) doesnt exist. and yet its this intermediary that actually works as a "mempool" and does the closing of the channel and settling the final large transaction..
i wonder what would happen if someone DDoSed the hub(intermediary) before it had a chance to settle... by by transactions

People like Roger Ver are toxic to Bitcoin and its community. When he says he has been supporting & promoting Bitcoin, you must understand he means he has been supporting and promoting his Bitcoin related businesses. Roger Ver's loud complaints on the blocksize limit have been hurting Bitcoin much more than the blocksize limit none-existing issue. He is making a mountain out of a molehill, and the reason for this behavior remains an open question (trying to pump ETH?). At this point, the best the community can do is ignore him and his businesses & cesspool forums.

Comparing Windows to Bitcoin is a false analogy. Cherry picking analogies won't help you build up any kind of argument.

No. Payment channels are not centralized. Here you go again, trying to spread FUD in regards to something which you do not understand. Seems like you're part of the Dunning–Kruger effect as described by the troll above me.

Nah, this isn't a techie or or a liber board. This is a board where technically & plain old illiterate third-world signature spammers come to scratch out a living.
And where sad Dunning–Kruger victims like you get to feel clever, because kno how3spel
P.S. Just look at the topics in this sub
http://s33.postimg.org/9yrpljdyn/Capture.jpg

"Halving is a profitable" "Does sending Bitcoins feel good?"

Your trolling is priceless!   

So creative of you to come to a libertarian techie board and start spewing anti-libertarian/anti-Objectivist defamation and canards.

LMK when you address the CFTC (I won't hold my breath).

Say hi to Prof. Trolfi for me.  I haven't seen him around lately, perhaps he's too busy furiously exchanging his collapsing Brazilian ShitFiat for the Buttcoins he claims to despise...

Chin up, didn't mean to shit on your fandom! I'm sure you're a unique, special snowflake & nothing at all like 99% of the Randian losers.
*And Ayn totally doesn't look like a transbro, that's just mean. Judging people by their looks is wrong.

I see you've wisely chosen to stop petulantly and ignorantly disputing my demonstrably correct use of the word canard.

Next time, don't question my mastery of word usage, or I shall have to teach you additional lessons in vocabulary.


Here is an Ayn Rand fan...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcF4A0dox1o

...discussing Bitcoin and blockchain derivatives before the CFTC.   

>Ayn Rand was abused as a child
So don't ask stupid [and irrelevant] questions like "And you also believe Ayn Rand has something to do with child abuse?"

>"bullshit popular among plebes like you"
Listen up, Dunning–Kruger victim:
The reason I don't bring up that Ayn Rand fans are NEET failures & brokeass degenerates, still living in Mom's basements because "gubermint j00z gave muh jerb to niggers!!" is because, while such delusional thinking is dominant in the Rand fandom, *it has nothing to do with the topic at hand." It's a non-sequitur.
If someone asked you "who'll build teh roads," your bringing it up would be justified. Since no one did, it's not. That's why I advised you to "read before trotting out your hobby horse."
Are you, at least, beginning to understand?

It is this mindset created current mess. There are various of ways to solve a technical problem, if you could not find the way that align with your long term social economy goal, it just means that you are not smart enough and not qualified. By changing the long term goal to suit a narrow technical limitation is like driving a car into the river because your steering wheel is locked: You have to sit in the car because it is high-tech

Just look at how Windows took over nearly most of the desktop market, they had far less stable and secure technology comparing with unix system at that time, especially the network part, but they get the right market direction before any other tech gurus realized it, they patch each bug, patch after patch, but their direction never changed: End user friendly

Similarly here, by putting all the transactions on-chain, you have to strive to find the best possible on-chain scaling technology, like thin blocks doing right now. But if you start to become lazy and try to use the old centralized financial models like payment channels because they can provide millions of transactions per second, then you just drag bitcoin into the old banking model, which will dramatically reduce its usage and increase its risk, especially when there are many other alt-coins provide on-chain scaling

Ayn Rand was abused as a child, by Bolshevik state terror in the Soviet Union.  That's why she came to the USA.  Duh.

Although popular among plebs such as yourself, the belief that only the State can build roads is false, and thus may be referred to as a canard.

EG:

https://plus.google.com/104129125369341849767/posts/9egh1Jgrmt9



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-11/ben-carson-endorses-donald-press-conference-live-feed#comment-7301546


LOL what a dumbarse, indeed.   

Hey Ver, tell your boi at mtgox to add your shitcoin

"BUT ZOMG WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?" is neither a story nor is it false.
I see your problem is much more profound than simple lack of learningz

See the boldface text above, which you have artfully redacted.
But sure, Rand's problems may be linked to child abuse, though that's irrelevant