Topic: Roger Ver and blocksize - page 5. (Read 8110 times)

the only thing i know is that Ver and guys like him get rich some million dollars more with this recent bitcoin pump

its not a concensus if there is only one dictator..

there needs to be multiple implementations and then find the "general agreement" between them.. rather then one decision or nothing

i think its time you go and buy a few books and learn some basics

Consensus based transaction network requires a breakdown in consensus between nodes, "because freedom"? Great idea, Franky

lol

my solution is for there to be MANY dev teams.. EG the miners have their own codebase that follows the main rules but has their own preferential settings and interfaces, bitpay, and other merchants having their own codebases..

its you blockstreamers that want core to be the only codebase available.

you are right that bigblockers want a centralized network.. afterall true bigblockers are the core/blockstreamers if you actually look at the size of the data they want in their roadmap.. and their centralized networks are LN and sidechains.. all coded by blockstream.

and finally you admit that core followers know and accept that their code base is centralized.. but are still blind to not see the practical ways to decentralize development while maintaining the quality/functionality of bitcoin..

i know you emphasised "software" but that just you trying to meander bitcoin to being the same as "blockstreams Intellectual Property software".

bitcoin should not belong as just one codebase/software.  bitcoin should have several dev teams making their own software that all talks to the same network.

in short,bitcoin should not just be a piece of software, bitcoin should not be owned by blockstream.. blockstream(core) should have no power to allow or disallow change.

but your comments are obvious that yo want blockstream central domination.. shame on you
i know you want to say that other dev teams are the corporate shills.. but you should give that game up, blockstreams partners have been revealed.. its to late to pretend they dont exist

development is already decentralised. It works like every open source project out there.

And Franky's "solutions" frequently call for... a centralised dev team that codes Bitcoin into the way he likes (which centralises the network, not the dev team).


It's simple really:

BigBlockers want a centralised network, and decentralised "anyone can commmit" code repos

Core supporters want a decentralised network, and accept that ALL DEVELOPMENT IS CENTRALISED, there is no practical way to decentralise development for a given piece of software without sacrificing the quality/functionality of the software.



So Franky, your ideas are literally moronic and counter to the functioning of the Bitcoin network. He knows it, and is pretending not to. Franky1 is a disingenuous troll.

if CORE implemented the hard fork because other codebases want it(only core is determined to say no).. there would be no controversy and also it wont be moving away from core..
instead it would just ensure that core doesnt become the centralized codebase it has become.. because other dev-groups will have their own versions.

so far core is saying no.. thus core is causing the controversy. by force.. basically its cores way or no way

also core has a road map.. how can something be decentralized if its already planned in the next 2 years that are not open to change... something open and decentralized should be open to changing directions.. not a one way street

im guessing you will say that core has over 100 coders... as the distraction to try to hide the centralization.
sorry but Apple have thousands of coders.. but it doesnt mean that apple is not centralized company

real translation:

bitcoin is the first and only crypto that has face this problem because is and the most popular. To find a proper solution for a tech problem you need someone who really understand how the tech works and not a manager or a marketing guy.

Because Roger Ver is among those a few people that really understand bitcoin's potential. Programmers seldom look away from their technical worries, they care about how the car works, but are not able to see where the car is going

The blocksize debate is not a technical issue, it exposed several long existing problem of bitcoin: Mining centralization, development centralization and lack of consensus based decision making mechanism regarding protocol change. And what core programmer is doing is to make these problems worse, their solutions create more and more centralization incentive, especially in R&D. If bitcoin is centralized in the hands of a few guys, government and law enforcement will take down them in a couple of hours, then the whole system will just collapse like e-gold or liberty reserve

better to sell them and buy ethereum so we can buy some cheap bitcoin 

is this true? that would make him among the top 5 bitcoin holders. insane amount of money he got there

why we have to care what Roger ver says? No one take him serious anymore.

Do you still take that self-proclaimed shit seriously? Roger Ver cannot turn around now, and say he supports Core, because he created a whole alternative forum for people who are against it. He now profits from this venture with the  hosting of a Casino from the same site.

His whole angle seems to be for profitability and what he can get out of the deal. I would think twice before I follow him into oblivion, like the disciples on his site. ^smile^

You, and people like you, do not clarify they positions and tend attract attention via the media. That is not a good "principle" for a Bitcoin user.

So you love Core but want to fork away from it? That position doesn't contradict itself at all.

I can't talk about reddit, as I only read it sometimes (I don't use it). However, you were breaking the rules here constantly (advertising spam with AMA's) and yet: 1) You were not censored; 2) You were not banned. You deserved a permanent ban back then.

People who want controversial HFs and as much adoption as possible for the price to rise are the ones that have strayed away from these principles.

@Roger/Memory Dealers: can you confirm or deny that your very good friends at LRN.fm were thrown out of the Free State project for advocating sex with children? Can you confirm or deny your continuing friendship with those individuals at LRN.fm that advocate sex with children?

Yup, Roger supports the side that wanted 8 Bitcoin nodes in the entire world, run on Google servers. Roger is a corporate fascist wearing libertarian clothing, sorry to burst anyone's bubble. He's also good friends with another dubious "freedom" outfit: the Liberty Radio Network (who have a history of making bizarre mistakes during "liberty" activism, e.g. recently they were excommunicated from a local "liberty" organisation for advocating sex with children)

Great metaphor for the bigblocks debate....

Roger Ver: "I want freedom so much, I'll throw my weight behind people who advocate pedophillia, because Freedom! It's a child's right to choose to have sexual intercourse with adults!"

There you go again.

That's exactly the kind of "poutraged pique and self-pitying sulking" I was talking about.   

I hope you can move onto the Acceptance phase of the Klassique grieving process very soon.

This is a thread that you can easily decide who is statist and who is against it. We all know Roger's side.

I remember "Frodo and Gollum", but it's been a really long time since thinking about them.
Star Wars references might be more meaningful to the average Bitcoin nerd.