Topic: Roger Ver has been compromised - page 2. (Read 7402 times)

To be fair, we should also note that an intentional quadratic attack would then come from a miner
that is including only the transactions he wants in the block (the big ones for his attack).  
He doesn't need to include even a single segwit transaction, and shouldn't if he wants the attack to work.

It's exactly the one post that Maxwell quoted. The post is complete bullshit, and I have told this franky1 at least once a few weeks ago in another thread. Obviously he ignored it.

This is yet another useless straw man. That has no relevance to the things that I've stated, as I have never mentioned nor denied bandwidth growth. FYI, since you're uneducated, "Nielsen's law" isn't a law, it's an observation.

herp derp. how about some real data

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

Well he is quite popular of being such.  Though I can say he is more experienced than me in terms of Bitcoin but that does not mean Roger Ver is right.  There are more people who are more knowledgeable than him so there are lots of rebuttal on anything he said about Bitcoin.

Please link a few of those media comments. (well done Franky1)

Just curious,
what about "A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst best case block with no segwit"

----

p.s.
Franky1 post's on many threads, why respond (probably off topic) on such a clear anonymous troll against Ver thread?
Tell us about it in a proper thread, or maybe post in Franky1's new "reputation" thread with the "dishonest bullshitter" comments!

This is unadulterated jibberish technobabble.

A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst case block with no segwit.

The consensus rule for non-segwit signature operations is 20k before segwit and not changed (it can't be increased by segwit as that would be a hardfork), and segwit transactions are much faster to hash (on average and especially in the worst case where they are thousands of times faster).

I am only responding to this habitually dishonest bullshitter because his comments have been quoted in the media.

Your response in a nutshell:

---

At least make up some fake data or something in an attempt to refute both the statements and data provided. Don't make shilling so obvious.

Anecdotal evidence in this case is as useful as you are. Remember what your overlord Ver has told you, your node is nothing but useless waste creating additional propagation delay. You shouldn't run it according to him.

So true. On my home network, I can upload 1MB blocks to 10 peers in under 10 seconds. With 10 minute blocks, that's about 1% utilization for a consumer internet connection.

Sorry but i think all are malicious actors to a certain point. Hence why i decided to support none of the current proposals.

You can't accuse someone of being a shill without evidence.

If you look at the all the posts, one can separate useless posts and posts that actually provide useful information. The thing is to do your own research, time consuming it is, and then decide if the the person is talking codswallop or not, FUD or not, shilling or not, etc.

I'm aware of that.  SPV mining is irrelevant to the issue.     The entire network can't get by on SPV mining.  Even SPV miners will be downloading the entire block (even if they first download the blockheader) and they cannot relay the block until they do so, so bandwidth is still a key metric for big blocks. 

You should have stuck to your argument that 'we don't know if bandwidth improvements will continue'..that was the only thing you said that wasn't a spin or a bunch of noise.

Here's the only point that matters:

Both download and upload speeds are improving tremendously, and 1MB is ridiculously small.

And if you read, Satoshi too.  Satoshi simply wanted bitcoin to be a kind of Paypal if you read him.  The period of libertarians was just a means to get useful idiots at work, for free and enthusiastic propaganda.
And then, Satoshi screwed up, or changed his mind, by putting in a "spam limit" of 1 MB (making spam extremely efficient LOL), frozen in for ever, maybe after that he considered that his mega farm would end up needing fees.

At least, Roger Ver and Satoshi understand that non-mining nodes have absolutely nothing to say.  They can at best download the block chain to verify for themselves and accept whatever chain the miner farms serve them, or stop working.

Nobody mentioned upload nor download speed. Since you insist on rebuttal, I have included it in this post. It was really trivial, and quite cute that you think you had a real *winning* argument.

Nobody is switching anything; these are growing signs of you delusional.

You have no real argument, and this is probably because you have a major in something useless (e.g. arts or history). They were all designed to reduce propagation times, which was (or depending who you ask, still is) an issue today (regardless whether you're talking about 1, 8 or 32 MB). Both of those originated from the Bitcoin Relay Network:

http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/

Bandwidth is obviously not negligible. However, the exact amount of constraint that is creates is inconsistent. You are forgetting certain things that factor into this:
1) Compact blocks, i.e. reconstruction of blocks from block sketches.
2) SPV mining (which is unfortunately still a thing)[1].

Now the worst case for bandwidth constraint (concerning orphan rates) is transacting a maximum sized block, containing transactions that no other mining pool/node has (or nobody is running a client supporting compact blocks). What is the likelihood of even a 1 MB block, from which no other party has any included transactions?  Here's a somewhat old, down-voted by trolls and shills, video based on data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

Note: This is data prior to the (public) existence of compact blocks, FIBRE, et. al. I couldn't find any recent data on this.

---

[1] - These two words completely destroy your previous statement:
They don't need to validate it before building upon it nor before relaying it. Learn what SPV mining is. Or as franky1 puts it, LEARN BITCOIN.

We corrected satoshi's mistake by thinking centralizing nodes into farms was a good idea. As we are seeing, a single man (Jihan) can control price by control signaling of segwit. If they also had control of nodes, it would be the end of the everything. You might as well use paypal at that point (which is what Roger Ver wants btw)

http://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/

Well, Satoshi said the same in 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

I love how after you were unable to refute my point about the entire block needing to validated, you then tried to switch arguments and started talking about upload vs download speed.

Switchng arguments instead of conceding you were wrong is a clasic symptom of an arrogant know-it-all (or a troll).

In the event you are not intentionally trolling, then you still do not understand the issue.

From bitcoinfibre.org:


and:



Don't try to change arguments again.  You were against big blocks (32MB).  The latency issues are for "small amounts" of data (1mb).   Big blocks = medium-large amounts of data.


 

he sold BTC for alts that is why he is crying tooo much - this is so simple.

What are the motivations of this individual? How is it possible that someone with hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins brings so much drama.
Some evidence that he really has it? He looks like an altcoin guy.

I read all the comments about roger ver!  And I couldn't agree more! He speak nothing but crap!

Congratulations, you're the 3rd or maybe 4th shill alt to call me stupid today, just brilliant.

Pat yourself on the back and keep up the good work!