Topic: Roger Ver has been compromised - page 4. (Read 7366 times)

You're so anti-core, anti-blockstream that either you're paid to do this or gmaxwell has personally hurt you in some manner?

You're posts suggest you have a tremendous amount of hate and contempt for Blockstream and anything related to them. Its very suspicious.

lol you just want to pigeon hole rathr then actually debunk blockstreams failings.. very empty rebuttle that is.
me but my opinions are based on:
decentralised diverse consensus network.
not
blockstream(core) dominant network

i actually would be happy with core working ALONGSIDE the other DOZEN different and diverse implementations if core didnt have the blockstream(DCG) agenda.

also. many fail to pigeon hole me into xt classic bu or other "brands". because i want:
decentralised diverse consensus network.

not any particular "brand"

so nice try. but when you defend blockstream but fail to rebut the context of the technical flaws of segwit and just shout "shill" as yoer defensive argument. it makes you look weak.

segwit dos not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

multisigs themselves solve malleability by requiring a second person sign off on a transaction

segwit is not a 2mb or 4mb capacity growth promise. it requires EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs and stick with those key pairs without any native key users.. to even get close to the 2mb 'gesture'

segwit has taken a year and a half of delays for a half gesture 2merkle TIER network.. yet could have been done in less time as a single merkle full network consensus upgrade that could have included other features like dynamics.. where their would not have been debates, drama and the community would have been united

I think it's unlikely that the account was compromised, or he would have already pronounced himself. But who knows...

I wonder how much shills get paid?

Meh, it doesn't matter I guess. The whole core/classic/BU/blockstream subject bores me so much I wouldn't be able to make any money anyway.

not flaws..
its just that blockstream have taken core far far far away from the original vision/ethos of bitcoin.

funny how you blame the inventors original vision as being the thing thats wrong. rather than whats mean moved away from that original vision

Everyone knows your a shill Franky. We may not know where your money is coming from but we know your making bank.
I mean at this rate you'll be over 2k posts in a few days.

look passed the word scripts of reddit
look passed the scripts of "call those anti-sgwit guys shills"
look passed the cabin fever of blind adoration of blockstream

then
take a critical mind and read the code of segwit
actually understand it. look at the way it used a backdoor (even they admit as much)
look at how the promises of fixes are not 100%
look at how it changes the network topology with upsteam filters (their buzzword not mine)
look at how the quadratic/ malle' and even new attack vectors are possible even with segwit 'active'
look at the flaws and limitations.

you can call me anything you like but..
 at least try to understand what you are trying to defend by really understanding it first

It's still Roger...

If any of his accounts have been compromised I doubt the hacker would have used his accounts in this purpose, but rather to scam actual spendable funds. Also Roger would have discovered about the hack very quickly afterwards.

The chances are slim, but it could be true.

But its true.

So says franky1 McShillinsteen 

Dude, you got to be the #1 anti-core/ anti-blockstream shill on this site. Your shill-tastic posts always make me LOL

Man, what a user phobia this guy has.

its about prunned/no witness(Stripped) nodes are more then likely to kill off more than half the network

how about you stop preaching the blockstream half baked features, take off the blockstream defender cap and wear the critical thinking logical cap about whats best for the bitcoin network

here is your own self debunking the myth that dynamics and big blockers will kill half the network

You are comparing traditional systems to Bitcoin, which is a fallacy. The failure of said systems, for any given period of time would be much less destructive than a similar failure in Bitcoin. The network needs to be prepared and robust for all outcomes. You could argue that even the upper bound of Segwit, i.e. 4 MB, could be considered too much. There is most certainly inadequate amount of research in to the effects of big blocks on the Bitcoin nodes (i.e. how many % would be lost at which block size). This is one of the reasons for which the "big blockers" throw out random block sizes as "acceptable", or even "compromises"; their opinions aren't backed by data.

This is not how systems and networks are planned. When an engineer is planning a system, he will make certain assumptions regarding what will likely happen in the future.

You statement has nothing to do with what I wrote. The reason for that is, exactly what I've mentioned earlier, lack of knowledge.

There is zero guarantee that this is going to continue, especially in the case of a global conflict which is very likely nowadays.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and I highly suggest (although you're going to ignore it or dismiss it) for you to stop spreading bullshit. Orphan rates have nothing to do with neither bandwidth nor storage. Orphan rates are about propagation time, i.e. propagation delay. Increased bandwidth and storage requirements are going to centralize non-mining nodes; they are not really relevant to centralization of mining because of orphan rates.

Propagation speed vs. bandwidth ELI5 (specially for you jonald): https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/16402/difference-between-propagation-speed-and-bandwidth-in-digital-communication

The 2 primary constraints are bandwidth and storage, both of which have been, and are continuing to become more abundant and cheaper.  The 'centralization effect' and the 'higher orphan rates' you speak of are consequences of a lack of those resources.   I just gave an example of how those resources are expanding.

But since you believe you are so much more knowledgeable, please tell us why I am wrong.



 

go play with a stripped and prunned node and tell me its still 100% full node!!

if you want to talk about killing off more then half the network. stop preaching about your crush with gmax and his colleagues and learn bitcoin

what will happen, whether he is a member of this forum?

Wrong. You only quote parts which suite your agenda, whilst ignoring other piece or statements by Satoshi which don't or which you do not understand. Relevant to the quote from OP, Satoshi had in mind that SPV fraud proofs were practically feasible. If they were, then you could argue that that many full nodes are not as required as they are today (or at least not for financial sovereignty). Small hint: SPV fraud proofs are not real thing yet.

If we ignore the centralization effect, the absurdly higher orphan rates and the risk of a DoS, this still isn't feasible. You're talking about killing off more than half the network. I'm still not sure why you're preaching about things that you don't understand yourself?

or satoshi was forward thinking of wanting to go left. but core went to the right. and now wants to pretend they own bitcoin and even want to re-write the white paper to make it look like SATOSHI's whitepaper was always talking about the 'segwit way'