Topic: Roger Ver has been compromised - page 6. (Read 7366 times)

You are right to an extent. My sole belief is to get Bitcoin scaled up and have wider acceptance according to Satoshi's whitepaper - Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Just wishing everyone else would think along those lines.

Don't talk shit.

I'm a troll, but not someone called anonymoustroll?
I don't understand this community, yet am able to find 1000 farmed accounts and 100,000 hacked accounts?

My post was on topic, and directly in response to OP, an anonymous troll called anonymoustroll.
I find it repulsive that an anonymous troll called anonymoustroll can gain any credibility himself, or give discredibility to others by starting such a thread.
I have an opinion, i gave an explanation.

Where the fuck did you pop up from with all your delusion?
Your off topic here. Start a thread about my trolling and lack of forum understanding or gtfo of my face.

No winners = start again.

Apparently there are other ways to fix malleability. Segwit can only have increase capacity if people use them. If users don't upgrade then the benefits will be small.

No i do not support the miners' behaviour at all. I am in discussing with another user on here to see if there is another way. I haven't done coding since the early 1990s and hate coding, but love the software design via flowcharts. However i do others things and new coding language is something i am not up to speed with. Previously i just left it to the Core and developers to propel Bitcoin forwards using Satoshi's whitepaper as a guide. It seems that nefarious entities are trying to wrestle Bitcoin for themselves. I am just rapidly trying to get up to speed and hopefully, with like-minded BTC users, propose another solution. The current proposals are no good.

If anyone is a troll its you.
Your whole depiction the Bitcoin Talk community blatantly false.

Your right, block your ears, close your eyes. Don't lessen to him.
Just trust anonymous trolls to think for you, you'll be fine.

If he believes it or not no one should be lessening to him.

Sorry, that is a fail. Anonymous trolling.

Roger Ver does post some shit - doesn't everyone?
At least he is a real person, putting his real opinion out there and his personal rep on the line.
He probably believes it. I can argue with or against his opinion. "Roger Ver" is not compromised.

Any account calling themselves "anonymoustroll" carries zero credibility with me.
I respect any real human's right to converse over anonymous trolls, x 1000's.

(oh look, this thread has turned into another blocksize/segwit debate, nothing to do with the thread title)

It's not about gangs or being good. The characters from Bitcoin history I mention above are not at fault. They did nothing wrong. The people in this community are the problem. What I meant with the above is how the Bitcoin community has always praised people for their involvement and put them on a pedestal believing every word out of their mouths. They never simply respect their involvement, thank them, question every step they take and wait for results. In 2011-12 I used to watch people wet themselves every time Gavin made a new thread. They drooled over him like a teenaged girl at a pop concert. Same thing with McCarthy, Shrem, Ver, and Karpeles. Am I the only one here that realizes no one does anything without motivated self interest? This forum isn't discussing a non-profit charity, it's discussing a financial instrument designed to make people money. Greed and avarice are all that matters here and still people are put on a pedestal and given the power to screw everyone.

Do think TradeFortress, Pirate@40 or DeathandTaxes would have been able to rip anyone off if everything they did was questioned and scrutinized from the beginning? You all give them the authority over your finances without questioning anything they do because somehow they end up as God-like creatures on this forum. So, you finally realize what Ver really was all along. Good for you.

Why would you want a 3 way split?

And why would you be willing to increase block size without fixing transaction malleability. The chines miners are reordering transactions and creating fake transactions (causing bloat and higher fees) or just pumping out empty blocks just to increase efficiency. Do you support this behavior?
Its detrimental to the whole network. Allowing them more space to create more fake transactions would just give them more of an unfair advantage leading to faster consolidation and centralization of the mining community. The bloat will lead to higher costs for full node operators again leading to consolidation and centralization of the relay network further weakening us to the possibility of Ddos attacks.

I have decided 95% to support none of the current proposals. All have - and +. Prefer all proposals to fail. I simply believe that increasing the maxblocksize to 2mb is the best way from now till 2018. Thus new research is required. New debate.

I am using USAF for now, hoping that it will eat into BU and Core shares, thus creating a 3 way splits.

Do you support segwit?

LN can function WITHOUT segwit.

blockstreams LN wants segwit because THEIR LN is pre-programmed to work with segwit.

but multi-sig is not broke and has no issues with malleability or quadratics.
its just that blockstream want their LN compatible with their segwit.

lightning is not quadratic risk because its only a 2in-2 out.. thus no quadratic delay risks (its not thousands of inputs in simple terms)
lightning is not malleable risk because it requires other party to sign off/refuse.. thus other party see's and know what has been signed to counter malleability risk

The question is who controlling whom?

What is obvious is the banks, etc, do not like Bitcoin as it would hit their potential revenues. Behind the scene, no doubt they are trying to find ways to control it.
Could it be the maxblock at 1mb/segwit - any attempt to increase capacity?
Could it be LN where they hope the fees go to them and not the miners?
Could it be start a Bitcoin civil war, thus no progress to increase capacity or scaling, creating a stalemate?
The longer this goes on the more suspicious i am.

I am confidant that if you were to cut Roger Ver open you would find he's made entirely of straw and bull shit.

Going with your logic, ETH should have bitcoin's value because it has more nodes. Now go back to your room, and don't speak unless you know what you're talking. To make sure of it, i'll add a collar and a gag ball.

https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
https://bitnodes.21.co/

The only way to get reliable instant transactions is not 0 conf onchain transactions but lightning network transactions.

Roger ver is blocking exactly that since we need segwit for LN to work at full steam.

Can you explain what you meant? Trying to work out what the Hippocratic oath got to do with this.

Wrong. Unconfirmed means unconfirmed why can't you understand this? plz click the link in my sig.

the only way you're going to be able to use bitcoin in real-life commerce is if you make unconfirmed transactions safe enough.   

sure it's never as safe as conformed transactions, but they should be at least safe enough that you can use them to buy things at the store.

otherwise bitcoin won't be worth anything.

wow is right. This should be irrefutable proof that Roger is working for the dark side.