Topic: Roger Ver has been compromised - page 7. (Read 7402 times)

This is the first time that I have read this statement from Roger, and it seems absurd that there are nodes that are "true" and nodes that aren't. So meaning to say, mining nodes are the nodes that should remain in the network whereas nodes that are there to help relay info are just plain pieces of trash? Wow.

You mean you've seen that code comment in the bitcoin source code written by Satoshi and you think it is stupid? Why would quoting code from source make me an idiot?

Shill harder - it makes you look more like the paid shill you are.

Yes, the centralization attempt by BTU, which you support yet claim you're pro-decentralization. You're full of lies.

I've seen this today before I've seen your post, and I'll repeat myself. You're either an idiot or you're on a payroll. Please remind me where the practical fraud proofs that Satoshi mentioned are today?  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2947

LMAO. You might want to rethink who's an idiot, Lauda. You just quoted me quoting the code directly from Satoshi (I guess you didn't check the link). Satoshi himself refers to nodes as miners. Not me or Roger.

You're too busy flinging poop for Core though to realize what code comments look like.

centralisation attempt by BTU?
your just mad that many implementations are not kissing blockstream ass, by not following blockstreams lead. so you deem them as not bitcoin. which is so lame. you actually think that blockstream is bitcoin and bitcoin is only blockstream

wake up. to all the REKT campaigns
BU is just one implementation amungst many.

its blockstream that want sole control.
even you have the mindset of thinking only blockstream should be the sole controller, and you know that you think only blockstream should have that control

if you want something from greg about how he wants to split the network and get sole control

the non blockstreamers want a single network of diverse implementations all working on the same single network using real consensus
only blockstream are the ones that have made slit threats
only blockstream are the ones that have made deadlines
only blockstream are the ones that have made pool orphaning threats (samson mow (UASF hat wearer) works for blockstream

I have asked you for the negative articles by Gmaxwell (which do not exist). Obviously you'd create a strawman like this, because you are full of bullshit.

I have nothing to do with Blockstream, my views are consistent and differ from plenty of the people that you claim I defend (which makes no sense). You have plenty to do with the centralization attempt by BTU. We all know you're a paid shill. Your attempts are futile.

Whilst a lot of people were actually attacking his statement on r/btc, jonald was defending Ver and got downvoted in the circle-jerk sub.

Agreed. This is an outrageously and willfully false statement. It is a Lie and anyone who can't see that is a fool.
Roger Ver and the people he works with are a threat to Bitcoin. But this shouldn't even be news to people, why on earth would anyone even listen to this man?

Also daily reminder /warning that the user franky1 is one of the most active shills on this forum he spouts nonsense everyday 24/7.

lol
more empty "thats speculation"
when its your comments that are propaganda

you are soo deep defending blockstream that you cannot see bitcoin as a diverse network of many varieties of software actually running on the network for years without making demands or threats.

you only see blockstream being bitcoin and even when blockstream threaten other non blockstream implementations you defend blockstream
wake up

That is bullshit speculation and you know it. The only reason that I've put Hearn on this list is because he published (obviously a paid for) article that Bitcoin has failed just as he started working solely for the bank. Do tell me where Gmaxwell has created and published such articles? The only hypocrite here is you and the remaining centralization coin, aka. BTU propaganda group.

You can only waste time speculating about this. I highly doubt that you're going to get any reasonable evidence/leads on the entity controlling him.

you forgot to mention gmax sold himself to the banks too... i wonder why you left him off the list.

research: blockstream-> hyperledger

i now await the usual "dont troll me", "your wrong but cant explain why your wrong, but your wrong" empty replies.

sometimes i laugh at the hypocritical comments you make

Have we asked ourselves who the hell is controlling him.
It is like he is just the face of change but not the real one who is behind it. Maybe he posted something that is with his own accord without even trying to take an advice from his mentors. 
This is just another FUD to make us sell or just his followers. 

You're an idiot. Possibly an even bigger idiot that Ver is. Bitcoin is nothing without the possibility of financial sovereignty. If you want an ecosystem with an ever shrinking number of user nodes, then you should look towards centralized shitcoins like ETH.

He created an useless post without actually refuting anything. Looks like classic signature spam to me, which will indeed land him on ignore lists.

Some of those people are either actively harming Bitcoin (see Ver), sold themselves to the CIA (see Gavin), sold themselves to the banks (see Hearn), etc. Their latest 'evil' pretty much terminated most of their 'good' (if they ever had any).

BTC is full of "gangs". it depends of their interests what people are "good" or not 

You have a paid signature now? You know that will just put you on the ignore list of every small minded fool that doesn't have common sense enough to simply scroll to the next post. There are idiots on this forum that have 4000-5000 people on ignore and now you're one of them. I disagree with much that you say but I don't want you just ignored. That removes the one post out of ten that you might say something helpful that the "ignore fools" might benefit from. I don't like paid sigs but I don't ignore for them.

The actual number of miners is actually a little bit higher than that because some miners find blocks infrequently enough so that they do not show up on that chart.

I do however agree that the extent that pooled mining has become prevalent makes it necessary for more than just mining nodes to exist. I suspect that satoshi did not foresee the efficiency gains that the stratum protocol provides. I do think that there are net benefits to both the stratum protocol and pooled mining, primarily because both have resulted in the orphan rate to decline to near zero, which results in a smaller number of confirmations being safe to accept.

I would point out that a random user running a full node will do exactly nothing to "secure" the network (it may actually make it less secure), as if this random user's consensus settings differ from the rest of the network (primarily those who are economically significant), then the random user's node will simply reject blocks/transactions that the rest of the network accepts, and this random user's node will simply be isolated.

On the other hand, if an economically significant entity, BitPay for example, were to institute certain rules, then anyone who transacts with (or via) BitPay will need to follow these rules, or else the merchant will act as if payment was not received. If BitPay were to reject transactions/blocks that most of the rest of the economy accepts, then it would very quickly lose it's customers -- similarly, if it were to reject transactions/blocks that the miners accept, then it would become isolated and would never get any confirmations for transactions that it accepts that are sent to it, so assuming the miners are all on the same page regarding consensus rules, it will effectively be forced to accept the rules that the miners provide.

If a customer of Bitstamp were to wire USD to Bitstamp, purchase BTC, and subsequently withdraw the purchased BTC, then running a full node will provide them with no benefit because if the coins that Bitstamp sends utilize different consensus rules then what you wish, then you will not have any recourse against Bitstamp beyond not using them in the future -- they can simply tell you what consensus rules they use in advance, and you can make the decision as to if you want to buy BTC from Bitstamp.

You know, that your sudden paid sig will significantly lower the seriousness of your postings?

This forum is so entertaining.

Roger Ver - Bitcoin Jesus Angel Investor -> Roger Ver - hated dumbass

Gavin Andresen - Lead Dev Super Special Bitcoin Foundation Paid Coder God -> Gavin Andresen - hated dumbass

Mike Hearn - Google Engineer to Bitcoinj's Dev Daddy and Bitcoin Super Core Coder -> Mike Hearn - hated dumbass

Charlie Shrem - Bitcoin Entrepreneur and Super Promoter -> Charlie Shrem - Inmate

James McCarthy - GLBSE Operator, first international trip using only Bitcoin, forum moderator -> James McCarthy -> Illegal Exchange Operator, Thief, hated dumbass

Erik Voorhees - Super Bitcoin Promoter, Super Dice Blockchain Spammer, IPO God, BirdFeeder and Exchange Operator -> Illegal IPO Operator, Scammer, Thief

Peter Vessenes - Bitcoin Foundation Savior, Entrepreneur, MtGox Savior -> Peter Vessenes - Scammer, Thief, Liar, hated dumbass

Mark (MagicalTux) Karpeles - Main Exchange Operator, Revered Bitcoin God, Founding member of The Bitcoin Foundation -> Mark (MyButtholeHurts) Karpeles - Largest Thief in Bithistory, Scammer, Inmate, despised dumbass

And On and on and on and on and on

If you really cannot understand what he is talking about ,then why bother commenting ,Roger Ver is spitting out bullshit most of the time but that does not mean he is doing that everytime ,with ASIC you do not need to have multiple computer running the nodes as you can bridge them altogether and make a big hash with just one single node

Sounds like Roger knows what he's talking about and the rest of us are all wrong:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c0ddd32bf629bb48426b0651def497ca1a78e6b1/src/primitives/block.h

What does 10,000 Thz have to do with anything, go use PayPal and walk away from Bitcoin.