Topic: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) - page 3. (Read 2514 times)

Gavin, the aspiring-to-be benevolent dictator of bitcoin along with Mike Hernia:


http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/

Gavin, the idiot that got fooled by Craig "please I want to be satoshi pay attention to me" Wright.

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-regrets-role-satoshi-nakamoto-saga/

And Gavin, the guy that wanted to centralize the network with his ridiculous huge blocksize increases, comparing blocksizes to webpage sizes:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/636569665284775937

I could go on. But sorry, Gavin hasn't done anything remarkable in years, literally nothing worth talking about other than shitposting on reddit and tweeting trash.

Meanwhile Core devs have been working hard to keep making the software better, more robust, and innovating it.

BUllshit Team isn't able to keep up with Core's updates:



And Roger Ver... what can we say about this guy at this point? Just an idiot that won the bitcoin lottery by being at the right moment holding the right asset. Bought a lambo and goes around giving lectures and thinks he knows shit about bitcoin, pathetic. He's a child arguing with people that are playing on another level. He not only can't code anything, but he doesn't understand game theory. He doesn't see beyond "fast transactions, cheap fees = we get rich now!!!".

Nick Szabo, Andreas and everyone:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/
http://bitcoinist.com/hashcash-antonopoulos-segwit-best/

Anyone supporting BU or being against segwit in 2017 is a disgrace for bitcoin.

But of course, franky1 the resident shitposter knows better, segwit is broken, BU is a way better idea, lets go BU so we can all get rich from people buying starbucks with onchain bitcoin transactions, yellow lamborghini incoming, thanks BU devs now we all can be Roger Ver.

1. stop using the failed doomsday of VISA by midnight.. we are not going to reach 1billion users by midnight. so stop thinking bitcoin need to suddenly turn into visa overnight.(instead think natural long term growth)

2. compared to 2009-2012 bitcoin has already made many efficiency efforts so if bitcoin could run fine on a raspberry Pi in say 2012.. guess what. it can run MORE THAN FINE now.

3. infact technology has moved on since 2012 and raspberry Pi3 is available. for instance if libsecp256k1 made efficiency saving of 5x.. and a raspberry Pi3 is 4x(single thread) - 10x(four thread) more efficient compared to the original Pi. that makes raspberry3 in 2017, 20-50x efficiency gain compared to code of bitcoin/tech of Pi of say 2012

4. here is the important part. putting a halt on any natural onchain growth using speculation of 30 years and turning it into a fear of tomorrow. is foolish.

5.how about people take their head off the pillow and allow REAL natural onchain growth(not fake gestures of pretend growth segwit cant honour). and have side services for the offchain stuff.. and over the years as bitcoin and computer tech evolve they naturally ofset each other where over time people need to use LN less and less because the blockchain grows NATURALLY over years.

6. again for emphasis stop using the failed doomsday of visa by midnight. and think rationally about real natural growth. halting natural growth with fears that it cant grow is not solving the problem. its just creating your self fulfilling prophecy by not allowing it to grow

7. segwit is broke. opens more attack vectors and only disarms innocent people who use segwit keys but doesnt disarm the network/block. people using native nodes/keys still can do things onchain. meaning segwit doesnt fix anything

We do not need segwit what we need is bigger blocks. Segwit will not be adopted and will never reach the 95% of consensus from the overall population of miners. We need to increase the blocksize to maintain the status of bitcoin as decentralized. If we adopt segwit and they will move for Lightning Network to make a move in bitcoin decentralization will die.

Scaling is a complex topic. It's not something that can be solved using simple solutions. Of course a simple solution can work, but it's almost always not the long term one.

Take a piece of software (serving something to end users) running on a server utilizing 80% of the system's resources constantly. In order to scale that you'd either have to increase system resources or you'd need to optimize the software.

If the only thing you do is increase the hardware capacity of the machine, you're going to run into the same issue again. When, just depends on how big you've made the machine. This also means that your costs go up every time you put new users on board.

However, if you decide to optimize the software instead, it becomes more complex but your resulting scaling solution will look very different. For instance, I've worked on a server that was running a golang service using around 75% CPU power in peak times. By re-writing, benchmarking and pruning the code, we got that down to around 20% under peak load. Which is massive. The other issue we solved was that our resource usage no longer looked like a linear graph depending on how busy the server was, but would fluctuate between 10% and 20%. Instead of climbing from 10% to 75% under max load.

Segwit vs big blocks is the same. If we're just going to throw big blocks at the blockchain, we don't solve the problem long term (do the maths to see how big blocks would need to be to compete with Visa) and open ourselves up to attacks on the network (which Johnny describes in the video). Scaling via Segwit will gives us far better long term benefits as well as much better long term scaling solutions which allow us to think in a exponentially in terms of the number of transactions processed vs in a linear manner.

We don't need bigger blocks nor Segregated Witness, bitcoin is great as it is, price is at an all time high and people continue to use it.

There's already a 'bitcoin network' with bigger blocks and soon may have Segregated Witness active, it's called litecoin, if there was really a need for bigger blocks or more transactions we would see a rise in litecoin use, that's not happening.

This is again part of some fear and smear campain we see these days

HF: Evil (pls ignore or bann things we could learn from alts like Monero or ETH = top alts with HFs...)

Orphaning : Attack ( pls ignore again that bitcoin runs with that for 8 years and alts like ETH have made use of the orphanes = uncles)

Pls let rain some brain!

That s the thing. Think big and do all we can and let the market decide what is useful and safe.

Now, I am not a big Roger Ver fan but I think we should stop this smack talk from both sides, because it is not constructive to finding a solution in the long run. We clearly have two groups forming now and this is not healthy, because in the end only one side can win this argument and this will be decided by the miners.

Roger believed in Bitcoin, when Bitcoin was still relatively small and he pushed capital through the network to keep it alive, when other people abandoned the idea. Let's give credit, where credit is due and acknowledge his contribution. Yes, he has his reasons for doing what he is doing and we should respect everyone's stance or opinion on a subject and debate that in a civilized manner.

lol
now learn about orphans and consensus.

attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed

I never knew about attack blocks. Great Video thank you for posting pereira4!

I support segwit/Lighting again. Its the best way to move forward. I'm going to upgrade my client tonight.

Core needs a PR department.

If we got rid of the blocksize limit, what would be the benefit of segwit?

Blocklimits are useless, segwit is useful. Get rid of blocksize limit and implement segwit. Easy

part one of the video (tony veys) is not a programmer nor much of a holder.
part two of the video (johny, linked above) only has one commit and again isnt much of a holder/spender

i think both videos lacked anyone that could satisfactorily defend blockstream/core, or where those blockstream defenders are actually personally highly involved with bitcoin.

but hey thats just the social drama of peoples C.V not really the context of their opinions. which the context of which team is actually thinking about actually fixing issues.. BU wins.

segwit is an empty gesture that results in just centralising the network with its upstream nodes but still leave bitcoin unfixed.
(malicious people will continue using native nodes and manually copying/pasting segwit tx's to native nodes to open new attack vectors that core have opened up if segwit activates)

I didn't watch it.  I wasn't under the impression that Roger is a technical guy.

I trust the expertise of people like Gavin and Peter Rizun who are advocating
for BU and also because it makes sense to me and is extremely simple.

I actually came up with the same idea on my own before BU existed that
"we should let the miners decide" and that the blocksize  shouldn't
be part of the consensus rules.  If you search the forum you might
find that thread.
 
I trust blockstream about as far as I can throw them.
 

anything can be a currency. even cigarettes in a prison.

its top of the umbrella of financial terms.
below the umbrella are a multitude of subsets/categories.

money being one of those sub categories.
if you cannot spend it and its not recognised by a community or certain populous, then its not "money".

---

bitcoin was, is and will always be an asset currency
but the "money" subcategory becomes iffy if bitcoins UTILITY becomes dampened/stalled/halted/prohibited/functionless

I thought they both did a good job and were able to articulate their positions well.  I think the way forward lands somewhere in the middle and the solution needs to consider miners, users, and developers.

There were 2 things that shocked me about the chat...  Roger saying that not spending BTC gives it it's value, and Johnny saying that he only uses Bitcoin once a month.

segwit does not fix malleability.
segwit does not fix quadratics

segwit just disarms those who choose to move their funds over to segwit keys.. that is all. it still does not fix the issues across the network or across the blocks.  because sigop spammers and malleated double spenders CAN and will continue to use native keys. meaning problem not solved

please take more time understanding bitcoin and less time defending humans paid by blockstream.
after all in a few years the humans will move to different projects but bitcoin wil remain. so care more about bitcoin not the temporary humans

in short, if you have spent more time researching a humans linked-in employment history and wiki edits of their career, rather than reading or researching code. you have only failed yourselves

History is made via discussion. If we let the trolls win bitcoin will be ruined. I hope BU ends up just like XT and Classic. If a hard fork happens, I hope it is not a disaster like ETH/ETC, that would kill all network effect.

Roger Ver is silly and rude. He does not understand how to scale Bitcoin 1000000x...

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.