Topic: The man does have a point - Roger Ver (Read 1411 times)

Exactly because I forsee the Altcoins will start dumping soon, maybe this week and being such a smart guy I guess he's already sold them up.

He has become a bitcoin antichrist and he just wants to make some huge profits via BU.

lol pot calling kettle black?
blockstream  are the ones with the biased ban-score listings. the 'we will split using bip9 and UASF' on activation day or even if we dont get our way..
blockstreams investor partners DCG have even had meetings about it and announced treating anything not core an altcoin.

for an anti-government anarchist you certainly do love being governed carlton. rather than just letting bitcoins CODE consensus find its way

while all the other implementations have just been happily running for 2years+ not setting deadlines or demanding splits. and just waiting for natural and true bitcoin consensus to move things along.

I'm Anti-government, there's a huge amount right with it, but Roger is a strange kind of anarchist.


Roger has been promoting all the blocksize hard fork Bitcoin coups, seemingly without realising that he's promoting the number 1 thing government and/or central banks would love: an idea to increase transaction rate that screws Bitcoin up in a way that's fairly subtle to understand. If there's one thing the soft-fascist establishment loves, it's cleverly subtle ways of tricking the public into doing something that's against the public's interests, and in the interests of the establishment.

There's nothing wrong with anarchism, unless you believe all that nonsense you see on the TV where anarchists are just angry, hateful people that secretly want to be in power themselves. It's the best check on power there could be; taking away the power of the most powerful.

they are not meaningless.. they are integral to consensus.
but core BYPASSED consensus to try sliding their half gesture under the rug. which backfired because pools wont produce anything different unless there is a majority of nodes ready to accept and not orphan what pools produce.

yep blockstream also have their fibre network pre-set up as the upstream filters as their fake gesture of confidence that pools shouldnt care about nodes because everything is routed through the FIBRE upstream filters first. but on a decentralised network, pools would rather connect to diverse nodes that accept what pools produce,(offset risk of bugs/issues of fibre/core) not be forced into routing data through a centralised gatekeeper 'filter' first. as going with FIBRE and blockstreams efforts is just setting up a TIER network not a PEER network.

Don't be fooled by this... Roger Ver is Anti-government and he will support anything that says "Fuck Government" ... They send him to jail, and I

would also be pissed off, if they have done that to me. Dash is being hyped up as the real "FU Government" coin and Bitcoin is now hyped as the

"Blockstream controlled" coin... So a lot of people are following Roger Ver religiously and will also start buying Dash soon. This will push the price

up and a lot of people will make a load of profit on this bubble. Just hope you get out before the bubble burst.  

Do you think Dash will be globally accepted by governments? Nope... even Bitcoin's Pseudo anonymity is being frowned on and this will not be

tolerated by them... and will eventually be banned. I am also apposed to some of the things governments do... but I am also realistic on what will

work and what will not work for the current situation.... if you really want to make a difference, let your vote speak for you.  

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dash/

full node are meaninglesshere, why we should care if they need more money to run one? they are useless for the consensus, and GB are nearly free today, they cost vey low amount of money, and internet connection is very fast, with 100MB you can download the entire blockcahin in few hours, and you only need to download it once not many time, once downloaded you are done, even if it grow 2x/4x the times it is now, with a 3 terabyte ssd you have plenty of storage

lets not forget a crucial thing. the blockchain never syncs.... every ~10minutes its always adding more data. it never stops..

secondly.
the thing that actually pee's people off is not the IBD itself but the side-effect that when they import keys they cannot see an uptodate balance for days to be able to spend their coins straight away.

a fix would be for nodes to grab an existent UTXO set from a peer(or 2 for comparison) FIRST and let the GUI run as a litenode while then making the IBD more of a background activity that doesnt delay utility.
(come on carlton you are an armory fanboy afterall, i would have thought even you would have conceived an idea that a node 'could' initially function as a litenode during the IBD time)

as for hardware
on average people upgrade their hardware every 2-5 years anyway, and telecommunications companies have a 5 year plan (fibre & 5G).
knowing that
bitcoin (pre libsecp256k1) was able to run on a raspberryPi1 ... and knowing (post  libsecp256k1 efficiency) along with a raspberryPi3 allows for alot more 'capability' (20x-60x) means that minimum hardware compared to 5 years ago has much more allowances.. so stagnating bitcoin based on tech/stats that are 5-8 years outdated becomes foolish.

do you think activation halts its Call of Duty game production based on having to get it to be compatible with 8 year old tech.. nope.

Seems like an altcoin pump to me. He invested 5% of his bitcoin stash into alts? he'd be crazy to not sell out now since they've gone up so much.

Things went wrong when this became a discussion which of Core or Unlimited is the best solution. Now people look at them both, compares and believes they make a well thought decision
of what to support. Problem is that which solution is the best is more or less irrelevant. I could make a bitcoin fork and add a tiny (but still very good) incompatible feature, this would
make be implementation superior to Bitcoin Core (atleast for a few days) tho choosing my implementation would still be very unwise. Same thing here, lets pretend Bitcoin Unlimited
really is the superior implementation, better that Bitcoin Core in all ways, we still shouldn't support this split. One thing with bitcoin (in my opinion) was to show the governments that we don't
need this central authority to control things, that we actually can agree to things on our own. If what is about to happen really happens it clearly shows we couldn't. Bitcoin is stronger than
all the other alt coins for a reason, if this split happens that advantage may be gone.

the guy of this show is just a pity. i can nearly watch this show. although i want to hear what Ver has to say.

The most complex thing about checking what is the best system for bitcoin mining is to evaluate the disadvantage and advantages of both sides. Segwit offers solutions like increasing the blocksize to 2 mb but the problem lies on its applicability on the real situation. While Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand uses hard fork and can increase the blocksize in a large capacity but will have troubles later on. Thus it is hard to choose between the two. But for me I would now side with segwit and the reasons is that the core developers are backing it up.

Trust logic, Andreas makes good logical arguments, but that's not definitive, he might get something horribly wrong in the future. It would be really dangerous if everyone blindly followed Andreas if or when he does suggest something that doesn't really make sense.

Trusting people based on past performance can be dangerous. Everyone becoming as educated as possible about the issues relevant to Bitcoin is the real answer.

The only person i trust is Andreas Antonopolous. He is truly one honest person that working for the good of bitcoin at all times.
Noone else have my trust, im confused if roger ver is lunatic or good person for bitcoin, i don't know. Im confusing many names in bitcoin world, if this one was in prison already or not, if he pulled some scam before or not. This is really sad place.

Well, it will change the total amount of transactions possible, spamming isn't outcompeting genuine economic interests of those who can afford higher fees than spammers. Or at least not yet.

But lets not forget that another curcial difference that increasing the blocksize will make is it will increase the IBD (initial blockchain download) and the data costs of running a full node. Neither are good.

I'd like to get to a point in the future, maybe 2020 ish or later, where people can legitimately say "I only need a 700GB file? But that downloads in 5 minutes! And just 1 hour to check all the transactions!? My phone can do that!!!". In those circumstances (which would need massive increases in computer processors and internet infrastructure), going to, say, 8MB blocks wouldn't be a risk. But it takes the average computer DAYS to do that now, it's a non-starter until days turns into hours.


And above all, I'm more concerned about those who want Bitcoin to fail, not miners gaming inflated fee profits. But both are legitimate concerns to be fair.

The presenter makes me feel very uneasy, he seems dead inside. Probably sold his soul to Ver

It seems as if block size is irrelevent.

No matter how large blocks are, they will always succumb to DDOS style, deliberately spammed transactions.

Its in miners own self interest to spam the network to raise transaction fees higher & boost profits.

It is possible we could have 1GB blocks and they'd still spam to raise transaction fees.

Increasing block size won't change anything, because block size was never the problem to begin with?

If that was true, you would be suggesting improvements to layer 1, not adding simplistic attack vectors that beget more simplistic attack vectors.

Everyone knows how blocksize increases will play out:

• increase blocksize
• new blocksize gets spammed
• tx fees are then the same as they were before
• increase blocksize
• new blocksize gets spammed
• tx fees are then the same as they were before

If you want to argue "let's have an upper limit then!"...

Then why mess around, just set an upper limit, we'll end up at that limit anyway




People buying altcoins is not a substitute for Bitcoin transactions, none are anywhere close to being as well engineered and proven as Bitcoin itself. And we all know that using altcoins to send Bitcoin is the dumbest idea ever: if you have to send a BTC transaction to an altcoin exchange anyway, you may as well just cut the crap and send your BTC transactions to where you want it to go. Fail, Roger.


When will you listen and learn? Scaling does not mean increasing the data burden on the network 1:1. That's not scaling.

Finding ways to make the separate transactions themselves use less space or network resources is what scaling actually means. Why are you pushing so hard for the complete opposite?

Ver is Dash guy and Bitcoin Juda

Thanks for chiming in Roger... How much weight do you put into DDOS and SPAM arguments when it comes to larger blocks and how BU is planning to deal with this?