What nobody seems to have mentioned in this thread is that the whole problem was caused by transaction malleability.
The unconfirmed output that is causing the Ver's transactions not to confirm results directly from the parent transaction having been malleated.
The irony here of course is that "bigger blocks now" wouldn't have prevented the problem whereas Segregated Witness would have prevented it, because SegWit fixes malleability for those who use it.
Edit: here I point this information out to Roger himself. He apologizes. (search for 'doog' on the page)
Topic: This just in: Roger Ver can't even transact bitcoin properly (Read 2919 times)
One more Epic Fail from Ver. Keep going 
hahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahaha "After being the laughingstock of the Bitcoin world for a couple of days, I was greatly relieved when Gavin's Fake Satoshi hoax distracted everyone from my monumental incompetency and consequent FUD tantrum."
-Roger Ver (probably)
Thats the point of free market. If we had unlimited limit, you could try 1GB block, but obviously this one would not make it to the longest chain today because 1) current miner software could not handle it 2) before downloaded and validated, much smaller block would win instead.
Thats why free market solves otherwise complicated decisions naturally.
By the time that, this so called "free market" decides what size is wrong and which one is right Bitcoin would most likely end up dying. You should stop trying to spread this idea as it won't work, ever. Bitcoin needs to be resistant to change (as it was so far), else we would be having 1 MB today, 2 MB tomorrow, 42 million coins in 3 days. May I ask, what your definition of "free market" is?Thats why free market solves otherwise complicated decisions naturally.
You could make 0.5 MB limit and the cost for transaction gets to $16. Luke-jr would be happy...
The cost per TX will never be that high (in normal circumstances).Anyhow, this seems to be off-topic as the thread is about Roger Ver.
3) Putting aside his poor coin control practices, of course, does he really know what he's talking about or might he have ulterior motives behind his complaints?
The answer to that is one word: Classic. 
Its pretty stupid some people try to artifically define Bitcoin with setting arbitrary choosen parameters regardless of what market thinks.
Your presented logic: Let's just let the market decide on a 1 GB block-size limit, because why not? 
Thats the point of free market. If we had unlimited limit, you could try 1GB block, but obviously this one would not make it to the longest chain today because 1) current miner software could not handle it 2) before downloaded and validated, much smaller block would win instead.
Thats why free market solves otherwise complicated decisions naturally.
A BTC tx costs ~$8 in electricity to process, yet this fake libertarian really expects the network to subsidize his cheap free-riding ass?
The few cents in fees is huge deal for the minner today
I wonder if people are ready to pay $4 in fees for tx after this year halving (instead of cents today), and $6 in fees in four years after the next one if your $8 per tx (subsidy+fees) requirement is keept, the price stays the same and Bitcoin remain crippled at 1 MB
You could make 0.5 MB limit and the cost for transaction gets to $16. Luke-jr would be happy...
On rethink, I have a couple questions about this guy:
1) After implicitly vouching for MtGox's liquidity, did he keep any of his own BTC on site?
2) If he's so angry about bitcoins direction, why is he still holding bitcoin?
3) Putting aside his poor coin control practices, of course, does he really know what he's talking about or might he have ulterior motives behind his complaints?
For some reason, I just get the feeling that this is all a conspiracy and I should be putting on my tinfoil hat to avoid what's coming next.
1) After implicitly vouching for MtGox's liquidity, did he keep any of his own BTC on site?
2) If he's so angry about bitcoins direction, why is he still holding bitcoin?
3) Putting aside his poor coin control practices, of course, does he really know what he's talking about or might he have ulterior motives behind his complaints?
For some reason, I just get the feeling that this is all a conspiracy and I should be putting on my tinfoil hat to avoid what's coming next.
One more Epic Fail from Ver. Keep going hahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahaha 
Feel free to rewrite the following to reflect this thread's sentiment:
Quote
I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world. For now, I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.
Roger Ver
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world. For now, I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.
Roger Ver
Please promise to make it funny.
Feel free to rewrite the following to reflect this thread's sentiment:
Quote
I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world. For now, I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.
Roger Ver
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world. For now, I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.
Roger Ver
Please promise to make it funny.
ver is toxic and trash
Blockstream sold miners on the idea that on chain fees per tx will rise 100x, did Roger miss that? He's really going to complain when fees are $4.00 per tx. Dude should just forget about Bitcoin until lightning hubs take over this summer. Segwit came in April so that helps.
The Core Team is protecting our censhorship resistence. You want mass adoption? Not tonight, dear. Wait for lightening network hub channels for your silly transactions. Or just use an altcoin, like monero (XMR), which has an adaptive blocksize.
The Core Team is protecting our censhorship resistence. You want mass adoption? Not tonight, dear. Wait for lightening network hub channels for your silly transactions. Or just use an altcoin, like monero (XMR), which has an adaptive blocksize.
Ver may have screwed up here, but the case for 2mb blocks remains, no?
Not really, no.oh come on,he just complaining about block size,
Nothing surprising there.Its pretty stupid some people try to artifically define Bitcoin with setting arbitrary choosen parameters regardless of what market thinks.
Your presented logic: Let's just let the market decide on a 1 GB block-size limit, because why not? er, is that you Rog? 
Bit touchy on this subject, eh Franky?
Did you not know that both of them are "Bitcoin experts"? Bit touchy on this subject, eh Franky? Expect to see at least 10 people coming here from his forum
Not gonna happen, because his forum doesn't have 10 people to spare.
A BTC tx costs ~$8 in electricity to process, yet this fake libertarian really expects the network to subsidize his cheap free-riding ass?
This is obviously a publicity stunt, yet another desperate attempt to get traffic for his fucked company.
"Bitcoin.com ad payments?"
Ya, right. As if anyone would PAY to advertise on a site with an average of 4 visitors per hour.
Maybe the ad buy is Wences or Armstrong (the only two people who might want to subsidize the ghost town vanity project of Bitcoin Judas).
Remember when he called in every favor possible to jump-start the site with a series of high-profile Bitcoiner AMAs?
Me neither!
"I noticed lots of other misconceptions or lies happening on the censored forum: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/this-just-in-roger-ver-cant-even-transact-bitcoin-properly-1454900
There are a few lies or misconceptions I would like to clear up.
#1. (off topic)
I never vouched for MTgox's solvency.
Watch the video again, and see for yourself.
I simply said their fiat delays were caused by the traditional banking system.
Even with everything we know today, everything I said in that video is still factually correct.
#2. (off topic)
I'm not the "self proclaimed" "Bitcoin Jesus."
I don't like the name, I didn't choose it for myself, and wish people didn't call me that.
Other people started calling me that due to my efforts to inform people around the world about bitcoin.
I'm an atheist, and I'm sick of religious nuts contacting me telling me I'm going to go to hell for the name.
#3. As someone who first started using Bitcoin earlier than the vast majority of people in the ecosystem, it saddens me how many new people don't realize how Bitcoin used to work. When there was essentially no block size limit, free transactions would still confirm quickly because there was plenty of extra room in the blocks for them. If we had even a 2MB maximum block size today, that would likely still be the case today.
In my specific transaction above, I was using older wallet software that calculated the required fee as zero for a transaction that in the past would have easily been confirmed with zero fee. The change output from that transaction then became the input for my $23K transaction that the wallet selected a fee for. This cascaded into problems with about half a dozen of my transactions from yesterday. In the past, the zero fee input would have been confirmed quickly, along with all the others down the chain. The only reason this didn't happen today is because of the lack of available block space.
This was in no way was a stunt. I'm trying to run a business, and I send numerous Bitcoin transactions every single day. I keep track of all of them in my accounting software down to the very last satoshi. This problem from yesterday is causing me to spend my Saturday morning tracking down all the unconfirmed transactions, some of which were now removed from the mempool, and trying to reconcile that with my accounting software.
There are plenty of other things I would rather spend my Saturday morning on, and none of this would have been an issue if we had just allowed the block size to increase the way Satoshi envisioned and promised to early adopters like myself.
In short, I'm very sad how few people realize that zero fee, non-dust, transactions would still confirm quickly on the network if we had bigger blocks.
I'm happy to try to answer additional questions below."
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/23k-bitcoin-transaction-stuck-despite-paying-the-fee-t7513.html
There are a few lies or misconceptions I would like to clear up.
#1. (off topic)
I never vouched for MTgox's solvency.
Watch the video again, and see for yourself.
I simply said their fiat delays were caused by the traditional banking system.
Even with everything we know today, everything I said in that video is still factually correct.
#2. (off topic)
I'm not the "self proclaimed" "Bitcoin Jesus."
I don't like the name, I didn't choose it for myself, and wish people didn't call me that.
Other people started calling me that due to my efforts to inform people around the world about bitcoin.
I'm an atheist, and I'm sick of religious nuts contacting me telling me I'm going to go to hell for the name.
#3. As someone who first started using Bitcoin earlier than the vast majority of people in the ecosystem, it saddens me how many new people don't realize how Bitcoin used to work. When there was essentially no block size limit, free transactions would still confirm quickly because there was plenty of extra room in the blocks for them. If we had even a 2MB maximum block size today, that would likely still be the case today.
In my specific transaction above, I was using older wallet software that calculated the required fee as zero for a transaction that in the past would have easily been confirmed with zero fee. The change output from that transaction then became the input for my $23K transaction that the wallet selected a fee for. This cascaded into problems with about half a dozen of my transactions from yesterday. In the past, the zero fee input would have been confirmed quickly, along with all the others down the chain. The only reason this didn't happen today is because of the lack of available block space.
This was in no way was a stunt. I'm trying to run a business, and I send numerous Bitcoin transactions every single day. I keep track of all of them in my accounting software down to the very last satoshi. This problem from yesterday is causing me to spend my Saturday morning tracking down all the unconfirmed transactions, some of which were now removed from the mempool, and trying to reconcile that with my accounting software.
There are plenty of other things I would rather spend my Saturday morning on, and none of this would have been an issue if we had just allowed the block size to increase the way Satoshi envisioned and promised to early adopters like myself.
In short, I'm very sad how few people realize that zero fee, non-dust, transactions would still confirm quickly on the network if we had bigger blocks.
I'm happy to try to answer additional questions below."
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/23k-bitcoin-transaction-stuck-despite-paying-the-fee-t7513.html
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1
Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.
Archive
oh come on,he just complaining about block size,i dont think we should mentioning about "he can't transact bitcoin properly" just like we laugh at him because that,not funny. Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.
Archive
...gonna be some FIREWORKS about this one...
Getting some popcorn here Expect to see at least 10 people coming here from his forum and start defending his mistakes. Hey, we all make mistakes... Sometimes we believe Gavin and his minions are good for Bitcoin and we
create our own forum to "protect against censorship" and then, you start to censor people on that forum too.. As I said, we all make mistakes, even if you are called Bitcoin Jesus. It just shows, the guy
is human after all. Let's just forgive and forget and sing happy songs, while we sniff some coke and post shit on the internet. After all.. we are only human.
create our own forum to "protect against censorship" and then, you start to censor people on that forum too.. As I said, we all make mistakes, even if you are called Bitcoin Jesus. It just shows, the guy
is human after all. Let's just forgive and forget and sing happy songs, while we sniff some coke and post shit on the internet. After all.. we are only human.
Yes! He was clearly intoxicated! Either alcohol, drugs, anger, ego, or delusions of grandeur....If he had some important criticism he wanted to provide, he could have presented it in a more lucid manner. I mean, come on! If he were of clear mind....he would have chosen a better argument structure when he broadcast his complaint to the world....He was drunk!
Expect to see at least 10 people coming here from his forum and start defending his mistakes. Hey, we all make mistakes... Sometimes we believe Gavin and his minions are good for Bitcoin and we
create our own forum to "protect against censorship" and then, you start to censor people on that forum too.. As I said, we all make mistakes, even if you are called Bitcoin Jesus. It just shows, the guy
is human after all. Let's just forgive and forget and sing happy songs, while we sniff some coke and post shit on the internet. After all.. we are only human.
create our own forum to "protect against censorship" and then, you start to censor people on that forum too.. As I said, we all make mistakes, even if you are called Bitcoin Jesus. It just shows, the guy
is human after all. Let's just forgive and forget and sing happy songs, while we sniff some coke and post shit on the internet. After all.. we are only human.
Of course, the debate is if we should raise the blocksize to keep fees low for onchain transactions or not, but as some have pointed before, raising blocksize can be really bad for the network decentralization. Im sure blocksize will eventually get raised, but claiming Bitcoin is about to collapse if we don't raise it tomorrow it's just stupid and that's exactly what some people is doing.
The laughable part (for me) is there need to be decision whether to raise it or not, how much and when.
Some things free market handless best, not a group of elitist. Its pretty stupid some people try to artifically define Bitcoin with setting arbitrary choosen parameters regardless of what market thinks. I dont understand how group of people can decide 1 MB is better than both 0.5MB and 2MB - such ignorance of the basic principles of free market!
An what happens if the user has around 500-600 inputs, each of them holding between 0.0001 to 0.01 BTC 
In this case user should join them as soon as possible, because as it looks transactions fees wont get any lower and if this user waits to the next year he might just hold economically unspendable Bitcoins where sending them could cost more or very significant part of his Bitcoins.
As franky1 told, best days of Bitcoins from 2009-2013 are gone, now we are left with such Bitcoin versions which drops instantly high priority transactions as defined by consensus in early Bitcoin days (old coins, fees dont matter). Here is the cause of the problem: version 0.12.0 and higher:
from peer=47 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 306 (code 66)
from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)
Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.
from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)
Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.
In the old days everything was easier because no one used Bitcoin except a couple of people that thought it was interesting as some experiment. Now we have people all over the world using it, so it's expected that fees would raise, I don't understand what's so hard about this to get?
Of course, the debate is if we should raise the blocksize to keep fees low for onchain transactions or not, but as some have pointed before, raising blocksize can be really bad for the network decentralization. Im sure blocksize will eventually get raised, but claiming Bitcoin is about to collapse if we don't raise it tomorrow it's just stupid and that's exactly what some people is doing.
An what happens if the user has around 500-600 inputs, each of them holding between 0.0001 to 0.01 BTC
In this case user should join them as soon as possible, because as it looks transactions fees wont get any lower and if this user waits to the next year he might just hold economically unspendable Bitcoins where sending them could cost more or very significant part of his Bitcoins.
As franky1 told, best days of Bitcoins from 2009-2013 are gone, now we are left with such Bitcoin versions which drops instantly high priority transactions as defined by consensus in early Bitcoin days (old coins, fees dont matter). Here is the cause of the problem: version 0.12.0 and higher:
from peer=47 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 306 (code 66)
from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)
Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.
from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)
Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.
Jump to: