Bitcoin Forum

Why is Roger Ver continually making posts/complaints about the block size issues on facebook/twitter? I thought segregated witness was already being rolled out and will continue to be rolled out over the next few months while a longer term solution is developed? With the current bitcoin price the community doesn't seem to be fretting over this issue like they were in the past.

Can someone enlighten me?

The real question is why do you care what Roger Ver thinks? As far as I'm concerned, his opinions are as valuable as those of any other random human on this planet. He dislikes Core, he dislikes Segwit, and r/bitcoin and BTCT. Do I need to say more?

Well I just wondered since he has such a huge influence in the bitcoin world. If he were to flip and trash talk bitcoin like Hearn did, it would cause the price to plunge.

Most of all I just wondered out of curiosity.

Nothing has been 'rolled out', network transaction capacity is the same as ever and nothing in the immediate future will be done, meanwhile we are, as we've been for many months now, at maximum transaction capacity.

and why should Laudas opinion matter.
he doesnt know C++. and has never read a line of bitcoin code.

he loves core, he really loves blockstream and he thinks segwit is the perfect dream unicorn he had always wished for as a kid... just a shame that its not actually working as a bitcoin feature right now so all of them 'segwit is perfect' mantras are useless, because so far its not even part of bitcoin, and still in testing on its own altcoin.

even when it is implemented as part of bitcoin, it wont become active for many many more months. so dont expect any logical capacity increases any time soon.. only expect delays, excuses and fairy tale dreams of perfection.

Part of it would be to drive new traffic to his bitcoin.com and subdomains. He has a forum that is not doing very well and a casino to promote.

I wouldn't mind him quitting either. Such people stop being beneficial to the ecosystem at one point (e.g. Hearn).

There are two possible cases:
1) We are at maximum capacity and adoption has completely stopped.
2) We are not at maximum capacity and adoption has not stopped.
I'm pretty sure that we are still in the second one (e.g. my mempool has not been constantly rising).

That shouldn't surprise people considering that he was spam-advertising his forum here during AMA.

Well, lack of bitcoin scalability may be one of the reasons why is business hasn't been growing, its success is directly linked to bitcoin's success...

Does he really has any influence? I don't think so!
He has a bigger stash of coins, was one of the early adopters, funded a few companies.But that's it.His website doesn't seem to work as expected.
Furthermore Roger barely has any deeper understanding about the technolgy itself.His attempt together with the classic guys to push for a hostile takeover via hardfork was a big failure. Wouldn't surprise me if they brainwashed him, because deep in the heart Roger seems to be a good guy.

Roger Ver is just another bankster mouthpiece working with people like Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn. Don't let the "freedom" credentials fool you, he either uses that as rhetorical device (and only wants freedom for himself+friends), or he's simply a useful idiot to said banksters (entirely possible).

After all, why would Roger be promoting alternative development plans that endanger the network? Freedom also includes the freedom to be a total idiot, apparently.

The way I see it, with the recent price rises since last fall and coinbase's user base continually growing, people aren't too worried. Coinbase seems to gain another 100K members every month lately, so adoption is still very much happening.

You do realize people at Coinbase have the same concerns about block size, and its CEO is a big proponent of block size increase...

Hey, but at least Coinbase is a solution to scaling bitcoin, if you transact between Coinbase accounts you don'y need to use the blockchain. :)

Ver's trolling is advertising for the shitty rump forum and casino he hosts on the exorbitantly overpriced bitcoin dot com domain.

He must be losing a ton of money paying for care and maintenance on that ghost town.

Thus the frequent shittweeting of clickbait, hoping someone besides Brian Armstrong will notice his hapless flailing.

+1

He seems like a nice guy, but a bit of a doofus, who got busted selling fireworks online. Last month he was whining about his unconfirmed bitcoin transaction that he created with no fee. Last year he was denied entry to the US after he renounced his citizenship to avoid taxes.


I think the whole Classique/Coar fight is more about control, and less about blocksize and network capacity. Gavin and his minions/handlers want control back, and the blocksize was a perfect wedge issue to bring that about. Well, maybe not quite perfect... more like REKT LAWL.

Well, I consider it equally possible that all of his "freedom" spiel is simply his cover as an agent of the bankster establishment, fairly deep cover of course. If anyone thinks that's far fetched, bear in mind the lengths that espionage agents will undergo to establish convincing credentials for a given operation. Take a look into the history of espionage if you're unaware.

But of course, it's impossible to tell whether Roger Ver is a useful idiot or an anti-Bitcoin agent, definitive evidence either way doesn't exist (and in the case of the "useful idiot" scenario, not necessarily mutually exclusive :D). One thing about Ver that is positively true though: the Bitcoin Judas moniker

So to comment about bitcoin or generally share your opinion ,one has to read the entire source code from the core repository ? Wish that rule was implemented in the forum too,we will have all smart people around.

Don't you know Roger Ver is an  - Bitcoin Angel Investor & Bitcoin Evangelist ? Well that's what his official website says and hence his opinions do matter to those who follow him.I don't see anything wrong with that.

All that I see there is: "This user is currently ignored.".

Don't you know that my Cat is the supreme Jedi savior? Well, that's what her official website says and thus you should worship her. I don't see anything wrong with that. [1]

---

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at with [1]. Anyhow, read the posts from Carlton regarding Ver.

Roger Ver is "Bitcoin Jesus"!
Everyone knows that.

https://www.google.com/#q=roger+ver+bitcoin+jesus

Because he has a lot to loose if Bitcoin is not scalled to be useable for bigger adoption as he has invested a lot in various Bitcoin related enterprises, plus there wont be segregated witness activated until Core adds 2 MB hard fork code - bitmain made it very clear on this matter. So the sonner Core adds both features, the better for everyone. The only unfortunate thing is Core still silent on the matter, thats why those who can lose the most loudly complains.

He owns 100,000+ BTC, not 100,000 shares of Blockstream. Pretty simple really.

Oft, claimed, never proved (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)-- I bet him and Wright are great buddies.  Maybe it was true at one point, but one doesn't retaining 100,000 BTC by buying loads of ripple, ethereum, and every other highly hyped altcoin that comes around.

If it is true, it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin... and instead just investing in putting a sleazy looking gambling site on Bitcoin.com (and filling the site with pro ethereum news).

Less than 0.15% of all bitcoin in existence has revealed its owner’s intention on your oft cited website. I know I wouldn’t be linking my opinions and addresses directly and publicly like this… The sample size is so minuscule as to be perfectly useless, yet you gleefully raise it wherever you can.

My impression is that Roger is heavily invested in Bitcoin, both financially and ideologically, and wants it to succeed. He argues that miners should be the ones determining their own min. fees, not having fees determined by bidding wars between users to fit in a centrally planned production quota.

Like many others, it appears he signed up to the idea that Bitcoin’s economic incentives govern its trajectory and growth, not a handful of insular wizards that have a glaring conflict of interest. Don’t you see? If Bitcoin is reliant on you and your friends to protect it with production quotas, it’s doomed to failure and/or irrelevance.

Looking for alternatives while Bitcoin’s potential growth is currently capped, and LN is not ready to take pressure off, is a sign of an astute businessman. Bitcoin does not have a monopoly on cryptographic value transfer, and only a fool would say it does while it is being purposefully handicapped. I know you are not a fool, which is why some question your incentives and motivations.

Not as bad as Satoshi, but yeah, pretty bad...

Smart people remain rich, lucky people remain confused.

Twitter, you t***?
Go to Ver's forum and ask him why, then report back, thanks.

Posted in loo of 1 btc from Ver.

Yeah maybe, maybe not.
How much you betting?

Posted in loo of another Ver btc.

*lieu?
But love the FU factor (no sarcasm)

Is that a real magazine?

Who paid for this opinion of yours?
Are you grumpy cos Ver has not employed your services yet?

(lol above ^ noted)

Couldn't have said it any better! Just look at his self-portrayal that is a narcissistic masterpiece. I'm really grateful that Core is still being developed by sane and intelligent individuals, who did not give up despite the frequent sh*tstorms by the Gavinista gang.

Ver and his buddies do not care about Bitcoin at all. All they care is making more money for themselves, no matter the method. So for me it is well imaginable that Ver is trying to negatively influence the Bitcoin community, simply because he is heavily invested in some Altcoin that might profit from Bitcoin looking bad. Luckily Ver's media visibility is not too pronounced and has been vanishing lately. Bitcoin.com never took really off, because the PR strategy for it was ideologically framed from the very start.

ya.ya.yo!

Satoshi had talent to offer.

I know who Ver is.
Who the f*** are you?

Who's network is he endangering?

Yeah, apparently.

yeah, because knowing Roger's identity makes everything he says true and everything I say false? Using your logic, your own statements are bereft of veracity, so why are we listening to you at all?

This logic thing, try thinking things through before putting your pie-holders on the keyboard. I promise you it works.

Jules: (smiles at Carlton Banks) Check out the big brain on Carlton! You're a smart motherfucker. That's right, bereft of veracity.

Can anyone guess which accounts are Roger Ver's sock-puppets? :D You're a sad, sad man, Roger

Hah, as if Ver needs sockpuppet accounts. Keep on smoking the crack Carlton

Way to put words in my mouth!

For the record:
I like Core,  but they are misguided on the economics of this issue.
I love Segwit, but it was supposed to be ready in April, and would only buy a few months of extra time if 100% of the wallets implemented it instantly.
I loved /r/Bitcoin and Bitcointalk, and was a daily user before all the censorship by Theymos took over.
Just look at /r/Bitcoin,  people aren't even allowed to see the up-votes or down-votes,  let alone post an opinion that is in disagreement with Theymos.
It makes me want to cry when I see how far things have strayed from the principles that early bitcoin users claimed to support.

Greg, you should really be ashamed of yourself for attacking fellow members of this community who care so deeply about Bitcoin.

I nearly singlehandedly funded the entire first wave of Bitcoin adoption with well over a million dollars worth of money that I earned before I'd even heard of Bitcoin.
Since then I've spent 6.5 years of my life and about $20M USD worth of my own bitcoin promoting the ecosystem, including billboards and national radio ads.
I created the first website to accept Bitcoin for hundreds of thousands of products, kicking off the entire wave of Bitcoin merchant adoption around the world.  I also funded the seed rounds for most of the popular Bitcoin businesses today.

I thank you for your work on the core Bitcoin protocol, but you are a true black belt level troll.  

In matters regarding the preservation of Bitcoin's incentive structure, Core's understanding of economics is superior to your own (LMK when you get a PhD in distributed systems, thus gaining credibility equal to Dr. Back's).

As a free market True Believer, you should have already accepted that as fact, since the socioeconomic majority is clearly behind Core (and loathes Klassique).

Instead we are treated to the spectacle of a supposedly pro-market Bitcoin Jesus Movementarian (https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Movementarianism) acting like a full-blooded Marxist, throwing his toys out the pram the instant he's relegated to (cranky, disruptive, contentious) minority status.

Gmax and I are apparently not on speaking terms due to disagreement over an ASIC pre-order fiasco in which we both (willingly) participated.

Having stated that disclaimer, I must remark upon your white belt level trolling.

Every single time you attack the socioeconomic majority, we effortlessly throw you to the mat and give you a friendly (hopefully educational) kick in the head.

But you learn nothing.

What are we to make of this?  How many times does XT/Klassique/Unlimiturd need to be dismissed by the market until you Get It?

As Bitcoin Jesus, I expect you to be first in grokking the ethos.  Instead, you do what you've been doing.

Hard to put words in your mouth when it is already occupied by Brian Armstrong's ****.   :D

I can't agree more.

Enjoy your fits of poutraged pique and self-pitying sulking.

The rest of us will still be here when you guys build a bridge, and GET OVER IT.   :)

Ver, you're preaching to the choir in this place.

Theymos, Maxwell, and their army of trolls and paid shills have turned this forum into a cesspool of veritable stupidity.

Even though you speak the truth, and you have done more to help Bitcoin succeed than 99% of these fools, none of the Core trolls will ever respect you, since you have chosen to support big blocks and go against the Core-mandated mantra of "SEGWIT SEGWIT SEGWIT SEGWIT...."  and you have dared to point out that these idiots have no fucking clue about economics.

This needless division in the community is worse than a rivalry between two high school football teams. It is pathetic. The Core shills have no brains, the only way they can learn is the hard way, and even then, they will never, ever, admit they were at fault.

icebreaker is one of the worst trolls ever conceived, he should be taken out back and shot in the head. I've observed hundreds of his posts, and not once has he ever contributed anything of value, he is ALWAYS negative.

Right now Bitcoin is like Frodo, in the part where Frodo goes in the cave and is tricked by Gollum before being almost devoured by the Giant Spider. Gollum is Core and the Spider represents the false promises of eventual off-chain scaling. And while Frodo is stuck in the web, a new adventurer comes to take his place (altcoins)

Our only hope now is for Frodo to shine his light, and defeat the spider before eventually beating the shit out of Gollum and putting Gollum back in his place.

Gollum can only learn the hard way...

I agree with that. It can be something else, but the guy has his own interests and he has some influence, so he is apparently trying to move things in a way he wishes.

I remember "Frodo and Gollum", but it's been a really long time since thinking about them.
Star Wars references might be more meaningful to the average Bitcoin nerd.

https://i.imgflip.com/gc30p.jpg

This is a thread that you can easily decide who is statist and who is against it. We all know Roger's side.

There you go again.

That's exactly the kind of "poutraged pique and self-pitying sulking" I was talking about.   :D

I hope you can move onto the Acceptance phase of the Klassique grieving process very soon.

Yup, Roger supports the side that wanted 8 Bitcoin nodes in the entire world, run on Google servers. Roger is a corporate fascist wearing libertarian clothing, sorry to burst anyone's bubble. He's also good friends with another dubious "freedom" outfit: the Liberty Radio Network (who have a history of making bizarre mistakes during "liberty" activism, e.g. recently they were excommunicated from a local "liberty" organisation for advocating sex with children)

Great metaphor for the bigblocks debate....

Roger Ver: "I want freedom so much, I'll throw my weight behind people who advocate pedophillia, because Freedom! It's a child's right to choose to have sexual intercourse with adults!"

@Roger/Memory Dealers: can you confirm or deny that your very good friends at LRN.fm were thrown out of the Free State project for advocating sex with children? Can you confirm or deny your continuing friendship with those individuals at LRN.fm that advocate sex with children?

You, and people like you, do not clarify they positions and tend attract attention via the media. That is not a good "principle" for a Bitcoin user.

So you love Core but want to fork away from it? That position doesn't contradict itself at all.

I can't talk about reddit, as I only read it sometimes (I don't use it). However, you were breaking the rules here constantly (advertising spam with AMA's) and yet: 1) You were not censored; 2) You were not banned. You deserved a permanent ban back then.

People who want controversial HFs and as much adoption as possible for the price to rise are the ones that have strayed away from these principles.

Do you still take that self-proclaimed shit seriously? Roger Ver cannot turn around now, and say he supports Core, because he created a whole alternative forum for people who are against it. He now profits from this venture with the  hosting of a Casino from the same site.

His whole angle seems to be for profitability and what he can get out of the deal. I would think twice before I follow him into oblivion, like the disciples on his site. ^smile^

why we have to care what Roger ver says? No one take him serious anymore.

is this true? that would make him among the top 5 bitcoin holders. insane amount of money he got there

better to sell them and buy ethereum so we can buy some cheap bitcoin  ;D

Because Roger Ver is among those a few people that really understand bitcoin's potential. Programmers seldom look away from their technical worries, they care about how the car works, but are not able to see where the car is going

The blocksize debate is not a technical issue, it exposed several long existing problem of bitcoin: Mining centralization, development centralization and lack of consensus based decision making mechanism regarding protocol change. And what core programmer is doing is to make these problems worse, their solutions create more and more centralization incentive, especially in R&D. If bitcoin is centralized in the hands of a few guys, government and law enforcement will take down them in a couple of hours, then the whole system will just collapse like e-gold or liberty reserve

bitcoin is the first and only crypto that has face this problem because is and the most popular. To find a proper solution for a tech problem you need someone who really understand how the tech works and not a manager or a marketing guy.

real translation:

if CORE implemented the hard fork because other codebases want it(only core is determined to say no).. there would be no controversy and also it wont be moving away from core..
instead it would just ensure that core doesnt become the centralized codebase it has become.. because other dev-groups will have their own versions.

so far core is saying no.. thus core is causing the controversy. by force.. basically its cores way or no way

also core has a road map.. how can something be decentralized if its already planned in the next 2 years that are not open to change... something open and decentralized should be open to changing directions.. not a one way street

im guessing you will say that core has over 100 coders... as the distraction to try to hide the centralization.
sorry but Apple have thousands of coders.. but it doesnt mean that apple is not centralized company

And Franky's "solutions" frequently call for... a centralised dev team that codes Bitcoin into the way he likes (which centralises the network, not the dev team).


It's simple really:

BigBlockers want a centralised network, and decentralised "anyone can commmit" code repos

Core supporters want a decentralised network, and accept that ALL DEVELOPMENT IS CENTRALISED, there is no practical way to decentralise development for a given piece of software without sacrificing the quality/functionality of the software.



So Franky, your ideas are literally moronic and counter to the functioning of the Bitcoin network. He knows it, and is pretending not to. Franky1 is a disingenuous troll.

development is already decentralised. It works like every open source project out there.

lol

my solution is for there to be MANY dev teams.. EG the miners have their own codebase that follows the main rules but has their own preferential settings and interfaces, bitpay, and other merchants having their own codebases..

its you blockstreamers that want core to be the only codebase available.

you are right that bigblockers want a centralized network.. afterall true bigblockers are the core/blockstreamers if you actually look at the size of the data they want in their roadmap.. and their centralized networks are LN and sidechains.. all coded by blockstream.

and finally you admit that core followers know and accept that their code base is centralized.. but are still blind to not see the practical ways to decentralize development while maintaining the quality/functionality of bitcoin..

i know you emphasised "software" but that just you trying to meander bitcoin to being the same as "blockstreams Intellectual Property software".

bitcoin should not belong as just one codebase/software.  bitcoin should have several dev teams making their own software that all talks to the same network.

in short,bitcoin should not just be a piece of software, bitcoin should not be owned by blockstream.. blockstream(core) should have no power to allow or disallow change.

but your comments are obvious that yo want blockstream central domination.. shame on you
i know you want to say that other dev teams are the corporate shills.. but you should give that game up, blockstreams partners have been revealed.. its to late to pretend they dont exist

Consensus based transaction network requires a breakdown in consensus between nodes, "because freedom"? Great idea, Franky ::)

its not a concensus if there is only one dictator..

there needs to be multiple implementations and then find the "general agreement" between them.. rather then one decision or nothing

i think its time you go and buy a few books and learn some basics

the only thing i know is that Ver and guys like him get rich some million dollars more with this recent bitcoin pump :P

most of us hoarders dont actually bother checking the price that regular anymore. im pretty sure Ver doesnt check it more then once a day or week... definitely not more then once a day.


knowing Vers hoard is based on 2011-2013 prices he knows he is in profit no matter what small price drama happens, 10% swings are meaningless.. so are 1% swings
we would all go insane if we were to be checking it regularly to see one minute its $550,000 hoard, next minute its $548,000 next minute its $552,000

so overall. the price drama is meaningless on the short term

Deliberately heinous exaggeration/misrepresentation won't help you this time either, anyone with enough BTC to care (as opposed to people like you and Roger who sing about your BTC net worth from the rooftops) will actually investigate what you're saying.


The "general agreement" of the market participants is actually already being decided...... in the marketplace. And it seems the market is kind of liking the direction Bitcoin is going in huh?







Code up your amazing ideas for a cryptocurrency that scales (with those non-existent coding chops you keep bleating on about) and then COMPETE IN THE ACTUAL FREE MARKET,  as opposed to trying to subvert someone else's project, like you're doing.

there are already 12 implementations. yet you and other blockstreamers want everyone to only use cores roadmap..
sorry but there are other options. core should not be a dictator. and you should not be a minion of a dictator either

maybe its best you go play with your monero along with icebreaker and gmaxwell

Don't you know that my Cat is the supreme Jedi savior? Well, that's what her official website says and thus you should worship her. I don't see anything wrong with that. [1]

---

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at with [1]. Anyhow, read the posts from Carlton regarding Ver.
[/quote]
LOL. you failed to see how honest an official website is.
should I write another animal's official website?

so the thing is Roger Ver probably wants to make clear the issue, so he can make a strategy on bitcoin. simple thought.

For some here that try to put price and decisions in some relations I'd suggest a reading here:

.. causes and effects are not obviously related ...

http://necsi.edu/guide/

Cheers
 ;)

I think he holds alot of bitcoin and he is allowed his opinion just like anyone else, it dosnt mean that we have to agree..... :)

Roger Ver is a typical FUDster with no brains at all.
He is trying to get some traction to his dead forum and his 'parody' subreddit with these kind of constant whining about block size increase.

Overall he is not helpful to the community at all.

No, you're just a typical moron who isn't even capable of debating the valid points he has raised. Very few have contributed more to the community than he has. Fool

Have fun on your censored crap forums :)

Well, at least I qualify my derogatory comments with an actual basis, if you take a read up and down this page (and thread) you'll notice BigBlockers dishing out random insults and playground taunts without any facts to back them up at all. And my comments relate to their conduct in the debate, not their actual position. Winning with class, huh guys :D

That's quite a charge. He needs to respond to it.

I'm generally skeptical of Randian libertards, as I have yet to meet one who would actually want to live in the world they argue for. Recently I challenged my local neighborhood libertard in a thought experiment. Since he always says "private property is the foundation of wealth and modern capitalism", I told him that logically he would favor a world where EVERYWHERE is private property. He bit this hook, and hilarity ensued...

Umm...somethings wrong there.That's not my quote ,its Lauda's reply to mine.I'll answer you on his behalf anyway.Unofficial one.

Again due to bad quoting I could understand the above part.No Roger Ver just wants to store those bitcoins in his ass while coming up with all the bullshit opinions on how to make bitcoins better.As Gmax said,if he'd be actually interested in dong something helpful,he'd donate 1/3 of what he has to the core developers.Every scene as dramatic cunt in it,Roger Ver is for Bitcoin.

Entirely true, search "Ian Freeman Free State Project pedophile" and then search "Roger Ver Ian Freeman Free Talk Live", and the evidence will be nice and high in the results.


I quite like the philosophy, they're essentially coming at political philosophy from the right angle, even if it's extreme to the point of fetishism. It sometimes goes totally bonkers though, like suggesting that babies owe their mothers rent for time spent in the womb, and I'm not entirely convinced that concurrently competing governance within a given area wouldn't end up with a similar outcome to today, but with all the death and theft just meted out in several different ways. But when you consider the escalating trend of technology replacing so much human involvement and decision making (gubermint jobs inclusive), waning government influence seems a natural by-product anyhow. Reality isn't going to take much convincing if it turns out we don't really need these bureaucrats, it will simply happen naturally.

So you stumped him with the old "BUT ZOMG WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?" canard?

Rand got a lot more right than she got wrong.  And I love how she is still able to give Marxists painful allergic reactions, causing them to wail upon contact with Objectivism.

Would you want to live in a world where EVERYTHING is public property?

What an asinine statement. There are a quite a number of individuals within the crypto ecosystem that contributes a tremendous amount without knowing C++ or core. I personally have not done any coding in years and couldnt right now even if you asked, but that doesnt stop me from contributing.




I've always personally loathed this apparent self given title. My only comment about Rodger since this thread is about him is that yes he may have done some good in the past, but his personality and actions speak as an opportunist (which in today's age is 90% of crypto users it seems). He's in it mainly for himself, and investments are really about ROI.





You just said its not a technical issue, then proceeded to list a number of technical issues (along with socioeconomic issues). It is in fact a technical issue, but its crosses multiple disciplines in science and engineering in order to resolve. Honestly the discipline that is best equipped to come up with a solution (or at least point it in the right direction) would be a systems engineer.

I dont disagree with your last statement.....well entirely at least. The only thing I would add is that regardless of what people may say there needs to be some level of centralization to guide people in order for the system to work effectively. Otherwise there would mass chaos with millions of crypto users using multiple version of Bitcoin core, each one syncing up with their own blockchain.

Also, it makes since that is the case because of the fact that he held out on his stash for so long.  If he were to have jizzed his pants at the fact that it went up to $10 a while ago and sold everything, he wouldn't have the fortune he has acquired today... I guess lesson to be learned is that if you believe in something you gotta stick to your guns.

Exactly this. As a result he didn't gain a million dollars in the recent price increase. That would only be the case if he sold his BTC for USD. And why would he do that if he believes in the future of Bitcoin?

Ver is a clown who pumps eth on r/btc

Roger Ver bought into Gavin's marketing fad from the time that XT was still a thing. His statements indicate that he geniounely believes that a bigger block size is the only solution to the scalling problem and that it would open up bitcoin for mass adoption. To me, this mindset sounds like fud mixed with massive euphoria, definitely not in touch with reality. From Ver's recent goofs, it became obvious that he doesn't even know how bitcoin transactions work, and even went as far as to advocate for feeless transactions... It's not worth your while to take this guy seriously.

Pls read before trotting out ur hobby horse :)
>canard
and learn what words mean before using them.

I'm the last person you want to challenge on word usage.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canard


And you also believe Ayn Rand has something to do with child abuse?

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4274-children-s-rights


Stupid hippie.  Did you take too much brown acid at Woodstock?   :D

"BUT ZOMG WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?" is neither a story nor is it false.
I see your problem is much more profound than simple lack of learningz :)

See the boldface text above, which you have artfully redacted.
But sure, Rand's problems may be linked to child abuse, though that's irrelevant :)

Hey Ver, tell your boi at mtgox to add your shitcoin

Ayn Rand was abused as a child, by Bolshevik state terror in the Soviet Union.  That's why she came to the USA.  Duh.

Although popular among plebs such as yourself, the belief that only the State can build roads is false, and thus may be referred to as a canard.

EG:

https://plus.google.com/104129125369341849767/posts/9egh1Jgrmt9



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-11/ben-carson-endorses-donald-press-conference-live-feed#comment-7301546


LOL what a dumbarse, indeed.   ;)

It is this mindset created current mess. There are various of ways to solve a technical problem, if you could not find the way that align with your long term social economy goal, it just means that you are not smart enough and not qualified. By changing the long term goal to suit a narrow technical limitation is like driving a car into the river because your steering wheel is locked: You have to sit in the car because it is high-tech

Just look at how Windows took over nearly most of the desktop market, they had far less stable and secure technology comparing with unix system at that time, especially the network part, but they get the right market direction before any other tech gurus realized it, they patch each bug, patch after patch, but their direction never changed: End user friendly

Similarly here, by putting all the transactions on-chain, you have to strive to find the best possible on-chain scaling technology, like thin blocks doing right now. But if you start to become lazy and try to use the old centralized financial models like payment channels because they can provide millions of transactions per second, then you just drag bitcoin into the old banking model, which will dramatically reduce its usage and increase its risk, especially when there are many other alt-coins provide on-chain scaling

>Ayn Rand was abused as a child
So don't ask stupid [and irrelevant] questions like "And you also believe Ayn Rand has something to do with child abuse?"

>"bullshit popular among plebes like you"
Listen up, Dunning–Kruger victim:
The reason I don't bring up that Ayn Rand fans are NEET failures & brokeass degenerates, still living in Mom's basements because "gubermint j00z gave muh jerb to niggers!!" is because, while such delusional thinking is dominant in the Rand fandom, *it has nothing to do with the topic at hand." It's a non-sequitur.
If someone asked you "who'll build teh roads," your bringing it up would be justified. Since no one did, it's not. That's why I advised you to "read before trotting out your hobby horse."
Are you, at least, beginning to understand?

I see you've wisely chosen to stop petulantly and ignorantly disputing my demonstrably correct use of the word canard.

Next time, don't question my mastery of word usage, or I shall have to teach you additional lessons in vocabulary.


Here is an Ayn Rand fan...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcF4A0dox1o

...discussing Bitcoin and blockchain derivatives before the CFTC.   8)

Chin up, didn't mean to shit on your fandom! I'm sure you're a unique, special snowflake & nothing at all like 99% of the Randian losers.
*And Ayn totally doesn't look like a transbro, that's just mean. Judging people by their looks is wrong.

Your trolling is priceless!   ;D

So creative of you to come to a libertarian techie board and start spewing anti-libertarian/anti-Objectivist defamation and canards.

LMK when you address the CFTC (I won't hold my breath).

Say hi to Prof. Trolfi for me.  I haven't seen him around lately, perhaps he's too busy furiously exchanging his collapsing Brazilian ShitFiat for the Buttcoins he claims to despise...

Nah, this isn't a techie or or a liber board. This is a board where technically & plain old illiterate third-world signature spammers come to scratch out a living.
And where sad Dunning–Kruger victims like you get to feel clever, because kno how3spel :)
P.S. Just look at the topics in this sub :D
http://s33.postimg.org/9yrpljdyn/Capture.jpg

"Halving is a profitable" "Does sending Bitcoins feel good?" :D

Comparing Windows to Bitcoin is a false analogy. Cherry picking analogies won't help you build up any kind of argument.

No. Payment channels are not centralized. Here you go again, trying to spread FUD in regards to something which you do not understand. Seems like you're part of the Dunning–Kruger effect as described by the troll above me.

People like Roger Ver are toxic to Bitcoin and its community. When he says he has been supporting & promoting Bitcoin, you must understand he means he has been supporting and promoting his Bitcoin related businesses. Roger Ver's loud complaints on the blocksize limit have been hurting Bitcoin much more than the blocksize limit none-existing issue. He is making a mountain out of a molehill, and the reason for this behavior remains an open question (trying to pump ETH?). At this point, the best the community can do is ignore him and his businesses & cesspool forums.

in another topic lauda pretended LN doesnt use hubs..
now he is saying there are no central intermediataries..

here i have done a screenshot a video from a video on a website lauda himself linked as his fountain off knowledge
https://i.imgur.com/xdDtRNr.jpg

hubs and intermediaries...

im guessing he will rebut talking about the spokes.. (users sending transactions) but will pretend the hub(intermediary) doesnt exist. and yet its this intermediary that actually works as a "mempool" and does the closing of the channel and settling the final large transaction..
i wonder what would happen if someone DDoSed the hub(intermediary) before it had a chance to settle... by by transactions

LN uses nodes in the same way that the p2p Bitcoin network uses nodes. None of them are special. Anyone can run a node. Each node connects to multiple other nodes. None of them are centralised.


The hubs are the nodes and the spokes are the connections between the nodes.


Instead of wondering about it you could research it. If any node goes offline before its channels are closed, the channel will be closed when the timelocked transaction becomes valid, after a suitable delay.

Did you recently buy this account from the original Franky? I seem to remember talking with Franky a few years ago and he seemed smarter then. It could just be that he was agreeing with me then. That can make me think people are smart when in fact they're just repeating something they've read.

So GMAX is trolling Roger Ver. How come he didn't put #rekt in the thread title? ???


Of course, when he's right he's right. :D

This is actually a good point.

I can't agree at all.

Payment channels are _nothing_ like old centralized financial models.  Who is the trusted third party? No one.  

When you go on and on about "on chain" you're confusing a technical mechanism for a social or business business goal.  Everyone being able to transact with everyone else at low cost and without the risk of censorship or exposure to extraneous counterparty risk is a laudable goal.  "On chain"-- meaning transacting in a lock-step synchronous world wide flooding network-- is a technical mechanism. On that, to the best of our current understanding _cannot_ deliver that business/social goal.  Fortunately, we do know ways to deliver it.

It's like walking up to some aircraft engineers and demanding that the next design be exactly the same but have a wingspan twice as long, when really your goal was to double the number of pounds of cargo it could carry.  Maybe the change lets it carry more cargo, or maybe it just makes the plane unstable.  Regardless, a particular _mechanism_ was confused with the business goal, and as a result an end-run around the science and engineering that could, potentially, have actually met the goal if given a chance and allowed to make the required tradeoffs.

Of course, there is always someone out there that will tell you that you can solve any complex problem with this one weird trick.  But there is a word for them: Scammers and their patsies.  And right now, there is a whole clique of the Bitcoin old timers who were bamboozled by Craig Wright and his 419 scam which predominantly featured a ton of magical scalablity claims... it's going to take a while for their wide and greedy eyes to blink and realize they've been tricked, and that maybe these magical scaling claims were just as fraudulent as everything else.

Great example of iCEBREAKER's Razor: "Sufficiently advanced thought leadership is indistinguishable from trolling."

What other sleazy subdomains can we suggest Bitcoin Judas use in his futile efforts to exploit the regrettably overpriced premium bitcoin dot com domain?

Porn.bitcoin.com and xxx.bitcoin.com would complement the casino for a seamless Las Vegas blackjack + hookers vibe.

TaxProtester.bitcoin.com, to cover political issues close to Roger's heart attorney and criminal record.

IhateGregMaxwell.bitcoin.com and FreeTx4EVA.bitcoin.com,  for all the latest anti-BlockSchemeNorthCorea agitprop.

WhinyRagequit.bitcoin.com, featuring all the latest maudlin Goodbye Cruel Bitcoin World self harm.

Dash.bitcoin.com, so the most pro-Klassique altcoin cult has a designated place to use Gavinista FUD for pumping their bad crypto/snake oil marketing instamined shitcoin.

A16Z.bitcoin.com and R3.bitcoin.com, for all the latest anti-cypherpunk, pro-authoritarian banksters with a Satoshi-wannabee predilection.

This is fun; I can't wait to hear what subs Gmax suggests!   8)

Not necessarily trolling but he's has called Ver out on other occasions as well. Here's one I remember:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454900.msg14708418#msg14708418

Klassique isn't about transactions per second, Klassique is about sending a message.

That message ("we have ways of making Honey Badger give a shit") will be best propounded on the upcoming bamboozled.bitcoin.com site, which will serve as Craig Wright's personal vanity platform.   ;D

Development of Bitcoin consist of both, code and services, and both are equally important. So I thank to both for the effort to make Bitcoin better and more usefull.

Why is making wings a bit longer such a weird "trick" for an aircraft engineer?
Your saying any aircraft engineer who looks at making longer wings is a scammer?

You want to reinvent travel via wormholes instead?
(may take a while, and meet unforeseen problems)

But hey, how could anyone want bigger wings. scammers.

Just another unconstructive info-less nonsensical post.
Expecting more reality, disappointed again.

No. It's like walking up to an aircraft engineer and telling him you need a plane that carries more people, and him telling you that planes can't scale. But the railroad company he works for can, and will handle all the passengers, using your airplanes to deliver train tickets and reservations. Of course, it doesn't need to be your airplane, and no airplanes are needed, truth be told.

BTW, thanks for the hybrid scaling solution. Best of both worlds ::)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/f8/47/dcf847c3717de51e33a2061c97de2809.jpg

I have no info gmaxwell works on altcoins as well, but some other smallblockers defending 1 MB onchain blocksizes obviously exploiting the status quo and the need for wide consensus - it is the obvious Bitcoin weakness, the funny part is the attack dont come from governments, but from those who want to profit from higher altcoin usage. The point is consensus model can be easily exploited, as it doesnt takes much to block further improvenments.

According to the Core development road map, SegWit should be out by now. The 2MB block size should also be implemented in July, is there any news?

So the real reason why Core prefers soft-forks over hard-forks has now been revealed.

They don't want to lose control of "their" project to free market forces.

They want to be able to push through whatever change they want without anyone else being able to have a say in it.



https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/ (https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/)

I'm loving the last ditch effort of the Gavinista hivemind to stave off complete obsolescence and irrelevance.

As if dozens of gossipy shitposts fixating on GMAX are going to help Klassik recover from its death spiral.

One is reminded of the Imperial Japanese "fanatical defense" at the end of WW2.

The True Believers knew in their minds they were not winning the war, but their hearts could not accept the Emperor's (nor their own) fallibility and loss.

Likewise, the Gavinista kamizakes are blowing up what little credibility they have left (and trying to buy more) in this desperate gamble to justify their governance coup "Because Evil GMAX."

It's almost as if some cynical/smart-ass small-blocker infiltrators are pretending to have Hearnias and are intentionally toxifying rbtc with endless discussion of personalities....

;D ;D ;D

Not knocking you at all, but this is a really poor example of what going on. In the real world, you dont just walk up to an avionics engineer and say "hey I want the wingspan to be twice as large" with the assumption that larger wingspan = increased load. What really would happen is that the avionics engineer is flowed down a set of detailed requirements from the program manager and systems engineer, which they would get from a RFQ/RFP (request for quote/request for proposal) from the customer. If its an internal development and the product is being sold as is, a group internal to the company would develop requirements and those are sub-allocated to the various engineering disciplines. Either way, there is a large list of requirements that as they are flowed down to each discipline, they are refined more and more.

Need larger wings? Sure, you can carry both more load and fuel. But the engines would need to increase in size in order to achieve lift. Larger engine sizes could also provide more prime power internal to the plane as well, powering some sophisticated and high power radar systems.

Start with "plane needs to carry 5 tones max internal load", and work from there.


This is the inherent problem that I have argued ever since this scaling issue became apparent. Bitcoin, and every other coin (with maybe the exception of a few) lack bare bones requirements. There is a significant gap and lack of proper skill sets with the lead developers of most coins that would have put the scaling issue to bed years ago. Not saying that developers are not skilled (all of you are very skilled at software engineering), but software engineering is software engineering. Software engineers are not program managers, engineering managers, systems engineers, business managers, and so forth. Yet at the same time those with the proper skill set can be ostracized from conversations for lack of coding skills (per the comment made to Lauda about not knowing C++).


Back to Bitcoins requirements, the entire multi year conversation can be summed up with one question. Is Bitcoin a means of storage of wealth, or is it a payment system? If the developers of all coins can answer this, than the quest for real solutions can start. Right now Bitcoin is hobbling along and will continue to do so with half assed attempts to fix an undefined requirement.

If Bitcoin has to be a currency, it certainly must be both.

The US dollar is a currency and is neither.

It's certainly not a storage of wealth (which is a weird concept, you can't store an abstraction like "wealth" any more than you can store "love" or "respect"), but it is a payment system. It was a payment system long before credit cards and electronic payment processors, long before commercial use of electricity :-\

Bitcoin is nothing without us - just like the Internet, E-Mail,....

but can be all / multidimensional - just what you make of it

so: limiting Bitcoin (in any dimension ) is a joke  and will be corrected sooner or later

The irony of your post is the exact reason why the block size debate is going on. No one can answer what Bitcoin is. Yes is acts like a payment system, but if one were to hold their coins then it acts as a storage of wealth.

There are payment systems which use the US dollar, but the US dollar itself is not a payment system.

So the bitcoin is both a currency and the payment system. That is very convenient for the bitcoin holders.

If USdollar is currency, it must be both. For the record, there is nothing like a pure currency. USD is definitelly getting less and less currency. Bitcoin is getting more and more currency.

But honestly there is nothing to debate over. Definition of money is:
#1 a medium of exchange
#2 a unit of account
#3 a store of value
#4 standard of deferred payment.
(money is all 4 points at once)

So the logical implication is that if bitcoin (or anything else) has to be a currency, it must be a storage of value and payment system=medium of exchange. Another logical implication is that if you believe that USD does not fulfill all 4 points above, then you do not believe it is a currency. (Maybe you have your own definition what currency is, but then we really have a problem.)

Last remark: far the biggest problem for bitcoin will be #2; everyone thinks in USD or fiat even when using bitcoin. I pay people in btc always based on exchange rate. Their salary is 4K USD, not 10 BTC.

Still all this is trying.
Maybe the internet started as an experiment (or still is) but there is no categorical definition what it is.
We just have some protocolls living in it like smtp or html.
Bitcoin is next such a protocol / experiment. Could be that the biggest experiment to us is yet to find out what it is?
Best answer: it is a full new category and we only can project some of it to lower dimensions we can better understand because we can touch it.

I do not argue with that. Bitcoin can be something new. It can be many other things. But if bitcoin has to be used as money then it must fulfill the requirements of money.

It is the same like with fiat money. You can pay with them and you can use them as toilet paper for example. Once can pay with bitcoins too (in limited way), but bitcoin can be used for smart contracts [but probably not as toilet paper].

ok lets clarify some things..
currency is an umbrella term.. nearly anything can/is a currency. it only needs to hit one point. #medium of exchange
EG in prisons, cigarettes are a currency

then below that umbrella term are different forms of currency that not only meet the one point mentioned, but also have their own points added, that categorize what they are aswell as being a currency.
for instance bank notes(money) are not actually a #store of value. in the UK it says on a bank note "i promise to pay the bearer the sum of"
so a UK bank note is not a store of value, but an IOU
it is a #unit of account because it promises X which can be accounted/quantified

however a £1 coins is a #store of value and a #unit of account..

FIATs points/requirements which makes money money, is that it is made law to be accepted as payment for goods services, and taxes. (#standard of deferred payment)
EG you cannot pay taxes with cigarette for instance. but cigarettes are a currency but dont have enough points/requirements to be in the "money" subcategory.

bitcoin is a #currency
beyond that bitcoin is also
#unit of account
#store of value

but its not universally accepted as #standard of deferred payment, because retailers swap it to fiat to 'settle' the debt in most cases

to me bitcoin is not a monetary currency, but instead an asset currency. which is what it should remain. it should definetly never be something that is directly taxable by one government because then it becomes owned by them.

once people realise the true nature of "money" they will get put off of it and prefer to use "assets" EG after an apocalypse, money is useless but assets rule supreme. in africa people dont like money but love Mpesa.(yes phone call credit/time is an asset)

That is it AS WELL.
I just do not like to restrict it ( like any other usless restriction like the 1MB...)
To me it is also like a real part of ME since I can put in my own work / value and I own the keys...

Anything can be a currency yes. But not that anything is a currency.
Only very rare circumstances make from some anything the money.

If people use GBP as storage of value, then it is a storage of value. It does not need to be written on the note: "This is a storage of value". Also it does not matter if some authority, like state, says "this is a storage of value" or "this is money", if the authority is no more authority.

I for example use btc, gold, GBP, EUR, AUD and USD as storage of value (bitcoin so far proved as best storage of value of all, because it appreciated a lot). If many people think as me, then btc, gold, GBP, EUR, AUD and USD will be storage of value. When it is about money, then it is about self-fulfilling prophecy and network effects. Those factors are far beyond any laws. Like the cigarettes became a currency in prisons (yes, currency, with all 4 attributes including the storage of value) not because someone said: this will be money.

an asset currency is LESS restricting than a monetary currency. and im glad of that. for the same reason you are.


stop trying to confuse the word currency with the word money..
put it this way currency is the stump of a tree, it then branches out.. each branch goes in different directions.
some directions produce fruit(assets) some branches produce leaves to help grow(investment bonds) some branches can be used by anyone for other reasons..

"money" is not the stump of the tree along with "currency".. "money" is just a side branch

as for the storage of value VS unit of account.. its all about perception. i agree .. average joe bloggs doesnt know the difference so they blindly trust that the "promise" has meaning and thus that trust translates into the banknote itself being the store.. rather than the bank of england itself.

no offense, but it is the other people who are confusing the terms constantly here

The point here of course is that currency and  money are very closely connected. It is some very stupid point, where bitcoin community started to distinguish between money and currency, where currency has to be something without value of something like that (I read somewhere explanation like that, not sure if it fits your explanation with trees and branches). There is no money without currency and there is no currency without money. It does not matter if it is fiat or what. It is 2 sides of the same coin :D

Currency is representation of money (of the symbol of money). Used to be something physical like gold or paper, starting with computers b4 btc, currency can be just numbers.

I have MsC in macroeconomics. Not that it is a useful thing. But up and there it is.

Yes indeed, if every shitcoin now is called cryptocurrency, then it is not a currency, until it represents money. The term cryptocurrency is unlucky, because it associates a currency. (Yes, cryptocurrencies flow as current, but the term currency is simply used for ages for money only that flow).

ok im guessing your not understanding the tree analogy..

lets say currency meant "population"
within the "population" there were many categories people
africans were the diamonds
new yorkers were the money
Japan was the bearer bonds
saudi-arabia was the gold
amsterdam was sex (if you dont think sex is a currency you have never been married or met a girl in the bar looking for free drinks)

money was just one small group of people..
but you can still have currency even if you take away certain people.

all that would happen is people would need to change how they transact with each other because they cant use new yorkers anymore

EG imagine an apocolypse.. bank notes are meaningless.. now the currency is food, guns, fuel and sex..  
bartering does not need "money" the swap of one good for another good..

money was created as an equilibrium to reduce debate about 'why should 1 chicken be worth two bunches of carrots' on one day but different the next day, or even the same day but with a different person.

the reliance on money as a lazy way to stabilize "value" of assets has inflated peoples perceptions of how important "money" is. and now people dont even care about the assets but only care about the money.

but that does not mean that bitcoin should become "money", but instead to let people realise there is an alternative to making payments and trading that is not "money"

anyway this topic has meandered totally offtopic from the roger verr thing

Sorry to kick off the Randian debate again, but I'll bite.

I suppose a world where everything was public property would be a world with no governance, borders, or nation-states? Well then, maybe! See what I did there?  You were going for the Marxist gulag argument, admit it.

I didn't mention anything about roads to the Rand-troll. All I asked him was "How will you travel anywhere, when you'll need permission to cross thousands of individual jurisdictions?"

You're telling me that problem doesn't exist now? There exists 2 concepts that render your argument fallacious: self interest and pragmatism.

Imagine seeing a helicopter flying over your residence (one of thousands of "jurisdictions" as you put it) in a future Randian "nightmare": what sort of dickhead is going to get on the comms to said chopper, threatening missile attack if they don't pay the passage tithe? I suspect you would (quite reasonably) think: "Live and let live, one day, I may need to fly over this guy's house also". And maybe those dickheads will exist, but, guess what? Those dickheads exist now anyway, they're called military air traffic control.

At least in the supposed nightmare scenario, such a thing as safe zones would/could exist for aircraft or other transport. Right now, it's either pay the extortion fee, get killed by military aircraft, or spend your life confined to just the one tax farm with the rest of the cattle.

Point taken. Either way it's a problem, but I wouldn't be in favor of creating even more overlapping jurisdictions, boundaries, borders, checkpoints, and toll booths, which is what this hypothetical hyper-privatized world would likely devolve into...

Personally I don't see that much difference between the Randian utopian society and the current system. Sure, taxes suck, it's hard to run a business due to excessive regulation, and the elite hold all of the cards.  Remember that Alan Greenspan, Mark Cuban, Travis Kalanick, Peter Thiel, etc. are all Randians. These are some of the biggest douchebags on the planet, tremendously powerful and rich, and hugely influential on US policy.

The only place the Randos shine is their foreign policy IMHO. Ron Paul is alone in speaking the truth there.

Ok, except I debunked that idea; the majority of people would adopt "live and let live" on a pragmatic basis, not "shoot every possible varmint into smithereens" on a vindictive basis.

 

Again, I'm not sure you're actually reading much about anarchist/libertarian philosophy; there are no taxes, no mandated regulation and no static, aristocratic elite (although there will of course be landscape of relative winners and losers that would frequently change)


You're identifying an important theme/issue there; the crossover between libertarianism and corporate fascism. Genuine anarchism/libertariansim is the only credible ideological threat to the establishment today, and so the propagandists that infiltrate the "liberty movement" are often the most subtle and subsequently the most accomplished (I used to check people like Jeffrey Tucker, Walter Block, Roger Ver, Adam Kokesh etc for their seemingly credible views on the libertarian outlook, but the behaviour of those people over time has become more and more suspicious).

Think about it: fascists can easily portray themselves as libertarians, justifying it by claiming that subjugating the population is what's needed to secure their personal freedom. "I'm free to literally do as I please. Oh, so you guys are saying you're being oppressed by my freedom? That'll be the price of liberty, huh?!"

Real libertarians/anarchists take both the individualist view and do everything possible to help as many other people secure the same for themselves (because having everyone as strong as possible, but also mutually supportive, is the most effective way of preventing elites getting/retaining too much power). To me, that's what promoting and supporting Bitcoin is all about: securing freedom for myself and for everyone else. I don't want to be "free" with a bunch of destitute people outside my front porch, it's no different to being a neo-fascist, just as you essentially say.

Well said. I think the current breed of corporate fascists operate on a level of their own, complete with a different set of rules and morals.

There's always a gap between theory and practice. Personally I don't believe greed is good. I don't think everything should be a market. I regard Rand's philosophy as second-rate Nietzschean rehash. But I do have hope for optimists who preach economic freedom. As you say, it's an inclusive community that seeks to build wealth together.



 

Yeah, until they travel accross Carltons land,



(Roger Ver did not help in the making of this post.)

This guy is totally out to lunch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4rim0c/roger_ver_on_twitter_my_career_began_in_1999_by/d51f0ee

In the UK, you can send money to other people for free, even you and the person receiving the funds are with different banks.

Bitcoin is censorship resistant super money. You got to pay for this flight. 8)

Nothing is really free. The banks' networks and computers cost money to operate and someone somewhere is paying for it and the costs will eventually be passed back to you in one form or another.

Nothing is free. I agree with that. The banks or the Paypal charge us indirectly. But if I do not have to pay to transfer money, I fee good.

Anyway the real elephant in the room is centralization: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4s5ar0/the_top_5_pools_all_chinese_now_have_824_of_the/

This is disheartening.

Bitcoin is pretty cheap considering what it offers. It's unfortunate that some are just greedy and want to rush user adoption as soon as possible. What we should be doing is continue developing a very secure and resistant system (the less decentralized it is, the less resistant it is) that was supposed to help us move away from the corrupt traditional system (money out of thin air).

People really need to stop listening to him when it comes to technicalities.

This is somewhat of an issue right now, and this makes one wonder why anyone in their right mind would propose changes that would give the miners even more control (e.g. control the block size limit).

If blocks were bigger, there could be more users, which would cause bitcoin to be even more decentralized.  With blocks small and the "fix" of the lightning network (which is a centralized off-chain system) bitcoin becomes more centralized.

That argument doesn't really have a solid standing ground. Remember the times when the average block size was much lower, i.e. there was a lot of room for transactions (and users)? So why didn't the number of nodes increase (there are surely a lot of new users)?

The wording "fix of the lightning network" is bad and doesn't make sense. Lightning is not a centralized system.

I am not sure how bigger blocks lead to more users? It will lead to a better and faster block finding which will speed up transactions.
If the blocks are full it can take hours to get a transaction being confirmed.

It doesnt matter someone is paying for this. You can have free bank account and transaction fees. Those who dont put much time how to choose free bank account service, basically pays all the fees for you. The only downside is you still hold fiat, which is not transparent currency (no public ledger availabe) so creating money out of nothing is very likely by those who controls the ledger.

With Bitcoin, miners choose what fees are acceptable to include your transaction. But current tiny block size was set long ago, technology improved since then.