Bitcoin Forum

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/853250894162350080


At this point, I am convinced Roger Ver is compromised and is posting absurd shit like this to tip us off.

Mmm not sure, Roger Ver is known for not having very high understanding of the bitcoin technology, he has said a lot of nonsense in the past. I believe this is still him.
He was seen recently in several interviews. Or you mean he is coerced to say this nonsense?

Roger said unconfirmed tx is valid.

Is he a member of this forum? I think he can say if he's been compromised or not.
What is his role in the game, anyway? I am not so well informed :D

Roger Ver wanting nodes to be centralized & easier to control what people should expect him to say.

Roger Ver is against bitcoin being decentralized.

Everything about him is the inverse opposite of what bitcoin was designed to be.

I do not remember who is Roger Ver, wasn't he someone important here, in term of developpment at least ? Or wasn't he the Bitcoin Unlimited guy ? In case this fool is him, you should not wait anything intelligent coming from him.

He was always like this; A shit talking lucky fucktard. I still can't believe how the fuck he bought so many bitcoins and managed to hold them till now without dumping. Him being the early adopter and owning bitcoin.com are the only features with quality he has. If you check his personal website, he mentioned only those two. He has nothing else about himself to tell us.

Roger Ver is on record claming Mt Gox was totally fine, and trying to fake proof of his transactions not going throught when he was making some mistake, he is also not technologically versed as demonstrated in the anarchapulco podcast with tone valls, johnny from blockstream, etc. He has been pushing the BUcoin agenda for a while with all this garbage.

That's correct but when ASIC came to the play there was no need for every computer to run a full node and now you can have 10,000 TH/s and just running one full node, idea of Satoshi was like that, running nodes on weak systems slows down the network as they are not able to handle all the computations.
Anyways when you running a node/wallet it doesn't change anything other than slowing down the propagation, only miners should run full nodes and it's not like you could change protocol and have a vote in activating proposals.

Where are the shills to defend their Bitcoin Jesus? This is one of the BU heroes.

Who still thinks BU (with its centralization) is a good idea  ::)

Can't see how any reasonable Bitcoiner can support this trash  ???

This doesn't make any sense  ::)

Full node = all servers that have blockchain ledger
Isn't mining completely different than nodes?

He's not a developer, just a lucky early adopter who owns like 100,000 Bitcoin and the domain Bitcoin.com.  He has a lot of money but not a lot of brains, hard work or relevance except for his influence over the market.  He always talks shit because he doesn't have anything to say for himself except that he has a lot of possessions and he's a "voluntaryist" (the anarcho-capitalist route is where a lot of rich people head, I wonder why).

Your mining pool operator overlords approve this message!

My interest in listening to his opinion on Bitcoin's fundamental matters hovers somewhere around the big, fat, oozing Zero mark. He should be learning his iron buns off to brush up on the real workings and then maybe his contributions will be valid.

yes
things like asics (miners) dont have any node function/hard drive they just hash a hash.

technically a full node is one that does everything, that means validates competitions blocks and makes its own .. like how things were in pre 2013

but since 2013 things have changed and the community have re-termed things..
an 'economic' validation nodes are ones users and businesses use (we socially call them full nodes)
there are the lite nodes like electrum / multibit which dont do much more then just create transactions.
pool nodes can be full(economic) or lite (spv)

now an economic node, a pool node and an asic miner are all separate entities which is good for decentralisation, but still ALL work symbiotically together and spread out to be more diverse and decentralised

You could run 100 full nodes but still you'll need miners to confirm and include your transaction in blocks.
Nodes are agents of miners delivering them TXs and handing out their found blocks to rest of the network.

the original Satoshi vision was that full nodes also mine.  He is somewhat right in that theoretically a full node miner should prioritize propogation to other miners.
I think the main point is that we don't need thousands of thousands of nodes that don't mine and only relay, although it is good to have some non mining full
nodes to serve SPV users.

you could have a pool with a billion exahash, but if the block didnt follow the rules nodes have.. the block is rejected in 3 seconds.

its a symbiotic relationship of many elements

so you dont really agree with Ver, then?

I somewhat agree with you but its such an edge case that its almost irrelevant.

How can a person be compromised? Roger Ver is the #1 bitcoin idiot, only famous for becoming rich as an early bitcoiner with his buddy "the first bitcoin felon". Are you forgetting Roger's rich past with idiocy and crime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ver#Selling_explosives)? I don't know if Roger is trying to talk about SPV mining here (he's proven that he knows close to nothing about bitcoin's technical side as he doesn't even know how to transact BTC (https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4h2piu/bitcoin_jesus_transactioning_powers_seem_to_have/)) but if that's the case, here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274066.msg13148920#msg13148920)'s some actual insight by someone that knows what he's talking about.

Checks and balances are what keep the world stable. I don't trust the miners to consistently do the right thing, nor do I particularly trust anyone else. The more nodes there are stating their case and enforcing the rules the better, miner or not.

And you being a bitcoin lover without mining then running 100 full nodes just to help the network still you need to pay high fees for your tx to confirm, still nothing changes for you, miners including tx in blocks.
Of course they need to obey nodes rules otherwise it's some other coin they'd be mining, but miners have their own nodes and majority consensus agrees on those rules lol r we doing the basics all over again? we know these things already.

Did you get tired of being a shill for BUgcoin and joined signature campaign? did Jihan fired you?

without knowing the context of the tweet. its hard to tell. afterall if you have

P - n - n - n -p

3 nodes between a pool (or lets say 6000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus)
vs
P - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - p

10 nodes between a pool (or lets say 20000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus)

the propagation time of getting the data to all entities of the network takes longer, even if your using the '6( 8 ) degree of separation' network connectivity

lol... i realized i was posting a lot and why not get a bit of coffee money for the honey while i'm enjoying the forum?
none of my views changed recently

There you have it folks. One of the stupidest statements that I have ever heard in my life within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. What is Bitcoin if users can't attain financial sovereignty by running their own fully validating client? ::)

Anyone defending Ver or this statement at this point is really delusional or paid. I don't see any other possible explanations.

There is no context, he was not responding to anyone. He just put it out there.

I feel the exact same way about those defending people like Luke Jr.  ::)

I agree with his ONLY BITMAIN is allowed to run full node !!!!
Noone should even dare to use one :D and try validate bloks.
Okay joking.

Roger sucks hard 1st MTgox now that pathetic SHOW guys COME ONE.
Roger  got alts like DASH MONERO and after he bought them he went and share his investments :D...
I kno many good alt coins but being face of BTC and promoting alts is pathetic.
He dumped on followers and i hope those one were burned at 100$ DASH to get lesson.

from other hand is harder to DDOS 10 000 nodes than 5 pools :D so having a lot nodes allso helps.
And in time of uncertainty you can use own node to validate blocks to not get on BTU trap if they fork accidentally.

So Roger thinks that BTC is now BTCBitmain coin and no longer p2p currency.
I don't know how he have brain washed but he is getting worse shape EVERY day.

He did not have any statements (AFAIK) that were completely against everything that Bitcoin stands for. He is a genuine small blocker.

He's either compromised by some corporation or agency, or he is brainwashed. Correct.

---

This is archived just in case that he backtracks from it: https://archive.fo/54Mln

i literally lol'd at this.

agreed. hense why i was questioning the context of his tweet..
the context might be. "based on the bitcoin network of 2009, not 2017 what is a full node" being a question asked to him elsewhere, but then the question got deleted... but no one can guess the context without finding the source for WHY he make the tweet

People have no incentive to run non mining full nodes, we need what Satoshi suggested, big server farms only running full nodes and everyone else look up to them knowing they're running on valid chain.

I don't think I would go as far as to say that Roger is "compromised"

In satoshi's whitepaper, he referred to nodes as a mining entity, and referred to non-mining entities as "SPV clients"

In practice today, anyone who is receiving a payment of BTC prior to sending goods/services does need to be running a full node.

When I first started with Bitcoin I was running Core for 3 months, opening it from 1:00 AM until 6:00 AM and couldn't fully sync with network :).
Back then total blockchain size was 80GB or 50GB I think with internet speed of 256kbps/8=32KBps I figured I might be slowing down other 8 nodes connected to me and was using a laptop that I bought back in 2007 so I stopped and deleted more than 40GB of blockchain data.
I even used to place a fan in front of my laptop and turning it on so it can get cooler, I consider that a burden don't you?

https://blockchain.info/en/pools

Life made HARD LOL from satoshi whitepaper assumptions - now miners join into pools and ONLY pool operator have to run full node. So according to Roger we should have today 26 FULL NODES :D - THAT WOULD BE GREAT SECURITY FEATURE have 26 nodes than 7000+ According to Satoshi white paper 7000 < 26 pool nodes.

I hope you see how satoshi ideal money can not work as he want.


If you don't want send money to fork like BTU can be via spv server bug ,you have to run own full node today.
Satoshi hasn't predicted Bitmain hard-fork complications and mining power centralization.

Same goes to many projects when final build is not same like 1st draft because you can not predict road.

Weird thing for him to use a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. A full node is any node that keeps a copy of the blockchain.

nope a full node should ALSO validate what it receives.
EG just grabbing data from a bittorrent seed. but never independently revalidating the entire blockchain data. may contain bad data somewhere in that download
but now we are getting into the personal semantics

..
afterall would u say a prunned node is a full node
afterall would u say a stripped(no witness) node is a full node

What I've heard about him is that he's been involved in some shady stuff (if I recall, he was convicted of selling explosives on eBay; probably fireworks of some sort if I remember right). And then he helped promote Bitcoin, moved out of the U.S., and gave up his U.S. citizenship. From the sound of things, he doesn't get along well with the U.S. authorities.

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

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

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

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

This forum is so entertaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And On and on and on and on and on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

research: blockstream-> hyperledger

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

sometimes i laugh at the hypocritical comments you make

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

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

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

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

wow is right. This should be irrefutable proof that Roger is working for the dark side.

the only way you're going to be able to use bitcoin in real-life commerce is if you make unconfirmed transactions safe enough.   

sure it's never as safe as conformed transactions, but they should be at least safe enough that you can use them to buy things at the store.

otherwise bitcoin won't be worth anything.

Wrong. Unconfirmed means unconfirmed why can't you understand this? plz click the link in my sig.

Can you explain what you meant? Trying to work out what the Hippocratic oath got to do with this.

The only way to get reliable instant transactions is not 0 conf onchain transactions but lightning network transactions.

Roger ver is blocking exactly that since we need segwit for LN to work at full steam.

Going with your logic, ETH should have bitcoin's value because it has more nodes. Now go back to your room, and don't speak unless you know what you're talking. To make sure of it, i'll add a collar and a gag ball.

https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
https://bitnodes.21.co/

I am confidant that if you were to cut Roger Ver open you would find he's made entirely of straw and bull shit.

The question is who controlling whom?

What is obvious is the banks, etc, do not like Bitcoin as it would hit their potential revenues. Behind the scene, no doubt they are trying to find ways to control it.
Could it be the maxblock at 1mb/segwit - any attempt to increase capacity?
Could it be LN where they hope the fees go to them and not the miners?
Could it be start a Bitcoin civil war, thus no progress to increase capacity or scaling, creating a stalemate?
The longer this goes on the more suspicious i am.

LN can function WITHOUT segwit.

blockstreams LN wants segwit because THEIR LN is pre-programmed to work with segwit.

but multi-sig is not broke and has no issues with malleability or quadratics.
its just that blockstream want their LN compatible with their segwit.

lightning is not quadratic risk because its only a 2in-2 out.. thus no quadratic delay risks (its not thousands of inputs in simple terms)
lightning is not malleable risk because it requires other party to sign off/refuse.. thus other party see's and know what has been signed to counter malleability risk

Do you support segwit?

I have decided 95% to support none of the current proposals. All have - and +. Prefer all proposals to fail. I simply believe that increasing the maxblocksize to 2mb is the best way from now till 2018. Thus new research is required. New debate.

I am using USAF for now, hoping that it will eat into BU and Core shares, thus creating a 3 way splits.

Why would you want a 3 way split?

And why would you be willing to increase block size without fixing transaction malleability. The chines miners are reordering transactions and creating fake transactions (causing bloat and higher fees) or just pumping out empty blocks just to increase efficiency. Do you support this behavior?
Its detrimental to the whole network. Allowing them more space to create more fake transactions would just give them more of an unfair advantage leading to faster consolidation and centralization of the mining community. The bloat will lead to higher costs for full node operators again leading to consolidation and centralization of the relay network further weakening us to the possibility of Ddos attacks.

It's not about gangs or being good. The characters from Bitcoin history I mention above are not at fault. They did nothing wrong. The people in this community are the problem. What I meant with the above is how the Bitcoin community has always praised people for their involvement and put them on a pedestal believing every word out of their mouths. They never simply respect their involvement, thank them, question every step they take and wait for results. In 2011-12 I used to watch people wet themselves every time Gavin made a new thread. They drooled over him like a teenaged girl at a pop concert. Same thing with McCarthy, Shrem, Ver, and Karpeles. Am I the only one here that realizes no one does anything without motivated self interest? This forum isn't discussing a non-profit charity, it's discussing a financial instrument designed to make people money. Greed and avarice are all that matters here and still people are put on a pedestal and given the power to screw everyone.

Do think TradeFortress, Pirate@40 or DeathandTaxes would have been able to rip anyone off if everything they did was questioned and scrutinized from the beginning? You all give them the authority over your finances without questioning anything they do because somehow they end up as God-like creatures on this forum. So, you finally realize what Ver really was all along. Good for you.

Sorry, that is a fail. Anonymous trolling.

Roger Ver does post some shit - doesn't everyone?
At least he is a real person, putting his real opinion out there and his personal rep on the line.
He probably believes it. I can argue with or against his opinion. "Roger Ver" is not compromised.

Any account calling themselves "anonymoustroll" carries zero credibility with me.
I respect any real human's right to converse over anonymous trolls, x 1000's.

(oh look, this thread has turned into another blocksize/segwit debate, nothing to do with the thread title)

If he believes it or not no one should be lessening to him.

Your right, block your ears, close your eyes. Don't lessen to him.
Just trust anonymous trolls to think for you, you'll be fine.

If anyone is a troll its you.
Your whole depiction the Bitcoin Talk community blatantly false.

No winners = start again.

Apparently there are other ways to fix malleability. Segwit can only have increase capacity if people use them. If users don't upgrade then the benefits will be small.

No i do not support the miners' behaviour at all. I am in discussing with another user on here to see if there is another way. I haven't done coding since the early 1990s and hate coding, but love the software design via flowcharts. However i do others things and new coding language is something i am not up to speed with. Previously i just left it to the Core and developers to propel Bitcoin forwards using Satoshi's whitepaper as a guide. It seems that nefarious entities are trying to wrestle Bitcoin for themselves. I am just rapidly trying to get up to speed and hopefully, with like-minded BTC users, propose another solution. The current proposals are no good.

Don't talk shit.

I'm a troll, but not someone called anonymoustroll?
I don't understand this community, yet am able to find 1000 farmed accounts and 100,000 hacked accounts?

My post was on topic, and directly in response to OP, an anonymous troll called anonymoustroll.
I find it repulsive that an anonymous troll called anonymoustroll can gain any credibility himself, or give discredibility to others by starting such a thread.
I have an opinion, i gave an explanation.

Where the fuck did you pop up from with all your delusion?
Your off topic here. Start a thread about my trolling and lack of forum understanding or gtfo of my face.

You are right to an extent. My sole belief is to get Bitcoin scaled up and have wider acceptance according to Satoshi's whitepaper - Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Just wishing everyone else would think along those lines.

Satoshi's whitepaper was riddled with flaws and oversights and misjudgments.
oh and sorry rizzlarolla i got you mixed up with QuestionAuthority. It was his depection of the bitcoin community I so strongly objected to...i think... *sigh* I'm getting off its nice outside.

Roger Shitcoin Jesus tweeted some bs again!
Well this isn't new or surprising.
The more often he tweets such nonsense the less relevant he becomes for his stupid followers.
Please continue! :D

You're supporting this centralized attack on Bitcoin, therefore you're either delusional or a shill. Pick one.

ETH is a centralized trash coin. You are comparing apples (Bitcoin) with rotten apples (ETH). Go back to your ETH shilling circle-jerk, you don't seem to want to learn anything.

Let's be both honest and frank here. Had this been stated by someone contributing to Bitcoin Core, "people" would be screaming at us wherever possible how "Bitcoin Core" is pro centralization (even though this makes sense considering it was only one individual). This statement is far beyond "some shit".

Just reading the entire thing i would like to know why would the early people in bitcoin are not with the project anymore,the creator left everything but the people he left behind are not with the project and i do think no one expected these sort of revolution in the bitcoin space which created all these egos between everyone and the power struggle is still there and it wont end.

Your name is rizzlarolla (rizzla roller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizla)). Clearly this proves you are addicted to marijuana and as such are delusional /s

I posted a tweet verbatim. This is what Roger Ver believes and is not the first time he has said something like this. Just because I have a humorous nickname doesn't change the fact that Roger Ver said these things. I just picked the first name that came to mind ;)

I think Roger is someone who is saying the majority of what he says in order to trick people into following his view of his scaling solution, which we all know to be Bitcoin Unlimited. Or BUG coin if ya really want to get technical with this.


I would say that money bags and people just paying him to say whatever he says would be there.
Maybe Jihan would be inside there too?

Gosh, I hate all of the drama but maybe it'll all go away soon.

LOL

If Asicboost-compatible BU wins, then there will only one "useful" node left on the planet, called BITMAIN, because no one else will be mining (at a profit).

So according to Roger we only need one node.  ;D

Guys, remember that Satoshi did not know ASICs and certainly not ASICBOOST, when he called nodes miners. The brain of a parrot is enough to recognize that in order to make the network censorship proof, more nodes are better.  :)

If we truly want to get to the point where all nodes are miners, why, then we must switch to POS. In fact in today's ASIC centralized world, POS may be the better option.

your missing the context of the tweet and now speculating based on reddit FUD scripts

the tweet said "FULL" not "useful"
but again its just a game of semantics

where by "FULL" does EVERYTHING

since 2010 (cpu/gpu) days a FULL node was one that validated and mined.

now we have a separation where we have what some call economic nodes that do the validating and storing of the blockchain but dont mine, that work symbiotically with mining nodes

many people call these economic nodes(people call full nodes in social conversations) due to the simple differential of lite nodes(electrum/multibit) vs fuill validation+archival nodes(that dont mine)... though rationally you can see why some would call the validation+archival nodes something other than full, for instance 'economic nodes' rather than full nodes due to the lack of the mining aspect.

maybe this explains why even blockstream and those behind UASF are mentioning the term "economic nodes" to describe the non-mining-full-nodes because the terminology has changed since 2010 and people are confused about what an economic node is. especially if the term 'economic nodes' is being buzzworded even by the blockstreamist groups more than before

but without knowing what prompted roger to explain the only nodes doing all the tasks of bitcoin, being mining nodes. all you can do is speculate.

in my eye, mining nodes(full and spv and other) work symbiotically with user nodes(full validating/archival nodes aka economic nodes) and all are important for the benefit of the entire network.

No. The tweet said Only a node that is mining is a true full node. And he said that other nodes are useless, therefore my post was correct.

Are you a bot? Your master should change the config; your posts are too long: TLDR  :D

"economic nodes" is estimation only.  rough idea of who supports what.  its not actual buying/selling/transacting coins.

just sayin.

We might have different ideas about non mining nodes.  i'm more along with roger and Satoshi in that i dont see a
huge value in tons of them.    its good to have some but dont need a lot.

TL;DR;
no mention of useful.  only full (but now thats just entering another conversation about semantics)

forums are not like twitter or reddit. expect more text per reply

yep as soon as you get to a point of say 100,000 validating, archival, relay nodes(lets just use blockstreamists 'economic node' to shut them up by using their buzzwords).. the amount of 'hops' to get the block data to every economic node starts to become a hindrance rather than a benefit. so yep there needs to be a natural equilibrium thats diverse and distributed without going too 'wild'

but 'economic nodes' have a crucial symbiotic relationship with mining nodes. that should not be downplayed.

im not talking about node count. im talking about the physical validating and relaying of data that adits mined blocks to ensure the network accepts only a certain block that passes the test. where no single location or team has control

Wow, you got every single point wrong.

1. I want Bitcoin to be uncontrollable p2p cash as described in Satoshi's white-paper.  (Not just a settlement layer)

2. Decentralization is the tool Bitcoin uses to achieve its censorship resistance.

3. Read the white-paper (https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf) and you will see that unlike Blockstream and Core,  I'm advocating for the very thing that Bitcoin was designed to be from day one.

In the situation you described, where only miners run nodes, Bitcoin is highly controllable.

The alternative to running a node is an SPV wallet. If you don't know, SPV wallets connect to a Bitcoin node and use it as their trusted source of information from the network. SPV wallets can't fully validate blocks, so they have to trust the miners too, as well as the node. The miners can do a hundred malicious things to SPV wallets. The node you connect to knows all of your Bitcoin addresses. The node can fake unconfirmed transactions, so if you accept an unconfirmed tx from the node operator they could scam you. The node can also refuse to relay your tx, and if it does that you'll need to switch to another node, giving that node all your Bitcoin addresses too.


An SPV wallet is OK if you have a small amount of BTC. But if you have a large amount of BTC, you'll probably want to run a node as it will give you much more privacy, security and anti-censorship. Run one node and use it as your trusted source for all your SPV wallets.

Satoshi described payment channels, which is the basis of how lightning works. He added nlocktime, nSequence and transaction replacement in v0.1 to allow for this.

Satoshi Nakamoto:

BU itself is a compromise now that everything has been revealed including the ASICBOOST, buggy code.
The plan for a centralized bitcoin is ruined now all their doing is preventing bitcoin from progressing by preventing segwit.
I think this will all stop if a Bitcoin scaling solution is actually implemented.

go fuck yourselfs!!!

Roger Ver is one of us.

one of you.

someone that will not BEND OVER to the blockstream.


we would rather split then have your will imposed on us.

we are ready!  r u?

Prove it.

Even with 32mb full blocks , that's 192 megabytes per hour.  Not exactly cost prohibitive for miners even with today's technology.
Heck, I can download 192 megabytes in about 20 seconds.

what if, just what if you thought logically

100% node = mines and validates latest rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
90% node = validates latest rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
80% node = validates newish rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
70% node = validates old rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
60% node = validates latest rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
50% node = validates newish rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
40% node = validates old rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
30% node = mines, stores, relays, creates transactions
20% node = relays, creates transactions
10% node = creates transactions

now imagine he was describing the 100% node to explain a node that does everything.
but for instance a 30% node was a SPV pool node
and a 'economic node' was the 40%-90% nodes depending which version number/how long ago you upgraded EG core, BU, classic,xt, knots, etc

and the 10%-20% were more like web-lite wallets such as multibit/electrum, bitcoinJ, etc

bitcoin brand name is worth a lot.

we can do both... we can create a forked coin now and see if it can get traction while we keep fighting for big blocks on this chain also.
everyone who owns bitcoins will own the new coins.   issue is security though...

Oh yeah, you're way smarter. So smart I'm ignoring you.

or satoshi was forward thinking of wanting to go left. but core went to the right. and now wants to pretend they own bitcoin and even want to re-write the white paper to make it look like SATOSHI's whitepaper was always talking about the 'segwit way'

Wrong. You only quote parts which suite your agenda, whilst ignoring other piece or statements by Satoshi which don't or which you do not understand. Relevant to the quote from OP, Satoshi had in mind that SPV fraud proofs were practically feasible. If they were, then you could argue that that many full nodes are not as required as they are today (or at least not for financial sovereignty). Small hint: SPV fraud proofs are not real thing yet.

If we ignore the centralization effect, the absurdly higher orphan rates and the risk of a DoS, this still isn't feasible. You're talking about killing off more than half the network. I'm still not sure why you're preaching about things that you don't understand yourself?

what will happen, whether he is a member of this forum?

go play with a stripped and prunned node and tell me its still 100% full node!!

if you want to talk about killing off more then half the network. stop preaching about your crush with gmax and his colleagues and learn bitcoin

The 2 primary constraints are bandwidth and storage, both of which have been, and are continuing to become more abundant and cheaper.  The 'centralization effect' and the 'higher orphan rates' you speak of are consequences of a lack of those resources.   I just gave an example of how those resources are expanding.

But since you believe you are so much more knowledgeable, please tell us why I am wrong.



 

You statement has nothing to do with what I wrote. The reason for that is, exactly what I've mentioned earlier, lack of knowledge.

There is zero guarantee that this is going to continue, especially in the case of a global conflict which is very likely nowadays.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and I highly suggest (although you're going to ignore it or dismiss it) for you to stop spreading bullshit. Orphan rates have nothing to do with neither bandwidth nor storage. Orphan rates are about propagation time, i.e. propagation delay. Increased bandwidth and storage requirements are going to centralize non-mining nodes; they are not really relevant to centralization of mining because of orphan rates.

Propagation speed vs. bandwidth ELI5 (specially for you jonald): https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/16402/difference-between-propagation-speed-and-bandwidth-in-digital-communication

This is not how systems and networks are planned. When an engineer is planning a system, he will make certain assumptions regarding what will likely happen in the future.

You are comparing traditional systems to Bitcoin, which is a fallacy. The failure of said systems, for any given period of time would be much less destructive than a similar failure in Bitcoin. The network needs to be prepared and robust for all outcomes. You could argue that even the upper bound of Segwit, i.e. 4 MB, could be considered too much. There is most certainly inadequate amount of research in to the effects of big blocks on the Bitcoin nodes (i.e. how many % would be lost at which block size). This is one of the reasons for which the "big blockers" throw out random block sizes as "acceptable", or even "compromises"; their opinions aren't backed by data.

its about prunned/no witness(Stripped) nodes are more then likely to kill off more than half the network

how about you stop preaching the blockstream half baked features, take off the blockstream defender cap and wear the critical thinking logical cap about whats best for the bitcoin network

here is your own self debunking the myth that dynamics and big blockers will kill half the network

Man, what a user phobia this guy has.

So says franky1 McShillinsteen  :D

Dude, you got to be the #1 anti-core/ anti-blockstream shill on this site. Your shill-tastic posts always make me LOL

But its true.

It's still Roger...

If any of his accounts have been compromised I doubt the hacker would have used his accounts in this purpose, but rather to scam actual spendable funds. Also Roger would have discovered about the hack very quickly afterwards.

The chances are slim, but it could be true.

look passed the word scripts of reddit
look passed the scripts of "call those anti-sgwit guys shills"
look passed the cabin fever of blind adoration of blockstream

then
take a critical mind and read the code of segwit
actually understand it. look at the way it used a backdoor (even they admit as much)
look at how the promises of fixes are not 100%
look at how it changes the network topology with upsteam filters (their buzzword not mine)
look at how the quadratic/ malle' and even new attack vectors are possible even with segwit 'active'
look at the flaws and limitations.

you can call me anything you like but..
 at least try to understand what you are trying to defend by really understanding it first

Everyone knows your a shill Franky. We may not know where your money is coming from but we know your making bank.
I mean at this rate you'll be over 2k posts in a few days.

not flaws..
its just that blockstream have taken core far far far away from the original vision/ethos of bitcoin.

funny how you blame the inventors original vision as being the thing thats wrong. rather than whats mean moved away from that original vision

I wonder how much shills get paid?

Meh, it doesn't matter I guess. The whole core/classic/BU/blockstream subject bores me so much I wouldn't be able to make any money anyway.

I think it's unlikely that the account was compromised, or he would have already pronounced himself. But who knows...

lol you just want to pigeon hole rathr then actually debunk blockstreams failings.. very empty rebuttle that is.
me but my opinions are based on:
decentralised diverse consensus network.
not
blockstream(core) dominant network

i actually would be happy with core working ALONGSIDE the other DOZEN different and diverse implementations if core didnt have the blockstream(DCG) agenda.

also. many fail to pigeon hole me into xt classic bu or other "brands". because i want:
decentralised diverse consensus network.

not any particular "brand"

so nice try. but when you defend blockstream but fail to rebut the context of the technical flaws of segwit and just shout "shill" as yoer defensive argument. it makes you look weak.

segwit dos not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

multisigs themselves solve malleability by requiring a second person sign off on a transaction

segwit is not a 2mb or 4mb capacity growth promise. it requires EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs and stick with those key pairs without any native key users.. to even get close to the 2mb 'gesture'

segwit has taken a year and a half of delays for a half gesture 2merkle TIER network.. yet could have been done in less time as a single merkle full network consensus upgrade that could have included other features like dynamics.. where their would not have been debates, drama and the community would have been united

You're so anti-core, anti-blockstream that either you're paid to do this or gmaxwell has personally hurt you in some manner?

You're posts suggest you have a tremendous amount of hate and contempt for Blockstream and anything related to them. Its very suspicious.

so nice try. but when you defend blockstream but fail to rebut the context of the technical flaws of segwit and just shout "shill" as your defensive argument. it makes you look weak.

segwit does not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

multisigs themselves solve malleability by requiring a second person sign off on a transaction

segwit is not a 2mb or 4mb capacity growth promise. it requires EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs and stick with those key pairs without any native key users.. to even get close to the 2mb 'gesture'
EG 1mb 'promised' 7tx/s if everyone used lean tx's...
we have NEVER had a 7tx/s block in 8 years. so forget thinking segwit will get the 100% utility to hit the 'expected 2-4x capacity'


segwit has taken a year and a half of delays for a half gesture 2merkle TIER network.. yet could have been done in less time as a single merkle full network consensus upgrade that could have included other features like dynamics.. where there would not have been debates, drama and the community would have been united

---

forget the reddit sales pitches and scripts
forget the utopia
forget the 'love and adore blockstream' parade and actually scrutinise the code and technicals

Anyone who loves Bitcoin should hate Core and Blockstream.  They are malicious actors.

And the shilling continues...


The #2 anti-core, anti-blockstream shill jonald_fyookball has chimed in to defend his buddy  :D

more whistles in the wind but ignoring the flaws of segwit.

so here they are again:
segwit does not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

multisigs themselves solve malleability by requiring a second person sign off on a transaction

segwit is not a 2mb or 4mb capacity growth promise. it requires EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs and stick with those key pairs without any native key users.. to even get close to the 2mb 'gesture'
EG 1mb 'promised' 7tx/s if everyone used lean tx's...
we have NEVER had a 7tx/s block in 8 years. so forget thinking segwit will get the 100% utility to hit the 'expected 2-4x capacity'


segwit has taken a year and a half of delays for a half gesture 2merkle TIER network.. yet could have been done in less time as a single merkle full network consensus upgrade that could have included other features like dynamics.. where there would not have been debates, drama and the community would have been united

forget the reddit sales pitches and scripts
forget the utopia
forget the 'love and adore blockstream' parade and actually scrutinise the code and technicals

if your just going to reply "shill" then save your time, use it more wisely learning bitcoin
let me guess if you dont shout shill as your only argument . it will probably be still ignoring the technical flaws.. and just most probably be a reply about some grammar details (the other empty argument to evade the real technical flaws)

All I hear...

blab, blah, blah, hate Core, blah, blah, blah, hate Blockstream, blah, blah, blah they suck, blah, blah, blah flawed code, blah, blah, blah SegWit sucks.. And the wheel in the sky keeps on turning  :D

And the Blockstream PR script reading continues.

How about reply with some facts and logic instead of repeating a script like some CNN script reader.


That's because you have the IQ of a monkey.

So says the franky1 alt account  :D

You are pretty arrogant...and I think you are wrong.  

Orphan rates are primarily affected by bandwidth, not first-bit latency, because you need the entire block to be transmitted and then validated before miners will build on it or subsequently relayed.

Ask a mining software expert like -ck to chime in if you like.  

I"m tired of trying to refute you guys.

 Its like you throw me a giant ball of tangled christmas lights and before I can untangle it you make 20 more. Its a never ending torrent of bull shit. No one's got time for that bull shit.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4eqN72VTImA/Um6hy-zr3qI/AAAAAAAAAT8/s5oT2nAPPlw/s1600/ball-of-lights.jpg

Looks like Blockstream must be really low on cash, they can only afford to hire monkey typewriters.

So says the franky1 alt account  :D

Be careful, someone might notify Blockstream that one of their monkey is slacking off with copy-and-paste.

I do this as a hobby franky, unlike you  :D

Ignorance isn't a hobby, it is a state of being uninformed and/or lack of knowledge.

fiendcoin i dont need an alt account
my opinions are my own.

maybe its time you spend less time insulting anyone that doesnt kiss blockstream ass. and start to ask about the technicals of bitcoin

Wow, sometimes its better to just be quiet and let people think you're stupid, than to make a comment and remove all doubt.

This yokel has complete incomprehension of what Bitcoin is and it's primary values

You are wrong. There are plenty of systems out that, even a minor hiccup would cause economic disruptions greater than the total market value of bitcoin currently in just a few days.

Also, similar the situation with Bitcoin currently, if the developing engineers designing the above described systems were to plan for absolute worse case scenarios that are all but guaranteed not to happen, then the systems being developed would be very inefficient, and would not work well.

The 'discount' to signature space that SW gives picks winners and losers.

I'm not that concern about Roger because he doesn't understand Bitcoin, he just took a word and he is running with it but I think Gavin is the one that has been compromised, why can't he tells Roger to keep quite that he is wrong instead of supporting him.

Of course I am, because I know you didn't learn this anywhere.

No. Having a fast download speed doesn't guarantee jack shit if the amount of time it takes for you to transmit to the majority of the network is high. Falcon (http://www.falcon-net.org/) and Fibre (http://bitcoinfibre.org/) are primarily about latency.

Most of those systems (if not I dare all) are not based on 1 location and would require simultaneous outages of clusters. The chances of that are extremely slim (see why e.g. FB, which is not such a system, doesn't even go down world wide due to huge scale DDoS or other disruption world wide, it usually goes down for certain regions). "In just a few days"? Bitcoin would be dead.

No.

Congratulations, you're the 3rd or maybe 4th shill alt to call me stupid today, just brilliant.

Pat yourself on the back and keep up the good work!

I read all the comments about roger ver!  And I couldn't agree more! He speak nothing but crap!

What are the motivations of this individual? How is it possible that someone with hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins brings so much drama.
Some evidence that he really has it? He looks like an altcoin guy.

he sold BTC for alts that is why he is crying tooo much :D - this is so simple.

I love how after you were unable to refute my point about the entire block needing to validated, you then tried to switch arguments and started talking about upload vs download speed.

Switchng arguments instead of conceding you were wrong is a clasic symptom of an arrogant know-it-all (or a troll).

In the event you are not intentionally trolling, then you still do not understand the issue.

From bitcoinfibre.org:


and:



Don't try to change arguments again.  You were against big blocks (32MB).  The latency issues are for "small amounts" of data (1mb).   Big blocks = medium-large amounts of data.


 

Well, Satoshi said the same in 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

We corrected satoshi's mistake by thinking centralizing nodes into farms was a good idea. As we are seeing, a single man (Jihan) can control price by control signaling of segwit. If they also had control of nodes, it would be the end of the everything. You might as well use paypal at that point (which is what Roger Ver wants btw)

http://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/

Nobody mentioned upload nor download speed. Since you insist on rebuttal, I have included it in this post. It was really trivial, and quite cute that you think you had a real *winning* argument. :D

Nobody is switching anything; these are growing signs of you delusional.

You have no real argument, and this is probably because you have a major in something useless (e.g. arts or history). They were all designed to reduce propagation times, which was (or depending who you ask, still is) an issue today (regardless whether you're talking about 1, 8 or 32 MB). Both of those originated from the Bitcoin Relay Network:

http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/

Bandwidth is obviously not negligible. However, the exact amount of constraint that is creates is inconsistent. You are forgetting certain things that factor into this:
1) Compact blocks, i.e. reconstruction of blocks from block sketches.
2) SPV mining (which is unfortunately still a thing)[1].

Now the worst case for bandwidth constraint (concerning orphan rates) is transacting a maximum sized block, containing transactions that no other mining pool/node has (or nobody is running a client supporting compact blocks). What is the likelihood of even a 1 MB block, from which no other party has any included transactions?  Here's a somewhat old, down-voted by trolls and shills, video based on data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

Note: This is data prior to the (public) existence of compact blocks, FIBRE, et. al. I couldn't find any recent data on this.

---

[1] - These two words completely destroy your previous statement:
They don't need to validate it before building upon it nor before relaying it. Learn what SPV mining is. Or as franky1 puts it, LEARN BITCOIN.

And if you read, Satoshi too.  Satoshi simply wanted bitcoin to be a kind of Paypal if you read him.  The period of libertarians was just a means to get useful idiots at work, for free and enthusiastic propaganda.
And then, Satoshi screwed up, or changed his mind, by putting in a "spam limit" of 1 MB (making spam extremely efficient LOL), frozen in for ever, maybe after that he considered that his mega farm would end up needing fees.

At least, Roger Ver and Satoshi understand that non-mining nodes have absolutely nothing to say.  They can at best download the block chain to verify for themselves and accept whatever chain the miner farms serve them, or stop working.

I'm aware of that.  SPV mining is irrelevant to the issue.     The entire network can't get by on SPV mining.  Even SPV miners will be downloading the entire block (even if they first download the blockheader) and they cannot relay the block until they do so, so bandwidth is still a key metric for big blocks. 

You should have stuck to your argument that 'we don't know if bandwidth improvements will continue'..that was the only thing you said that wasn't a spin or a bunch of noise.

Here's the only point that matters:

Both download and upload speeds are improving tremendously, and 1MB is ridiculously small.

You can't accuse someone of being a shill without evidence.

If you look at the all the posts, one can separate useless posts and posts that actually provide useful information. The thing is to do your own research, time consuming it is, and then decide if the the person is talking codswallop or not, FUD or not, shilling or not, etc.

Sorry but i think all are malicious actors to a certain point. Hence why i decided to support none of the current proposals.

So true. On my home network, I can upload 1MB blocks to 10 peers in under 10 seconds. With 10 minute blocks, that's about 1% utilization for a consumer internet connection.

Your response in a nutshell:

https://i.imgur.com/eSrqB5q.png

---

At least make up some fake data or something in an attempt to refute both the statements and data provided. Don't make shilling so obvious.

Anecdotal evidence in this case is as useful as you are. Remember what your overlord Ver has told you, your node is nothing but useless waste creating additional propagation delay. You shouldn't run it according to him. ::)

This is unadulterated jibberish technobabble.

A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst case block with no segwit.

The consensus rule for non-segwit signature operations is 20k before segwit and not changed (it can't be increased by segwit as that would be a hardfork), and segwit transactions are much faster to hash (on average and especially in the worst case where they are thousands of times faster).

I am only responding to this habitually dishonest bullshitter because his comments have been quoted in the media.

Please link a few of those media comments. (well done Franky1)

Just curious,
what about "A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst best case block with no segwit"

----

p.s.
Franky1 post's on many threads, why respond (probably off topic) on such a clear anonymous troll against Ver thread?
Tell us about it in a proper thread, or maybe post in Franky1's new "reputation" thread with the "dishonest bullshitter" comments!

Well he is quite popular of being such.  Though I can say he is more experienced than me in terms of Bitcoin but that does not mean Roger Ver is right.  There are more people who are more knowledgeable than him so there are lots of rebuttal on anything he said about Bitcoin.

herp derp. how about some real data

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

It's exactly the one post that Maxwell quoted. The post is complete bullshit, and I have told this franky1 at least once a few weeks ago in another thread. Obviously he ignored it.

This is yet another useless straw man. That has no relevance to the things that I've stated, as I have never mentioned nor denied bandwidth growth. FYI, since you're uneducated, "Nielsen's law" isn't a law, it's an observation.

To be fair, we should also note that an intentional quadratic attack would then come from a miner
that is including only the transactions he wants in the block (the big ones for his attack).  
He doesn't need to include even a single segwit transaction, and shouldn't if he wants the attack to work.

Good, troll.

Putting you on ignore for a while.  This thread is a great example of your troll tactics
for all to see.  No need to waste further time on you for now.

So you go from "Bitcoin failing would be worse than other systems failing" to "Bitcoin is vulnerable, so we can't make it useable"

Railroad networks is a good example of a system that contradicts your point. The same is true with GPS technology.

Yes, it does. LN is signature heavy (roughly 4x as much signature space is required to open a LN channel as traditional single private key transactions currently require), and are chosen to be a winner via SegWit.

look at the word twisting..

1.
" a block that has even 1 segwit tx takes less time to verify then the worse case block with no segwit"
- no sh*t sherlock but what about BEST case block with no segwit,
- i could also hint at asking you to also factor in the extra time needed to strip the block ready to relay to a downstream non-segwit node but ill bite my lip and laugh at the one error in your word twisting for now

2. The consensus rule for non-segwit signature operations is 20k before segwit
- hmm.. thats BLOCK consensus before segwit...  but tx sigops is policy not consensus... but anyways.. but what about AFTER segwit activates
  for both block and tx.. as i said TXsigops is 16k

3. spammers are not going to voluntarily move their funds to use segwit keypairs to stupidly disarm themselves from quadratics.
so even if say 99.9% of people do move (the innocent crowd).. spammers only need to create 5 tx's to cause issues..
put it this way would you walk into the ganglands of some new york 'hood and ask the 'gangsta's to use flowers and not guns, thinking they would happily comply.
wake up, spammers want to spam so they wont disarm themselves. but you G1megmax have not helped the situation

You didn't even understand my post.

The examples are not valid (the whole railroad network won't fail all at once, and GPS reliance is also about to dissipate in certain places with GALILEO; GLONASS ensures a non completely global failure in the case of GPS failing). If Bitcoin experiences downtime, then we are experiencing complete network failure.

Both P2WPKH and P2WSH are "winners". There are only losers if you twist everything upside down and insist on using the outdated transaction designs.

this is Gmax's MO when it comes to discussing scaling issues...
swoop in, post something true but incomplete/tangential/diversionary
while implying you don't know what you're talking about (he's gmax of course),
and then leave without actually debating the point (why would he, he's
a busy core developer and obviously much smarter than you).

Same thing happened when I left comments about UASF.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1871762

other word twisting from gmax

about how 3 year old hardware is causing issues for his 6month old software.. (im laughing at the illogic of gmaxwels time travel theory of going back in time to create hardware to attack software)

.. its much like blaming aTI's opencL for having efficiency gains vs geforce in the gpu mining days.. but then some dev makes some code years later and realises that the software wont work with open CL so would blame openCL

ASICBOOST isn't an efficiency gain.

Lets take a few hypothetical scenarios:

All ASIC's move from 28nm tech to 16nm tech.
-More work is being done, therefore more security

ASICBOOST is released for free and all ASIC's adopt it
-Same amount of work is being done, security is the same

ASICBOOST is patented and only specific miners can use it
-Same amount of work is being done, but causes miner centralization.

Bitcoin's security is provided by work (proof of work). Actual work has to be done to increase security. "Shortcuts" do not increase security. ASICBOOST doesn't do more work, it lets you pretend that you did more than you actually did. It is not an efficiency gain, it is a shortcut. It is disenguous to compare it to AMD vs Nvidia or other efficiency gains where more work was done.

im laughing..

imagine it this way.
imagine if gmax refused to let ATI and asic boost use their efficiency gains..
then some hacker group or government decided to use it instead...

would you prefer that pools within bitcoin were using the best efficiency to secure bitcoin against outsiders. or
tell OUR pools to slowdown or  F off so that:
1 gmax can use backdoor exploits(the going soft has been admitted as a backdoor) to push in features without needing node consensus
and
2. allow outsiders to then use asic boost and previously openCL to be 20% more efficient, than pools that have been running for years.

would you actually be happy if 2011-2013 was just Geforce mined and then asic mined using a method that was 20% less efficient then some outside group could do it.

in my eyes
dont let gmax get away with excuses of why his 6 month old software just isnt up to par... just because they wasted a year building it that way.

instead he should have just done a single merkle full node+pool consensus back at the end of 2015 and close the options of going soft, aswell as adding in the other community feature desires in 18 months so that by now we would have had a happy united network of over 90%+ of nodes ready..

im still laughing at how he wants to make it so the network allows changes in 'softly' even easier in future.. come on atleast that should wake you up to the critical thinking of it being used by outsiders to trojan horse in bad features..

even if you are a blockstream devotee, you have to see the risks of 'if X can be implemented without changing nodes' it's a trojan risk even if blockstream are not the ones doing it.
wake up.

I made a full thread about this explaining in more detail:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1876148


Switching from CPU's to GPU's did more work, this is not an exploit.

A hacker or government using a cryptographic attack that allows them to pretend they did more work than they did would be an exploit. Just like any other exploit found, it would be patched.


It's an exploit, doesn't provide security.


I never mentioned segwit in that post. It had nothing to do with segwit. It had to do with a cryptographic attack (colliding message blocks) which reduces the security of sha-256 from 2^256 to 2^255.48. Read my full thread.

the gpu days
there was Geforce (GPU) and ATi(GPU)
saying ATi should not mine because they were using openCL on thier GPU's simply because its unfair to Geforce. and arguing that ATi are exploiting and attacking bitcoin... now that would have been FUD

its was better to have ATi on our side to make blocks quicker to then increase the difficulty. to secure the blockchain. rather then throw them under the bus and say geforce only.. to later have some outsider grab all the ATi cards and over power the network.

yea Geforce didnt get many sales in the bitcoin market but we certainly secured the bitcoin network better because of ATi..

same is for ASICS.
so, which is more important? let btcc get more sales. or have a network with upto 20% more difficulty effect (security) working for us instead of against us.

all because some 6 month software that tried bypassing node consensus hit a hurdle in that bypass, with such hardware+software that has existed for years.


you keep thinking its 'pretending to do work'
the hashes match. they do the work they just do it in a way thats quicker than others

im laughing that in a restaurant. you would rather have the chef make customers wait an hour instead of 48 minutes. just to say ' its taking longer because there is only one way to cook a steak. the chef is rubbing it against his butcheeks to ensure it stays tender while having the steak being warm enough to not 'moo' at customers if they stuck a fork in it.

so here goes.

an exploit is where you find a way that MD5 becomes accepted hash instead of sha (giving a customer a mincemeat patty instead of steak)

an efficiency gain is where the end result is an actual sha as expected (an actual steak) that passes the sha test(cooked to customers request) and has simply done it in less time due to a technique that can help strengthen the network(cooked on a grill instead of rubbed on buttcheeks)...

whats next gmax proclaim bitcoin should only be sha'd using raspberry pi's. and let the difficulty become easily attackable by outsiders that choose to use asics..
or.. critically allow asics to do things most efficiently and the devs do a proper job by recoding their new unactivated software that wont hit hurdles

Really? You're telling me that it is possible to construct a block with a single SegWit transaction that might be less resource intensive than the largest, most resource heavy block full of worst case non-SegWit transactions imaginable? Wow!

!

!!!!!!

Wow!!!!!

Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What an incredible endorsement of SegWit's powers!

There is a very good example of Greg Maxwell's rampant dishonesty.

In your comparison, you are comparing an absolute worse case (likely malicious) scenario with the best case scenario of the "solution" that you are pushing.

In February, Google fully broke SHA-1 using colliding message blocks. https://shattered.io

Colliding message blocks is the same cryptographic attack used by ASICBOOST.

If Satoshi had chosen SHA-1 as a hash function instead of SHA-256, do you think we should patch this cryptographic attack?

The Google attack requires 2^61 operations, while doing a full hash collision with ASICBOOST requires 2^255.48. At what reduced level of security do you think we should do something?

If we don't patch cryptographic attacks, that sends the message that cryptographic attacks on mining are OK. When a more serious attack is found, people will point to this one and say "why was this one allowed". You already think it's an "efficiency gain". If an "efficiency gain" is found that reduces the security to 2^61, that would allow anyone to mine a block with 2^61 operations no matter how high the difficulty, completely breaking mining. In that case, should we not patch it because it's simply an "efficiency gain"?

Well, sort of.

The segwit-transaction containing block doesn't have to be the best case to be better than the worst case QH case.

The dishonest part imo, comes from using his influence as a core developer to enter the middle of a discussion, label one of
his biggest critics' post as  'unadulterated jibberish technobabble' (when it may not be) and then just walk away from the conversation.

Gobbledegook.  Asicboost is not an attack.  It is just a smarter organisation of the hash calculations.  In fact, it is so straightforward, that I'm amazed that it took 7 bloody years to discover it, since it is done ALL THE TIME when using, say, AES-256 encryption, and is often part of the design of a symmetric cypher.  That such a triviality took a long time and is considered patentable leaves me speechless.

Here's the simplicity of asicboost explained:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1874983.0

It is not more than the insight that, like all good usage of block cyphers, we do key schedule re-usage.  

now you're just trolling the poor guy.
he meant that replacing even just 1 TX in a block with a segwit TX will make the block validate faster.
i'm not sure if thats true for a very simple TX, but generally speaking it must be true.


but franky1's statement might not to be " jibberish technobabble "

maybe franky is saying that in most cases replacing typical TX we find in blocks today with a segwit version of that TX will not improve the validation time of that block by very much ( since typically TX are not quadratically heavy )
so segwit provides little Effective incress in validation time while 4x the amount of TX pre-block


Frankly, IDK if this is what he's getting at there, or if this is at all true, but it feels like we've been franked! this is very interesting...

His comparison was between a block containing a single SegWit, one input, one output transaction (which would take very little time/resources to validate) and a block that contains a coinbase transaction and one additional transaction with ~0.995 kb worth of inputs (and their associated signatures) and a single output, which would take several minutes to validate based on currently available technology.

Current market conditions make it so that there is no reason for a miner to find a block with a single non-coinbase transaction (except in the case of SPV mining and a subsequent block is found very shortly thereafter another block -- this however is by far the exception, and is not the norm). There are also very few 'business' reasons for a miner to find a block that only contains a single transaction that takes up ~1 MB worth of block space.

ASICBOOST is an exploit per definition of the word exploit in CS. If you claim otherwise, you are either deluded or you're being paid to spread false information. Maybe reddit posts are above your education level: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/667js8/asicboost_isnt_an_efficiency_gain

That's what I understood the first time I've read it. I might be wrong, but these trolls were bound to attempt to abuse his statement.

Yes it is. I've explained it to him a few weeks ago in some other thread, and he just continued to spread the same false information.

But then you can say the same about the standard algorithm that re-uses the first compression result of the first 64 bytes of the header, to ONLY calculate the compression of the second block when it loops over the nonce (the (padded to 64 bytes) 16 remaining bytes, containing the nonce). Why is the re-use of the first compression of this block not an "exploit ; not an efficiency-gain" in the usual algorithm, but is inverting both, that is, keeping the data of the second block constant (and hence re-use the key schedule, as is standard done when, for instance, encrypting a big file with AES-256), considered "an exploit" ?

If you are "honest", aren't you supposed to calculate the ENTIRE HASH of the block header if you change the nonce, and not just the "second part of it, re-using the first piece of calculation" ?  If the re-use of the compression of the first 64 bytes is not an exploit, why is the re-use of the key schedule of the second part then an exploit ?

From what moment onward is re-using the results of an identical calculation, instead of doing it over like an idiot, "an exploit" ?
BTW, as I said elsewhere, this asic boost optimisation is so trivial, and is standard done in most symmetric crypto, that I have a hard time believing that this can successfully be patented and that the patent will hold up in court.

BTW, the idiot that wrote the post on reddit doesn't understand even the level of security provided by PoW.  The level of security provided is not the effort that the "good guy" put into it, but the effort that the "bad guy" NEEDS to spend in order to overcome it.  As such, given that the asic boost optimisation is now public knowledge, that has AUTOMATICALLY dimished the security of the PoW (of all hashcash style PoW everywhere), because an attacker now needs to spend less effort to overcome the security.  As such, NOT USING this gain by the "good guys" (the miners) would be utterly stupid, because it gives a disadvantage to the "good guys" over an improved attack efficiency for the adversary !

This is like thinking that if you do an elliptic curve signature with more effort, the signature is more secure than if you did it with a smarter calculation.  No, the security level is given by the effort needed by the *smartest adversary*, not by the effort you put in YOURSELF.  Duh.

The security level of a 256 bit ECC signature is 128 bits.  Not because YOU use 128 bits or so (you use 256) ; but because the best method publicly known (Pollard's rho attack) can crack it in 2^128 trials and doesn't need to run over 2^256 trials.

As such, the calculation effort needed to prove work has diminished when the Asic boost principle was published in 2016, and as such, lowered all security of all PoW to which this calculation improvement could be applied.

And the standard calculation, of only compressing the first 64 bytes once, and only compressing the second part that changes, already diminished the PoW security.  The invention of ASICS SERIOUSLY diminished the PoW security (because their availability improved the possibilities of an attacker with a given budget to overcome it as compared to when there weren't those ASICS around).

ANY publicly (or privately !) known technique that can render more efficient an attack on a given PoW level, diminishes PoW security in a proportional amount.

(this is BTW, why PoW is a completely ridiculous cryptographic security mechanism).