This just in: Roger Ver can't even transact bitcoin properly

[alani123]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

[1714874114]

1714874114

[1714874114]

1714874114

[1714874114]

1714874114

[AgentofCoin]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

He used the same input as a previous tx with no miner fee attached.
So either he is trying to double spend or doesn't realize his inputs are tied up in a previous tx.
Here is the txid: https://blockchain.info/en/tx/e14e2a292ed816ecbdf04b4a2a1e7008ffdbfc1e4e818a94af1b0c2680322780

Edit:
Here is the tx, as it looked at the time: https://i.imgur.com/Tv4zga7.png
Here are the other txs, as it looked at the time: https://i.imgur.com/N2f42rl.png

[gmaxwell]

He used the same input as a previous tx with no miner fee attached.

On two geographically separated nodes.


2016-04-29 12:17:38.592289 got inv: tx 566f0c015a25adf9a29452b29ae7959013b53cc9091566026b14e35ea30ecf8a  new peer=47
2016-04-29 12:17:38.592342 askfor tx 566f0c015a25adf9a29452b29ae7959013b53cc9091566026b14e35ea30ecf8a  0 (00:00:00) peer=47
2016-04-29 12:17:38.741549 566f0c015a25adf9a29452b29ae7959013b53cc9091566026b14e35ea30ecf8a from peer=47 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 306 (code 66)


2016-04-29 12:17:38.692177 got inv: tx 566f0c015a25adf9a29452b29ae7959013b53cc9091566026b14e35ea30ecf8a  new peer=8180
2016-04-29 12:17:38.692226 askfor tx 566f0c015a25adf9a29452b29ae7959013b53cc9091566026b14e35ea30ecf8a  0 (00:00:00) peer=8180
2016-04-29 12:17:38.887028 566f0c015a25adf9a29452b29ae7959013b53cc9091566026b14e35ea30ecf8a from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)

(Timestamps are UTC)

Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.

[cjmoles]

He was probably drunk or something....Those type of things are a little more than oversite.  No sober bitcoiner could be that incompetent....could they???  If this type of competency is standard, then weeeee I'm ahead of the curve for a change!

[alani123]

He was probably drunk or something....Those type of things are a little more than oversite.  No sober bitcoiner could be that incompetent....could they???  If this type of competency is standard, then weeeee I'm ahead of the curve for a change!

Then why would he go out and complain publicly on twitter after 12 hours?

[cjmoles]

He was probably drunk or something....Those type of things are a little more than oversite.  No sober bitcoiner could be that incompetent....could they???  If this type of competency is standard, then weeeee I'm ahead of the curve for a change!

Then why would he go out and complain publicly on twitter after 12 hours?

He is probably under the influence and will more than likely regret his public display of incompetence when he comes down from his intoxication.  ROTFLMAO  I'm just glad it's not me this time!

[electronicash]

He was probably drunk or something....Those type of things are a little more than oversite.  No sober bitcoiner could be that incompetent....could they???  If this type of competency is standard, then weeeee I'm ahead of the curve for a change!

Then why would he go out and complain publicly on twitter after 12 hours?

He is probably under the influence and will more than likely regret his public display of incompetence when he comes down from his intoxication.  ROTFLMAO  I'm just glad it's not me this time!

I experienced that as well. it is indeed frustrating though and it always happen when you needed the transaction to push through to make the deal as quick as possible. Still its funny, I just don't expect someone who had been into bitcoin for so long still committed such mistake.

[Carlton Banks]

Roger Ver: Bitcoin Judas

[interbtc]

He was probably drunk or something....Those type of things are a little more than oversite.  No sober bitcoiner could be that incompetent....could they???  If this type of competency is standard, then weeeee I'm ahead of the curve for a change!

Then why would he go out and complain publicly on twitter after 12 hours?

Because it's not alcohol that makes him incompotent, it's himself lol. He is so stubborn about block size that he sees problems everywhere
else but in himself. TBH, i really don't even see the point of listening to what he is saying, he lost his credibility long time ago.

[Denker]

He was probably drunk or something....Those type of things are a little more than oversite.  No sober bitcoiner could be that incompetent....could they???  If this type of competency is standard, then weeeee I'm ahead of the curve for a change!

No he did this on purpose.He thinks we are dumb.
This guy is losing all the rest of his credibility if you ask me.
I really liked him in the past and what he has done for the community, but now with this crazy "bigger blocks now" crap attempts together with Marshall Long , GA and all the other crooks he becomes more and more ridiculous.

[Carlton Banks]

Guy guys guys! Roger is such a big hero, he went to prison for selling time-expired fireworks lol. Firework freedom FTW!


How about..... Roger False! Or Roger Faux! Roger Fawkes!!!! Ah, the gift that keeps on giving....

[franky1]

the point is that miners are suppose to allow a certain amount of "free" transactions and then have some space for priority transactions.

its like planes and trains. they have firstclass section and economy section.

the issue is that the first class section is now estimating at 0.00050000 for a KB tx, and the amount of transactions that are not including fee's are more then the economy section can handle. so much so that people can be waiting 12 hours +.

fee's are not essential to pools right now.
While the blockreward still exists and will continue to exist for decades, using fee's as a subsidy for their income instead of a bonus undermines the value of bitcoin, because it no longer helps push a price war for the bitcoin market price and instead starts costing users more to transact.

having the market price stagnant while increasing the cost of use is going to deter people from using it.
yet many people say its a good thing because bitcoin should be prioritizing "those that really need to use it" vs "those that dont mind waiting".(bad philosophy)

but bitcoin is suppose to be for everyone, with no barriers and no controls.

so in the last 12 months alone bitcoin average tx fee for 1kb tx has gone from 2.5cents to 22.5cents (0.0001 @ $250 vs 0.0005 @ $450)

so i think the point roger verr might be eluding to is an analogy like this:

a few years ago you can get on a train any time you like and be at your destination in 10 minutes virtually free
last year you can arrive at the train station and pay 2cents to get to your destination in 10 minutes or wait on the platform to get to your destination in a hour virtually free

this year your paying 22cents BUT without the guarantee of getting to your destination within 10 minutes and if you want one of the free seats.. well i hope you brought your sleeping bag and a couple packed lunches, because your going to be waiting on the station platform for a long time.

bitcoin has lost its 2009-2013 vision

[Lauda]

I'm not surprised by this at all. At least he was finally caught.

He was probably drunk or something....

No, don't justify his actions. He was clearly trying to promote big blocks (i.e. Classic) even though he can't use Bitcoin properly himself.

This guy is losing all the rest of his credibility if you ask me.

He should have lost his credibility the day that he had vouched for Mt.Gox solvency.

[Carlton Banks]

but bitcoin is suppose to be for everyone, with no barriers and no controls.

Nope, there has always been barriers and controls in Bitcoin, your observations are incorrect and have never been the case at any time in the past.

Because scarce resources. Scarce resources are valuable. Abundant ones aren't. No barriers or controls would confer abundance. Your idea(s) is/are idiotic.

[franky1]

but bitcoin is suppose to be for everyone, with no barriers and no controls.

Nope, there has always been barriers and controls in Bitcoin, your observations are incorrect and have never been the case at any time in the past.

Because scarce resources. Scarce resources are valuable. Abundant ones aren't. No barriers or controls would confer abundance. Your idea(s) is/are idiotic.

lemming your argument about scarce resources actually validates my point.. if fee's continue to rise then its not as scarce to the pools because they are being handed old coins from customers so there is no need to try pushing their fresh coins to be sold at a premium because they are handed lots of old coins to mix together..

imagine it. someone is mining gold and he knows he can only dig 25 ounces.. but has $11,250 of costs that day.. instead of the easy maths of 25 ounces for $11,250.. lots of people hand him 2000 x 0.0005 meaning he now has 26 ounces.. so he can sell the 26 ounces for $432 each instead of $450+

and if users are being deterred from using it because the price of use has gone up 10 fold but the potential investment profit has only gone up 2 fold. then less people will want to use it, meaning less demand to grab new coins. thus the supply/demand game has now changed. less demand, = stagnant prices.

fee's should not be an essential part of pool income for decades it should be thought of as just a small bonus, but if it were to be pushed today. id rather see it being pushed with more capacity to keep the user cost down while allowing more users.. to keep to a nice bonus.. rather then keeping capacity low to force the price up

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, the multiplying cost of use is clearly deterring no-one: to wit, unprecedented transaction volumes yesterday, hitting a sustained 270,000 per 24 hour average for much of the day.

Your argument is garbage, demand is increasing ("therefore, bigblocks-I'm-a-massiveAnti-Bitcoin shill", yeah we know already Franky)

[franky1]

Franky, the multiplying cost of use is clearly deterring no-one: to wit, unprecedented transaction volumes yesterday, hitting a sustained 270,000 per 24 hour average for much of the day.

it is deterring people, even roger ver is getting pissed off by it..

[classicsucks]

...gonna be some FIREWORKS about this one...

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, the multiplying cost of use is clearly deterring no-one: to wit, unprecedented transaction volumes yesterday, hitting a sustained 270,000 per 24 hour average for much of the day.

it is deterring people, even roger ver is getting pissed off by it..

Persona non grata who shares your insidious Anti-Bitcoin agenda is "pissed"? Come on now No-one cares

[franky1]

Franky, the multiplying cost of use is clearly deterring no-one: to wit, unprecedented transaction volumes yesterday, hitting a sustained 270,000 per 24 hour average for much of the day.

it is deterring people, even roger ver is getting pissed off by it..

Persona non grata who shares your insidious Anti-Bitcoin agenda is "pissed"? Come on now No-one cares

time for you to sober up, get your act together. and clear your head. it seems that you are too hyped up on the blockstream kool-aid that you dont see bitcoin clearly, its all blurred to you. please lay off the blockstream kool-aid and see BITCOIN clearly with a level head.

i know you love to tell people how blockstream and their funded coders are gods and anyone dissing blockstream must be dissing bitcoin. but that is not the case. i really think you have forgotten what bitcoin is about and instead are only caring about the blockstream mantra.

goodluck with your altcoins, which i know u love, but please stop trying to sell your blurred vision of blockstream perfection, where BITCOIN reality shows something different

[Carlton Banks]

goodluck with your altcoins, which i know u love, but please stop trying to sell your blurred vision of perfection, where reality shows something different

Oh please, not this "Lightning Network is an altcoin" nonsense again.

The flawed assessment of reality is all yours Franky. The trouble with your hilarious rhetoric is that reality actually is real, and therefore demonstrable. People that are actually interested in the technical aspects of Bitcoin development actually research it.

And so there's no point in misrepresenting the truth, when the truth is there for all to see. It's called the information revolution, you're using it's the system that manifests that revolution to post your ridiculous shilling, remember? lol

[franky1]

goodluck with your altcoins, which i know u love, but please stop trying to sell your blurred vision of perfection, where reality shows something different

Oh please, not this "Lightning Network is an altcoin" nonsense again.

The flawed assessment of reality is all yours Franky. The trouble with your hilarious rhetoric is that reality actually is real, and therefore demonstrable. People that are actually interested in the technical aspects of Bitcoin development actually research it.

And so there's no point in misrepresenting the truth, when the truth is there for all to see. It's called the information revolution, you're using it's the system that manifests that revolution to post your ridiculous shilling, remember? lol

all i hear is whistling in the wind from a lemming that only researches the papers spoonfed from blockstream.
i really hope they have medical insurance to cover the therapy you need

now that the lemming has meandered off topic.. lets bring it back in..

to the OP's point.
imagine its 2013
if i was to send a tx before midday. sending part out to someone else and the change(1.05btc) back to myself. i could be quite certain that in the afternoon i could send a second transaction to spend that change as id be quite certain that the change should have confirmed back to me by then, to use in next transaction.

now imagine same transactions.. but done in 2016
tx's sent yesterday but today at 8 oclock in the morning the first transaction had finally confirmed which has caused issues for the second transaction.

if there was more capacity, then obviously the first transaction would have got confirmed sooner. and thus caused less issues for the second transaction

[katrimans]

goodluck with your altcoins, which i know u love, but please stop trying to sell your blurred vision of perfection, where reality shows something different

Oh please, not this "Lightning Network is an altcoin" nonsense again.

The flawed assessment of reality is all yours Franky. The trouble with your hilarious rhetoric is that reality actually is real, and therefore demonstrable. People that are actually interested in the technical aspects of Bitcoin development actually research it.

And so there's no point in misrepresenting the truth, when the truth is there for all to see. It's called the information revolution, you're using it's the system that manifests that revolution to post your ridiculous shilling, remember? lol

all i hear is whistling in the wind from a lemming that only researches the papers spoonfed from blockstream.
i really hope they have medical insurance to cover the therapy you need

now that the lemming has meandered off topic.. lets bring it back in..

to the OP's point.
imagine its 2013
if i was to send a tx before midday. sending part out to someone else and the change(1.05btc) back to myself. i could be quite certain that in the afternoon i could send a second transaction to spend that change as id be quite certain that the change should have confirmed back to me by then, to use in next transaction.

now imagine same transactions.. but done in 2016
tx's sent yesterday but today at 8 oclock in the morning the first transaction had finally confirmed which has caused issues for the second transaction.

if there was more capacity, then obviously the first transaction would have got confirmed sooner. and thus caused less issues for the second transaction

Lightning Network is an altcoin is not true. its not an alt coin for sure.

[franky1]

Lightning Network is an altcoin is not true. its not an alt coin for sure.

dont be fooled by the CB lemmings meanders. i mentioned "altcoins" but HE mentioned Lightning network.. i never mentioned LN.

he does this alot, loses an argument about bitcoin, and he tries to cause debate to meander it off topic, which he blindly believes will take peoples mind off of the real topic.

i never mentioned LN.. im not sure why he did.. but lets ignore his meander and stay ontopic of bitcoin

[Jasad]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

its hard to believe if this really true,roger ver ever called as bitcoin jesus,and he bitcoin investor with so much money invested,but its silly if he can transact bitcoin properly..noob

[themasknetwork]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

Do you even know what you are talking about ??

It's the wallet that chooses the inputs not the user. If you receive a transaction and that transaction is unconfirmed, the blockchain wallet COULD INCLUDE that trans as in input for your next transaction and both transactions get stuck. It's not Roger Ver fault. It's how blockchain wallet works.

High priority transaction unconfirmed in the last 12 hours : https://blockchain.info/tx/ccc8f287772bf868f2d712ec9015a16ba0094cbfcb8d8cdb79178782da667979

Unconfirmed transaction having an spent input
https://blockchain.info/tx/7e368bfa56be4ecb976789eaa27bfe9f217a1fc709544868a4c8b546347aeaa1

New transaction, having the same spent input
https://blockchain.info/tx/0aca4c8ef025302f5e065f109c53be1e1d450ec5187ee5b1550bdf3fc8b249c8

ALL of them are STUCK.  

Is the user trying to double spend ? NO
Is the user allowed to choose transactions inputs ? NO

 

[alani123]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

its hard to believe if this really true,roger ver ever called as bitcoin jesus,and he bitcoin investor with so much money invested,but its silly if he can transact bitcoin properly..noob

There's a difference between actually being called something and proclaiming to be it. Roger did the latter, he's the self-proclaimed Bitcoin Jesus.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

Do you even know what you are talking about ??

It's the wallet that chooses the inputs not the user.

Have you ever heard of coin control? Neither has Roger.

[themasknetwork]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

its hard to believe if this really true,roger ver ever called as bitcoin jesus,and he bitcoin investor with so much money invested,but its silly if he can transact bitcoin properly..noob

There's a difference between actually being called something and proclaiming to be it. Roger did the latter, he's the self-proclaimed Bitcoin Jesus.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

Do you even know what you are talking about ??

It's the wallet that chooses the inputs not the user.

Have you ever heard of coin control? Neither has Roger.

)

So the end user will have to hand pick transaction inputs, just to make sure that the transaction don't get stuck. An what happens if the user has around 500-600 inputs, each of them holding between 0.0001 to 0.01 BTC

I thought that's why we use a web wallet. Because it's easy to use.

Anyway, it's not Roger fault. Any regular blockchain user could get stuck in the same way. The wallet should never use an unconfirmed input for a new transaction.

Roger's fault is that he blamed the block size limit instead of blockchain.info but stating that "he tried to spend an unconfirmed input" is not true.

[Lauda]

There's a difference between actually being called something and proclaiming to be it. Roger did the latter, he's the self-proclaimed Bitcoin Jesus.

The community can do something about that. I have no idea why would anyone listen to him at this point.

Have you ever heard of coin control? Neither has Roger.

Nicely said. Don't you love it when inexperienced users try to tell you "what's right"?

Lightning Network is an altcoin is not true. its not an alt coin for sure.

It has no separate blockchain, ergo it is not an altcoin. People who claim that it is an altcoin have no idea what they're talking about.

Roger's fault is that he blamed the block size limit instead of blockchain.info but stating that "he tried to spend an unconfirmed input" is not true.

No. His fault is that he doesn't know how to use Bitcoin. He's trying to manipulate people into accepting Classic.

[franky1]

Roger's fault is that he blamed the block size limit instead of blockchain.info but stating that "he tried to spend an unconfirmed input" is not true.

its a butterfly effect.. once you look at the big picture.

if confirmations take too long then it will cause issues/delays to future transactions. where they dont just sit in the mempool, but they are wrongly treated as double spends.. purely because the first transaction wasnt confirmed in a timely manner.

increasing the capacity means that more transactions can get confirmed, meaning less delay, meaning less issues trying to spend the change you previously sent back to yourself before.

trying to ignore bitcoins irritation issues and twisting it into pretending bitcoin is perfect and doesnt need changes is wrong. atleast be honest with yourself that bitcoin is not the same as the 2009-2013 idea. and that it needs to change to keep up with todays demand.

[themasknetwork]

Roger's fault is that he blamed the block size limit instead of blockchain.info but stating that "he tried to spend an unconfirmed input" is not true.

its a butterfly effect.. once you look at the big picture.

if confirmations take too long then it will cause issues/delays to future transactions. where they dont just sit in the mempool, but they are wrongly treated as double spends.. purely because the first transaction wasnt confirmed in a timely manner.

increasing the capacity means that more transactions can get confirmed, meaning less delay, meaning less issues trying to spend the change you previously sent back to yourself before.

trying to ignore bitcoins irritation issues and twisting it into pretending bitcoin is perfect and doesnt need changes is wrong. atleast be honest with yourself that bitcoin is not the same as the 2009-2013 idea. and that it needs to change to keep up with todays demand.

Bitcoin is far from perfect. In my opinion, right now it's imploding. I get more and more stuck transactions that stuck others and so on. I hear the same complaint every day from regular end users. Think about a new user coming from PayPal that has stuck or delayed transactions.

Bitcoin has reach it's limits.

It needs "consensus" to scale but reaching 90% consensus is hard even in a small group of 5-10 people. Bitcoin miners community is big. Reaching 90%-95% consensus is almost impossible.

With no block size increase, we are all doomed.

[Carlton Banks]

trying to ignore bitcoins irritation issues and twisting it into pretending bitcoin is perfect and doesnt need changes is wrong. atleast be honest with yourself that bitcoin is not the same as the 2009-2013 idea. and that it needs to change to keep up with todays demand.

Much hypocrite, very irony. No-one serious is suggesting scaling the transaction rate up is unnecessary. Again, your words are so obviously a false representation that you do your whole argument a disservice. Credible scaling plans are in the pipeline, ready for rollout, courtesy of the actual, real non-imaginary development team. You've got nothing but words, Imaginationlaaaand!



You have been a primary dispenser of anti-solutions designed to kill Bitcoin off for months and months now, lying and manipulating even more isn't going to work out for you. You've been long since exposed. Good day to you, Franky1.

[MemoryDealers]

I've addressed most of the points made in this thread in the forum that isn't censored: https://forum.bitcoin.com/post21585.html#p21585

[Carlton Banks]

strange how no-one seems to frequent your forum very much, eh Roger?

[Lauda]

I've addressed most of the points made in this thread in the forum that isn't censored.

Just by implying that this one is censored (when it isn't), makes you lose credibility.

When there was essentially no block size limit, free transactions would still confirm quickly because there was plenty of extra room in the blocks for them. If we had even a 2MB maximum block size today, that would likely still be the case today.

Completely wrong. A 2 MB block size limit would achieve nothing, someone could just turn on their spam machine again (which tends to happen) and flood the blockchain with 'almost-free' transactions. No matter what block size limit you use, it won't help mitigate this.

In my specific transaction above, I was using older wallet software that calculated the required fee as zero for a transaction that in the past would have easily been confirmed with zero fee

Again, the issue is with your usage of Bitcoin, not Bitcoin itself.

strange how no-one seems to frequent your forum very much, eh Roger?

Very strange indeed.

[pereira4]

That was pretty funny. The only reason Roger Ver has any relevance on the community is because he got rich as fuck off Bitcoin and bought a lambo. Oh, he also bought Bitcoin.com to shill Bitcoin Classic and hate on core devs.. that's pretty much it.
By listening to his interviews, this guy has problems understanding some fundamental stuff about how Bitcoin works. He is completely ignorant when it comes to the tradeoff of nodes getting centralized with some of the blocksize increase roadmaps being proposed all over the place these days among other stuff as we can see on those pics.

[franky1]

He's either doesn't know about bitcoin very well or try to says current network is "over capacity"
Wait, he still use online wallet to store $23k or more in bitcoin

he knows more about bitcoin then you will know.

trying to pretend bitcoins confirmation delays are due to noobs is complete tosh!

even if you pay 22cents (0.0005) there is still no guarantee, no promise that a transaction will be included in the very next block. this is not due to even 22cents not being enough. its due to the fact that there is not enough capacity to allow more users transactions to be accepted.

increasing the fee does not magically increase capacity. so stop playing the dumb game by saying that increasing the fee will speed things up for users. it wont.

more capacity is needed.. not fee's

3000 people making a tx in a block capacity of 2500(average) means 500 will lose out the chance of getting into the very next block.
no matter if all 3000 people equally paid 4cents not all of them will get into that next block.
or even if all 3000 people equally paid $400 fee not all of them will get into that next block.
heck if even those 3000 peoples tx had a $40,000 fee each. there is no guarantee that they would get into the next block

so saying ver messed up due to the fee, is a silly argument that ignores the bigger issue of bitcoin as a whole

That was pretty funny. The only reason Roger Ver has any relevance on the community is because he got rich as fuck off Bitcoin and bought a lambo. Oh, he also bought Bitcoin.com to shill Bitcoin Classic and hate on core devs.. that's pretty much it.
By listening to his interviews, this guy has problems understanding some fundamental stuff about how Bitcoin works. He is completely ignorant when it comes to the tradeoff of nodes getting centralized with some of the blocksize increase roadmaps being proposed all over the place these days among other stuff as we can see on those pics.

you have no clue who he is or what he has done in the past.

[Divinespark]

Ver may have screwed up here, but the case for 2mb blocks remains, no?

[Carlton Banks]

he knows more about bitcoin then you will know.

...


you have no clue who he is or what he has done in the past.

er, is that you Rog? Bit touchy on this subject, eh Franky?

[Cuidler]

An what happens if the user has around 500-600 inputs, each of them holding between 0.0001 to 0.01 BTC

In this case user should join them as soon as possible, because as it looks transactions fees wont get any lower and if this user waits to the next year he might just hold economically unspendable Bitcoins where sending them could cost more or very significant part of his Bitcoins.

As franky1 told, best days of Bitcoins from 2009-2013 are gone, now we are left with such Bitcoin versions which drops instantly high priority transactions as defined by consensus in early Bitcoin days (old coins, fees dont matter). Here is the cause of the problem: version 0.12.0 and higher:

from peer=47 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 306 (code 66)
from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)

Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.

[thejaytiesto]

An what happens if the user has around 500-600 inputs, each of them holding between 0.0001 to 0.01 BTC

In this case user should join them as soon as possible, because as it looks transactions fees wont get any lower and if this user waits to the next year he might just hold economically unspendable Bitcoins where sending them could cost more or very significant part of his Bitcoins.

As franky1 told, best days of Bitcoins from 2009-2013 are gone, now we are left with such Bitcoin versions which drops instantly high priority transactions as defined by consensus in early Bitcoin days (old coins, fees dont matter). Here is the cause of the problem: version 0.12.0 and higher:

from peer=47 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 306 (code 66)
from peer=8180 was not accepted: mempool min fee not met, 0 < 326 (code 66)

Because the fee was so low it was instantly dropped-- the Bitcoin Core 0.13 CPFP wouldn't have helped.

In the old days everything was easier because no one used Bitcoin except a couple of people that thought it was interesting as some experiment. Now we have people all over the world using it, so it's expected that fees would raise, I don't understand what's so hard about this to get?
Of course, the debate is if we should raise the blocksize to keep fees low for onchain transactions or not, but as some have pointed before, raising blocksize can be really bad for the network decentralization. Im sure blocksize will eventually get raised, but claiming Bitcoin is about to collapse if we don't raise it tomorrow it's just stupid and that's exactly what some people is doing.

[Cuidler]

Of course, the debate is if we should raise the blocksize to keep fees low for onchain transactions or not, but as some have pointed before, raising blocksize can be really bad for the network decentralization. Im sure blocksize will eventually get raised, but claiming Bitcoin is about to collapse if we don't raise it tomorrow it's just stupid and that's exactly what some people is doing.

The laughable part (for me) is there need to be decision whether to raise it or not, how much and when.

Some things free market handless best, not a group of elitist. Its pretty stupid some people try to artifically define Bitcoin with setting arbitrary choosen parameters regardless of what market thinks. I dont understand how group of people can decide 1 MB is better than both 0.5MB and 2MB - such ignorance of the basic principles of free market!

[Kprawn]

Expect to see at least 10 people coming here from his forum and start defending his mistakes. Hey, we all make mistakes... Sometimes we believe Gavin and his minions are good for Bitcoin and we

create our own forum to "protect against censorship" and then, you start to censor people on that forum too.. As I said, we all make mistakes, even if you are called Bitcoin Jesus. It just shows, the guy

is human after all. Let's just forgive and forget and sing happy songs, while we sniff some coke and post shit on the internet. After all.. we are only human. 

[cjmoles]

Expect to see at least 10 people coming here from his forum and start defending his mistakes. Hey, we all make mistakes... Sometimes we believe Gavin and his minions are good for Bitcoin and we

create our own forum to "protect against censorship" and then, you start to censor people on that forum too.. As I said, we all make mistakes, even if you are called Bitcoin Jesus. It just shows, the guy

is human after all. Let's just forgive and forget and sing happy songs, while we sniff some coke and post shit on the internet. After all.. we are only human. 

Yes!  He was clearly intoxicated!  Either alcohol, drugs, anger, ego, or delusions of grandeur....If he had some important criticism he wanted to provide, he could have presented it in a more lucid manner.  I mean, come on!  If he were of clear mind....he would have chosen a better argument structure when he broadcast his complaint to the world....He was drunk!

[dopecoindude]

...gonna be some FIREWORKS about this one...

Getting some popcorn here 

[bittrojan]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/726169695880134660/photo/1

Roger Ver posted a censored image of a blockchain.info screenshot of what he claims to be a transaction of his, complaining about the block size and how his transaction can't confirm. Not only did he try to censor information of that transaction for privacy after having it relayed to hundreds of nodes, but he also overlooks the fact that he tried to spend an unconfirmed input (and didn't didn't even add proper high priority fees) before complaining about the block size. Bigger blocks won't solve incompetence.

Archive

oh come on,he just complaining about block size,i dont think we should mentioning about "he can't transact bitcoin properly" just like we laugh at him because that,not funny.

[LiteCoinGuy]

"I noticed lots of other misconceptions or lies happening on the censored forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454900.0
There are a few lies or misconceptions I would like to clear up.

#1. (off topic)
I never vouched for MTgox's solvency.
Watch the video again, and see for yourself.
I simply said their fiat delays were caused by the traditional banking system.
Even with everything we know today, everything I said in that video is still factually correct.

#2. (off topic)
I'm not the "self proclaimed" "Bitcoin Jesus."
I don't like the name, I didn't choose it for myself, and wish people didn't call me that.
Other people started calling me that due to my efforts to inform people around the world about bitcoin.
I'm an atheist, and I'm sick of religious nuts contacting me telling me I'm going to go to hell for the name.

#3. As someone who first started using Bitcoin earlier than the vast majority of people in the ecosystem, it saddens me how many new people don't realize how Bitcoin used to work. When there was essentially no block size limit, free transactions would still confirm quickly because there was plenty of extra room in the blocks for them. If we had even a 2MB maximum block size today, that would likely still be the case today.

In my specific transaction above, I was using older wallet software that calculated the required fee as zero for a transaction that in the past would have easily been confirmed with zero fee. The change output from that transaction then became the input for my $23K transaction that the wallet selected a fee for. This cascaded into problems with about half a dozen of my transactions from yesterday. In the past, the zero fee input would have been confirmed quickly, along with all the others down the chain. The only reason this didn't happen today is because of the lack of available block space.

This was in no way was a stunt. I'm trying to run a business, and I send numerous Bitcoin transactions every single day. I keep track of all of them in my accounting software down to the very last satoshi. This problem from yesterday is causing me to spend my Saturday morning tracking down all the unconfirmed transactions, some of which were now removed from the mempool, and trying to reconcile that with my accounting software.
There are plenty of other things I would rather spend my Saturday morning on, and none of this would have been an issue if we had just allowed the block size to increase the way Satoshi envisioned and promised to early adopters like myself.

In short, I'm very sad how few people realize that zero fee, non-dust, transactions would still confirm quickly on the network if we had bigger blocks.
I'm happy to try to answer additional questions below."

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/23k-bitcoin-transaction-stuck-despite-paying-the-fee-t7513.html

[iCEBREAKER]

Expect to see at least 10 people coming here from his forum

Not gonna happen, because his forum doesn't have 10 people to spare.   

A BTC tx costs ~$8 in electricity to process, yet this fake libertarian really expects the network to subsidize his cheap free-riding ass?

This is obviously a publicity stunt, yet another desperate attempt to get traffic for his fucked company.

"Bitcoin.com ad payments?"

Ya, right.  As if anyone would PAY to advertise on a site with an average of 4 visitors per hour.

Maybe the ad buy is Wences or Armstrong (the only two people who might want to subsidize the ghost town vanity project of Bitcoin Judas).

Remember when he called in every favor possible to jump-start the site with a series of high-profile Bitcoiner AMAs?

Me neither!   

[Lauda]

Ver may have screwed up here, but the case for 2mb blocks remains, no?

Not really, no.

oh come on,he just complaining about block size,

Nothing surprising there.

Its pretty stupid some people try to artifically define Bitcoin with setting arbitrary choosen parameters regardless of what market thinks.

Your presented logic: Let's just let the market decide on a 1 GB block-size limit, because why not?

er, is that you Rog? Bit touchy on this subject, eh Franky?

Did you not know that both of them are "Bitcoin experts"?

[dumbfbrankings]

Blockstream sold miners on the idea that on chain fees per tx will rise 100x, did Roger miss that? He's really going to complain when fees are $4.00 per tx. Dude should just forget about Bitcoin until lightning hubs take over this summer. Segwit came in April so that helps.

The Core Team is protecting our censhorship resistence. You want mass adoption? Not tonight, dear. Wait for lightening network hub channels for your silly transactions. Or just use an altcoin, like monero (XMR), which has an adaptive blocksize.   

[Yazuki]

ver is toxic and trash

[Gleb Gamow]

<humor at Roger's expense>

Feel free to rewrite the following to reflect this thread's sentiment:

I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.

Roger Ver

Please promise to make it funny.

[alani123]

<humor at Roger's expense>

Feel free to rewrite the following to reflect this thread's sentiment:

I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.

Roger Ver

Please promise to make it funny.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4h2piu/bitcoin_jesus_transactioning_powers_seem_to_have/d2mxsph

[chek2fire]

One more Epic Fail from Ver. Keep going   hahahahahahahahaha  

[cjmoles]

On rethink, I have a couple questions about this guy: 

1) After implicitly vouching for MtGox's liquidity, did he keep any of his own BTC on site?

2) If he's so angry about bitcoins direction, why is he still holding bitcoin?

3) Putting aside his poor coin control practices, of course, does he really know what he's talking about or might he have ulterior motives behind his complaints?

For some reason, I just get the feeling that this is all a conspiracy and I should be putting on my tinfoil hat to avoid what's coming next.

[Cuidler]

Its pretty stupid some people try to artifically define Bitcoin with setting arbitrary choosen parameters regardless of what market thinks.

Your presented logic: Let's just let the market decide on a 1 GB block-size limit, because why not?

Thats the point of free market. If we had unlimited limit, you could try 1GB block, but obviously this one would not make it to the longest chain today because 1) current miner software could not handle it 2) before downloaded and validated, much smaller block would win instead.

Thats why free market solves otherwise complicated decisions naturally.

A BTC tx costs ~$8 in electricity to process, yet this fake libertarian really expects the network to subsidize his cheap free-riding ass?

The few cents in fees is huge deal for the minner today 
I wonder if people are ready to pay $4 in fees for tx after this year halving (instead of cents today), and $6 in fees in four years after the next one if your $8 per tx (subsidy+fees) requirement is keept, the price stays the same and Bitcoin remain crippled at 1 MB

You could make 0.5 MB limit and the cost for transaction gets to $16. Luke-jr would be happy...

[Lauda]

Thats the point of free market. If we had unlimited limit, you could try 1GB block, but obviously this one would not make it to the longest chain today because 1) current miner software could not handle it 2) before downloaded and validated, much smaller block would win instead.
Thats why free market solves otherwise complicated decisions naturally.

By the time that, this so called "free market" decides what size is wrong and which one is right Bitcoin would most likely end up dying. You should stop trying to spread this idea as it won't work, ever. Bitcoin needs to be resistant to change (as it was so far), else we would be having 1 MB today, 2 MB tomorrow, 42 million coins in 3 days. May I ask, what your definition of "free market" is?

You could make 0.5 MB limit and the cost for transaction gets to $16. Luke-jr would be happy...

The cost per TX will never be that high (in normal circumstances).
Anyhow, this seems to be off-topic as the thread is about Roger Ver.

3) Putting aside his poor coin control practices, of course, does he really know what he's talking about or might he have ulterior motives behind his complaints?

The answer to that is one word: Classic.

[iCEBREAKER]

One more Epic Fail from Ver. Keep going   hahahahahahahahaha  

"After being the laughingstock of the Bitcoin world for a couple of days, I was greatly relieved when Gavin's Fake Satoshi hoax distracted everyone from my monumental incompetency and consequent FUD tantrum."

-Roger Ver (probably)

[dooglus]

What nobody seems to have mentioned in this thread is that the whole problem was caused by transaction malleability.

The unconfirmed output that is causing the Ver's transactions not to confirm results directly from the parent transaction having been malleated.

The irony here of course is that "bigger blocks now" wouldn't have prevented the problem whereas Segregated Witness would have prevented it, because SegWit fixes malleability for those who use it.

Edit: here I point this information out to Roger himself. He apologizes. (search for 'doog' on the page)