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

[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

[1714856195]

1714856195

[1714856195]

1714856195

[1714856195]

1714856195

[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.