[2016-11-06] Roger Ver Considers Offering Double Block Rewards To Bitcoin Miners

[TraderTimm]

I've been around a long time.

The only alt worth a shit was namecoin, and the only reason that didn't take off is (so far) there hasn't been outright DNS censorship globally. I think if it ever came to it, Namecoin would be more useful -- although it isn't without its own problems.

Second runner-up is LTC, but only for "washing" or "tumbling" coins - as an alt itself its intrinsically a inferior clone with the scaling problems of a hyperactive confirmation time decrease.

The rest -- all dogfood, or dogshit, however you want to look at it -- and that includes Ethereum, XT, and the other soon-to-be-has-beens.

This post says it all -- http://woobull.com/data-visualisation-118-coins-plotted-over-time-this-is-why-hodl-alt-coin-indexes-dont-work/

As for those trying to characterize Ver as some champion of blockchain diversity, please don't embarrass yourselves any further. Its obvious Ver is only in this racket for himself and could give two shits about the Bitcoin userbase.

[1715172273]

1715172273

[1715172273]

1715172273

[1715172273]

1715172273

[1715172273]

1715172273

[1715172273]

1715172273

[1715172273]

1715172273

[DooMAD]

I'm not the one trying to shut down discussion of the various proposed Bitcoin forks, stating "let the free-market take it's course". How is that supposed to happen, if you keep turning up rail-roading discussions about these forks?


People discussing fork proposals is part of the free-market process, whether you like what they're saying or not. If people like Roger Ver continue to act deceptively, that's gonna get called out. If you don't like that, the free-market is not for you.

The only thing I interrupted was a growing dog pile of insult hurling and accusations.  I'm all for using forums as an open exchange of ideas, but that's clearly not was I was seeing being demonstrated here.  See this thing we're doing now?  This is slightly closer to resembling a discussion.  Again, you're more than welcome to have your little bandwagons, but that's gonna get called out too.  You call it rail-roading, I call it testing the resilience of your ideas.  If they're as strong as you claim, they'll hold up.  Just like Bitcoin.

Of course the market often results in vast elimination of bad ideas. Bitcoin Core already has convinced >90% of the market that it's the best solution. People already looked at the altcoin schemes offered by Andresen, Hearn and Ver and decided them to be inferior and outright dangerous alternatives.

The squad of paid trolls, narcissists and the easily deceived may continue to support Ver's altcoin schemes. However they won't prevent progress. The market is following progress with Bitcoin Core and SegWit.

Things aren't nearly as rigid as you portray, though.  There's still quite a bit of theory and optimism involved in all this.  The general assumption is that SegWit will be an improvement, but we don't know that with absolute certainty yet.  The situation will continue to be somewhat more fluid until we see SegWit in action and people are satisfied that it's a sufficient enough progression to quell the unease.  Personally, I'd like there to be a 'Plan B' available if it doesn't achieve that.  So let's try to keep an open mind and see how this plays out.

[Carlton Banks]

The only thing I interrupted was a growing dog pile of insult hurling and accusations.  I'm all for using forums as an open exchange of ideas, but that's clearly not was I was seeing being demonstrated here.  See this thing we're doing now?  This is slightly closer to resembling a discussion.  Again, you're more than welcome to have your little bandwagons, but that's gonna get called out too.  You call it rail-roading, I call it testing the resilience of your ideas.  If they're as strong as you claim, they'll hold up.  Just like Bitcoin.

That only holds true for people with honest proposals. You seem to be trying to prop up the idea that all the previous hard-fork proposals were well-intentioned, it should be pretty obvious to those with a little discernment that the real idea is to pressurise and destablise Bitcoin with fabricated internal struggles.


You, DooMAD, are throwing gasoline on that particular fire every chance you get. Why?

[DooMAD]

The only thing I interrupted was a growing dog pile of insult hurling and accusations.  I'm all for using forums as an open exchange of ideas, but that's clearly not was I was seeing being demonstrated here.  See this thing we're doing now?  This is slightly closer to resembling a discussion.  Again, you're more than welcome to have your little bandwagons, but that's gonna get called out too.  You call it rail-roading, I call it testing the resilience of your ideas.  If they're as strong as you claim, they'll hold up.  Just like Bitcoin.

That only holds true for people with honest proposals. You seem to be trying to prop up the idea that all the previous hard-fork proposals were well-intentioned, it should be pretty obvious to those with a little discernment that the real idea is to pressurise and destablise Bitcoin with fabricated internal struggles.


You, DooMAD, are throwing gasoline on that particular fire every chance you get. Why?

It's not throwing gasoline on anything to point out that as soon as anyone holds a different opinion to core developers that person is immediately labelled dishonest.  Someone dared to commit the (apparently egregious) crime of displaying independent thought and having a mind of their own.  People somehow feel strong indignation at this supposed betrayal.  If you don't agree, this means you're throwing gasoline on the fire and fabricating internal struggles.   

Fuck intentions and honesty.  Your preconceptions about them don't matter.  Code doesn't have intentions and it can't lie.  If the effects of the code are neutral and obvious, I don't care who coded it or how low your opinion of them is.  The code will speak for itself and the market will choose the code.  This thing is self-regulating.  It doesn't have to be a witch hunt unless you want to turn it into one.  This all boils down to the mindset of "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me and reinforce the status quo or scary consequences will happen". 

To summarise:

I don't care who you do and don't trust in a trustless system; I don't care who you think should be in control of a system that no one controls; I don't care who you think has permission to edit the code in a permissionless system.

Is there any way I can possibly make that any more clear?

[Daisy14]

Solo miners constitute a considerable percentage of miners and they do not find bitcoin mining profitable anymore. I guess Rogers is just trying to give them an incentive not to stop mining