Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream)

[pereira4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY&feature=youtu.be&t=300

That was it. If anyone is supporting Bu/anti-segwit agenda, I don't know what to tell you.

It was clear how Roger Ver is simply not able to form coherent arguments, he is too emotional. Johnny was articulate, calm and collected.

And Johnny isn't even one of main coders. I would like to see Gmaxwell debating on those streams, see if they can keep up to the debate outside of computer screen trolling.

[1715086087]

1715086087

[1715086087]

1715086087

[1715086087]

1715086087

[numismatist]

Tiresome, both of them. The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

[pianist]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

[pianist]

It was clear how Roger Ver is simply not able to form coherent arguments, he is too emotional.

Roger Ver is silly and rude. He does not understand how to scale Bitcoin 1000000x...

[BillyBobZorton]

Tiresome, both of them. The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

History is made via discussion. If we let the trolls win bitcoin will be ruined. I hope BU ends up just like XT and Classic. If a hard fork happens, I hope it is not a disaster like ETH/ETC, that would kill all network effect.

[franky1]

segwit does not fix malleability.
segwit does not fix quadratics

segwit just disarms those who choose to move their funds over to segwit keys.. that is all. it still does not fix the issues across the network or across the blocks.  because sigop spammers and malleated double spenders CAN and will continue to use native keys. meaning problem not solved

please take more time understanding bitcoin and less time defending humans paid by blockstream.
after all in a few years the humans will move to different projects but bitcoin wil remain. so care more about bitcoin not the temporary humans

in short, if you have spent more time researching a humans linked-in employment history and wiki edits of their career, rather than reading or researching code. you have only failed yourselves

[OgNasty]

I thought they both did a good job and were able to articulate their positions well.  I think the way forward lands somewhere in the middle and the solution needs to consider miners, users, and developers.

There were 2 things that shocked me about the chat...  Roger saying that not spending BTC gives it it's value, and Johnny saying that he only uses Bitcoin once a month.

[franky1]

anything can be a currency. even cigarettes in a prison.

its top of the umbrella of financial terms.
below the umbrella are a multitude of subsets/categories.

money being one of those sub categories.
if you cannot spend it and its not recognised by a community or certain populous, then its not "money".


bitcoin was, is and will always be an asset currency
but the "money" subcategory becomes iffy if bitcoins UTILITY becomes dampened/stalled/halted/prohibited/functionless

[jonald_fyookball]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY&feature=youtu.be&t=300

That was it. If anyone is supporting Bu/anti-segwit agenda, I don't know what to tell you.

It was clear how Roger Ver is simply not able to form coherent arguments, he is too emotional. Johnny was articulate, calm and collected.

And Johnny isn't even one of main coders. I would like to see Gmaxwell debating on those streams, see if they can keep up to the debate outside of computer screen trolling.

I didn't watch it.  I wasn't under the impression that Roger is a technical guy.

I trust the expertise of people like Gavin and Peter Rizun who are advocating
for BU and also because it makes sense to me and is extremely simple.

I actually came up with the same idea on my own before BU existed that
"we should let the miners decide" and that the blocksize  shouldn't
be part of the consensus rules.  If you search the forum you might
find that thread.
 
I trust blockstream about as far as I can throw them.
 

[franky1]

Ver is not a programmer. Just another rich man.

part one of the video (tony veys) is not a programmer nor much of a holder.
part two of the video (johny, linked above) only has one commit and again isnt much of a holder/spender

i think both videos lacked anyone that could satisfactorily defend blockstream/core, or where those blockstream defenders are actually personally highly involved with bitcoin.

but hey thats just the social drama of peoples C.V not really the context of their opinions. which the context of which team is actually thinking about actually fixing issues.. BU wins.

segwit is an empty gesture that results in just centralising the network with its upstream nodes but still leave bitcoin unfixed.
(malicious people will continue using native nodes and manually copying/pasting segwit tx's to native nodes to open new attack vectors that core have opened up if segwit activates)

[knircky]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

Blocklimits are useless, segwit is useful. Get rid of blocksize limit and implement segwit. Easy

[jonald_fyookball]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

Blocklimits are useless, segwit is useful. Get rid of blocksize limit and implement segwit. Easy

If we got rid of the blocksize limit, what would be the benefit of segwit?

[Quantus]

I never knew about attack blocks. Great Video thank you for posting pereira4!

I support segwit/Lighting again. Its the best way to move forward. I'm going to upgrade my client tonight.

Core needs a PR department.

[franky1]

I never knew about attack blocks.

lol
now learn about orphans and consensus.

attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed

[Kakmakr]

Now, I am not a big Roger Ver fan but I think we should stop this smack talk from both sides, because it is not constructive to finding a solution in the long run. We clearly have two groups forming now and this is not healthy, because in the end only one side can win this argument and this will be decided by the miners.

Roger believed in Bitcoin, when Bitcoin was still relatively small and he pushed capital through the network to keep it alive, when other people abandoned the idea. Let's give credit, where credit is due and acknowledge his contribution. Yes, he has his reasons for doing what he is doing and we should respect everyone's stance or opinion on a subject and debate that in a civilized manner.

[hv_]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

Blocklimits are useless, segwit is useful. Get rid of blocksize limit and implement segwit. Easy

If we got rid of the blocksize limit, what would be the benefit of segwit?

That s the thing. Think big and do all we can and let the market decide what is useful and safe.

[hv_]

I never knew about attack blocks.

lol
now learn about orphans and consensus.

attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed

This is again part of some fear and smear campain we see these days

HF: Evil (pls ignore or bann things we could learn from alts like Monero or ETH = top alts with HFs...)

Orphaning : Attack ( pls ignore again that bitcoin runs with that for 8 years and alts like ETH have made use of the orphanes = uncles)

Pls let rain some brain!

[pedrog]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

We don't need bigger blocks nor Segregated Witness, bitcoin is great as it is, price is at an all time high and people continue to use it.

There's already a 'bitcoin network' with bigger blocks and soon may have Segregated Witness active, it's called litecoin, if there was really a need for bigger blocks or more transactions we would see a rise in litecoin use, that's not happening.

[udevNull]

Scaling is a complex topic. It's not something that can be solved using simple solutions. Of course a simple solution can work, but it's almost always not the long term one.

Take a piece of software (serving something to end users) running on a server utilizing 80% of the system's resources constantly. In order to scale that you'd either have to increase system resources or you'd need to optimize the software.

If the only thing you do is increase the hardware capacity of the machine, you're going to run into the same issue again. When, just depends on how big you've made the machine. This also means that your costs go up every time you put new users on board.

However, if you decide to optimize the software instead, it becomes more complex but your resulting scaling solution will look very different. For instance, I've worked on a server that was running a golang service using around 75% CPU power in peak times. By re-writing, benchmarking and pruning the code, we got that down to around 20% under peak load. Which is massive. The other issue we solved was that our resource usage no longer looked like a linear graph depending on how busy the server was, but would fluctuate between 10% and 20%. Instead of climbing from 10% to 75% under max load.

Segwit vs big blocks is the same. If we're just going to throw big blocks at the blockchain, we don't solve the problem long term (do the maths to see how big blocks would need to be to compete with Visa) and open ourselves up to attacks on the network (which Johnny describes in the video). Scaling via Segwit will gives us far better long term benefits as well as much better long term scaling solutions which allow us to think in a exponentially in terms of the number of transactions processed vs in a linear manner.

[Xester]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

We do not need segwit what we need is bigger blocks. Segwit will not be adopted and will never reach the 95% of consensus from the overall population of miners. We need to increase the blocksize to maintain the status of bitcoin as decentralized. If we adopt segwit and they will move for Lightning Network to make a move in bitcoin decentralization will die.