Bitcoin Forum
April 06, 2020, 10:19:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The man does have a point - Roger Ver  (Read 1316 times)
vm_mpn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:00:25 AM
 #1

Even though I'm somewhat repulsed by cavalier attitude towards forking the most stable and conservative cryptocurrency system, I can't dismiss Roger Ver logic and rational thinking.

Warning: Interview is on altcoin channel and may contain adult material hazardous to your health.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70

...
Best ratesfor crypto
EXCHANGE
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586211568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586211568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586211568
Reply with quote  #2

1586211568
Report to moderator
Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 788



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:04:50 AM
 #2

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

vm_mpn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:32:19 AM
 #3

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BU technically allows for up to 32 MB block size? I'm not clear on max possible block size in BU.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:33:57 AM
 #4

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

cpfreeplz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1036


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:36:43 AM
 #5

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

Your analogies are both too basic. It's more like a complex medical procedure that's under changes. Some people believe the old way is better with a 90% success rate but the new way promises 99.99%. The problem is no one knows the real side affects until the new complex procedure has started.
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1659



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:39:53 AM
 #6

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

much like in 1996
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because dialup and 4gb hard drive limits of 1996"
much like in 2006
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 said it would be bad"
much like in 2016
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 and 2006 said it would be bad"

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:53:55 AM
 #7

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

Your analogies are both too basic. It's more like a complex medical procedure that's under changes. Some people believe the old way is better with a 90% success rate but the new way promises 99.99%. The problem is no one knows the real side affects until the new complex procedure has started.

granted its basic but if you want to go down your road we also have to say the doctor singing the praises of the new way is also getting paid by the pharmaceutical company for the drugs he wants to give the patient...and that his 'procedure' is about 1000x as complicated as the old way which will almost work at least in the short term.

Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 788



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 02:09:35 AM
 #8

One thing that stands out in OP's youtube video, is Roger Ver saying he wants bitcoin to compete with credit cards in terms of transaction speed and fees so that "everyone can use it".

That's kind of like saying he wants to make encrypted WIFI fast enough to play video games as well as an FIOS hardline.

He doesn't seem to have a plan or idea on how to achieve this.

He doesn't seem to understand encryption based technologies like bitcoin will never be as fast as credit cards, for the same reasons that encrypted WIFI will always be much slower than using an unencrypted hardline for gaming.

He seems to think that if he continues to increase block size, he'll eventually reach a point where bitcoin can execute thousands of transactions per second, like credit cards do.

It seems like a bad plan created by a person who lacks the technical background to be involved with making key bitcoin design decisions.

LonelyPrince
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 02:15:11 AM
 #9

He has no technical knowing of programming he is just a speculator. And now he's trying to centralize bitcoin in the hands of Jihan and other corrupt chinese miners
MemoryDealers
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1051
Merit: 1055



View Profile WWW
March 19, 2017, 07:14:04 AM
 #10

One thing that stands out in OP's youtube video, is Roger Ver saying he wants bitcoin to compete with credit cards in terms of transaction speed and fees so that "everyone can use it".

That's kind of like saying he wants to make encrypted WIFI fast enough to play video games as well as an FIOS hardline.

He doesn't seem to have a plan or idea on how to achieve this.

He doesn't seem to understand encryption based technologies like bitcoin will never be as fast as credit cards, for the same reasons that encrypted WIFI will always be much slower than using an unencrypted hardline for gaming.

He seems to think that if he continues to increase block size, he'll eventually reach a point where bitcoin can execute thousands of transactions per second, like credit cards do.

It seems like a bad plan created by a person who lacks the technical background to be involved with making key bitcoin design decisions.

Great job putting words in my mouth.
Layer two technologies will allow Bitcoin to compete with Credit Cards.
My main point is that we shouldn't damage layer one's usability today in order to force people onto layer two.  They'll just be forced into altcoins anyhow. (As we are seeing)

BU's roadmap preserves layer one.  Core's roadmap intentionally damages layer one.
It is clear to me which path is the safer one.

vm_mpn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 08:41:38 AM
 #11

One thing that stands out in OP's youtube video, is Roger Ver saying he wants bitcoin to compete with credit cards in terms of transaction speed and fees so that "everyone can use it".

That's kind of like saying he wants to make encrypted WIFI fast enough to play video games as well as an FIOS hardline.

He doesn't seem to have a plan or idea on how to achieve this.

He doesn't seem to understand encryption based technologies like bitcoin will never be as fast as credit cards, for the same reasons that encrypted WIFI will always be much slower than using an unencrypted hardline for gaming.

He seems to think that if he continues to increase block size, he'll eventually reach a point where bitcoin can execute thousands of transactions per second, like credit cards do.

It seems like a bad plan created by a person who lacks the technical background to be involved with making key bitcoin design decisions.

Great job putting words in my mouth.
Layer two technologies will allow Bitcoin to compete with Credit Cards.
My main point is that we shouldn't damage layer one's usability today in order to force people onto layer two.  They'll just be forced into altcoins anyhow. (As we are seeing)

BU's roadmap preserves layer one.  Core's roadmap intentionally damages layer one.
It is clear to me which path is the safer one.


Thanks for chiming in Roger... How much weight do you put into DDOS and SPAM arguments when it comes to larger blocks and how BU is planning to deal with this?
aarturka
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 278
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 08:43:43 AM
 #12

Ver is Dash guy and Bitcoin Juda
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 2216



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 08:46:32 AM
 #13

My main point is that we shouldn't damage layer one's usability today in order to force people onto layer two.  

If that was true, you would be suggesting improvements to layer 1, not adding simplistic attack vectors that beget more simplistic attack vectors.

Everyone knows how blocksize increases will play out:

  • increase blocksize
  • new blocksize gets spammed
  • tx fees are then the same as they were before
  • increase blocksize
  • new blocksize gets spammed
  • tx fees are then the same as they were before

If you want to argue "let's have an upper limit then!"...

Then why mess around, just set an upper limit, we'll end up at that limit anyway



They'll just be forced into altcoins anyhow. (As we are seeing)

People buying altcoins is not a substitute for Bitcoin transactions, none are anywhere close to being as well engineered and proven as Bitcoin itself. And we all know that using altcoins to send Bitcoin is the dumbest idea ever: if you have to send a BTC transaction to an altcoin exchange anyway, you may as well just cut the crap and send your BTC transactions to where you want it to go. Fail, Roger.


When will you listen and learn? Scaling does not mean increasing the data burden on the network 1:1. That's not scaling.

Finding ways to make the separate transactions themselves use less space or network resources is what scaling actually means. Why are you pushing so hard for the complete opposite?

Vires in numeris
Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 788



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:03:21 AM
 #14

If that was true, you would be suggesting improvements to layer 1, not adding simplistic attack vectors that beget more simplistic attack vectors.

Everyone knows how blocksize increases will play out:

  • increase blocksize
  • new blocksize gets spammed
  • tx fees are then the same as they were before
  • increase blocksize
  • new blocksize gets spammed
  • tx fees are then the same as they were before

If you want to argue "let's have an upper limit then!"...

Then why mess around, just set an upper limit, we'll end up at that limit anyway

It seems as if block size is irrelevent.

No matter how large blocks are, they will always succumb to DDOS style, deliberately spammed transactions.

Its in miners own self interest to spam the network to raise transaction fees higher & boost profits.

It is possible we could have 1GB blocks and they'd still spam to raise transaction fees.

Increasing block size won't change anything, because block size was never the problem to begin with?

K128kevin2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:16:58 AM
 #15

The presenter makes me feel very uneasy, he seems dead inside. Probably sold his soul to Ver Wink
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 2216



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:26:45 AM
 #16

Increasing block size won't change anything, because block size was never the problem to begin with?

Well, it will change the total amount of transactions possible, spamming isn't outcompeting genuine economic interests of those who can afford higher fees than spammers. Or at least not yet.

But lets not forget that another curcial difference that increasing the blocksize will make is it will increase the IBD (initial blockchain download) and the data costs of running a full node. Neither are good.

I'd like to get to a point in the future, maybe 2020 ish or later, where people can legitimately say "I only need a 700GB file? But that downloads in 5 minutes! And just 1 hour to check all the transactions!? My phone can do that!!!". In those circumstances (which would need massive increases in computer processors and internet infrastructure), going to, say, 8MB blocks wouldn't be a risk. But it takes the average computer DAYS to do that now, it's a non-starter until days turns into hours.


And above all, I'm more concerned about those who want Bitcoin to fail, not miners gaming inflated fee profits. But both are legitimate concerns to be fair.

Vires in numeris
Velkro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1011


<3 Vanity Addresses :)


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:44:50 AM
 #17

I can't dismiss Roger Ver logic and rational thinking.

The only person i trust is Andreas Antonopolous. He is truly one honest person that working for the good of bitcoin at all times.
Noone else have my trust, im confused if roger ver is lunatic or good person for bitcoin, i don't know. Im confusing many names in bitcoin world, if this one was in prison already or not, if he pulled some scam before or not. This is really sad place.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 2216



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
 #18

I can't dismiss Roger Ver logic and rational thinking.

The only person i trust is Andreas Antonopolous. He is truly one honest person that working for the good of bitcoin at all times.

Trust logic, Andreas makes good logical arguments, but that's not definitive, he might get something horribly wrong in the future. It would be really dangerous if everyone blindly followed Andreas if or when he does suggest something that doesn't really make sense.

Trusting people based on past performance can be dangerous. Everyone becoming as educated as possible about the issues relevant to Bitcoin is the real answer.

Vires in numeris
Xester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 543



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:58:25 AM
 #19

He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

Your analogies are both too basic. It's more like a complex medical procedure that's under changes. Some people believe the old way is better with a 90% success rate but the new way promises 99.99%. The problem is no one knows the real side affects until the new complex procedure has started.

The most complex thing about checking what is the best system for bitcoin mining is to evaluate the disadvantage and advantages of both sides. Segwit offers solutions like increasing the blocksize to 2 mb but the problem lies on its applicability on the real situation. While Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand uses hard fork and can increase the blocksize in a large capacity but will have troubles later on. Thus it is hard to choose between the two. But for me I would now side with segwit and the reasons is that the core developers are backing it up.
vlom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 10:01:09 AM
 #20

the guy of this show is just a pity. i can nearly watch this show. although i want to hear what Ver has to say.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!