Roger Ver has been compromised

[Quantus]

Satoshi's whitepaper was riddled with flaws and oversights and misjudgments.
oh and sorry rizzlarolla i got you mixed up with QuestionAuthority. It was his depection of the bitcoin community I so strongly objected to...i think... *sigh* I'm getting off its nice outside.

[1714775642]

1714775642

[Denker]

Roger Shitcoin Jesus tweeted some bs again!
Well this isn't new or surprising.
The more often he tweets such nonsense the less relevant he becomes for his stupid followers.
Please continue!

[Lauda]

You mean you've seen that code comment in the bitcoin source code written by Satoshi and you think it is stupid? Why would quoting code from source make me an idiot?

You're supporting this centralized attack on Bitcoin, therefore you're either delusional or a shill. Pick one.

Going with your logic, ETH should have bitcoin's value because it has more nodes. Now go back to your room, and don't speak unless you know what you're talking. To make sure of it, i'll add a collar and a gag ball.

https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
https://bitnodes.21.co/

ETH is a centralized trash coin. You are comparing apples (Bitcoin) with rotten apples (ETH). Go back to your ETH shilling circle-jerk, you don't seem to want to learn anything.

Roger Ver does post some shit - doesn't everyone?

Let's be both honest and frank here. Had this been stated by someone contributing to Bitcoin Core, "people" would be screaming at us wherever possible how "Bitcoin Core" is pro centralization (even though this makes sense considering it was only one individual). This statement is far beyond "some shit".

[HaXX0R1337]

Some of those people are either actively harming Bitcoin (see Ver), sold themselves to the CIA (see Gavin), sold themselves to the banks (see Hearn), etc. Their latest 'evil' pretty much terminated most of their 'good' (if they ever had any).

Just reading the entire thing i would like to know why would the early people in bitcoin are not with the project anymore,the creator left everything but the people he left behind are not with the project and i do think no one expected these sort of revolution in the bitcoin space which created all these egos between everyone and the power struggle is still there and it wont end.

[anonymoustroll420]

If anyone is a troll its you.
Your whole depiction the Bitcoin Talk community blatantly false.

Don't talk shit.

I'm a troll, but not someone called anonymoustroll?
I don't understand this community, yet am able to find 1000 farmed accounts and 100,000 hacked accounts?

My post was on topic, and directly in response to OP, an anonymous troll called anonymoustroll.
I find it repulsive that an anonymous troll called anonymoustroll can gain any credibility himself, or give discredibility to others by starting such a thread.
I have an opinion, i gave an explanation.

Where the fuck did you pop up from with all your delusion?
Your off topic here. Start a thread about my trolling and lack of forum understanding or gtfo of my face.

Your name is rizzlarolla (rizzla roller). Clearly this proves you are addicted to marijuana and as such are delusional /s

I posted a tweet verbatim. This is what Roger Ver believes and is not the first time he has said something like this. Just because I have a humorous nickname doesn't change the fact that Roger Ver said these things. I just picked the first name that came to mind

[squatz1]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/853250894162350080

Only a node that is mining is a true full node.  The rest are just slowing down the propagation of blocks between the real full nodes.

At this point, I am convinced Roger Ver is compromised and is posting absurd shit like this to tip us off.

Mmm not sure, Roger Ver is known for not having very high understanding of the bitcoin technology, he has said a lot of nonsense in the past. I believe this is still him.
He was seen recently in several interviews. Or you mean he is coerced to say this nonsense?

I think Roger is someone who is saying the majority of what he says in order to trick people into following his view of his scaling solution, which we all know to be Bitcoin Unlimited. Or BUG coin if ya really want to get technical with this.

I am confidant that if you were to cut Roger Ver open you would find he's made entirely of straw and bull shit.

I would say that money bags and people just paying him to say whatever he says would be there.
Maybe Jihan would be inside there too?

Gosh, I hate all of the drama but maybe it'll all go away soon.

[leopard2]

LOL

If Asicboost-compatible BU wins, then there will only one "useful" node left on the planet, called BITMAIN, because no one else will be mining (at a profit).

So according to Roger we only need one node.  

Guys, remember that Satoshi did not know ASICs and certainly not ASICBOOST, when he called nodes miners. The brain of a parrot is enough to recognize that in order to make the network censorship proof, more nodes are better.  

If we truly want to get to the point where all nodes are miners, why, then we must switch to POS. In fact in today's ASIC centralized world, POS may be the better option.

[franky1]

LOL

If Asicboost-compatible BU wins, then there will only one "useful" node left on the planet, called BITMAIN, because no one else will be mining (at a profit).

So according to Roger we only need one node.  

Guys, remember that Satoshi did not know ASICs and certainly not ASICBOOST, when he called nodes miners. The brain of a parrot is enough to recognize that in order to make the network censorship proof, more nodes are better.  

your missing the context of the tweet and now speculating based on reddit FUD scripts

the tweet said "FULL" not "useful"
but again its just a game of semantics

where by "FULL" does EVERYTHING

since 2010 (cpu/gpu) days a FULL node was one that validated and mined.

now we have a separation where we have what some call economic nodes that do the validating and storing of the blockchain but dont mine, that work symbiotically with mining nodes

many people call these economic nodes(people call full nodes in social conversations) due to the simple differential of lite nodes(electrum/multibit) vs fuill validation+archival nodes(that dont mine)... though rationally you can see why some would call the validation+archival nodes something other than full, for instance 'economic nodes' rather than full nodes due to the lack of the mining aspect.

maybe this explains why even blockstream and those behind UASF are mentioning the term "economic nodes" to describe the non-mining-full-nodes because the terminology has changed since 2010 and people are confused about what an economic node is. especially if the term 'economic nodes' is being buzzworded even by the blockstreamist groups more than before

but without knowing what prompted roger to explain the only nodes doing all the tasks of bitcoin, being mining nodes. all you can do is speculate.

in my eye, mining nodes(full and spv and other) work symbiotically with user nodes(full validating/archival nodes aka economic nodes) and all are important for the benefit of the entire network.

[leopard2]

LOL

If Asicboost-compatible BU wins, then there will only one "useful" node left on the planet, called BITMAIN, because no one else will be mining (at a profit).

So according to Roger we only need one node.  

Guys, remember that Satoshi did not know ASICs and certainly not ASICBOOST, when he called nodes miners. The brain of a parrot is enough to recognize that in order to make the network censorship proof, more nodes are better.  

your missing the context of the tweet and now speculating based on reddit FUD scripts

the tweet said "FULL" not "useful"

No. The tweet said Only a node that is mining is a true full node. And he said that other nodes are useless, therefore my post was correct.

Are you a bot? Your master should change the config; your posts are too long: TLDR 

[jonald_fyookball]

...economic nodes...

"economic nodes" is estimation only.  rough idea of who supports what.  its not actual buying/selling/transacting coins.

just sayin.

We might have different ideas about non mining nodes.  i'm more along with roger and Satoshi in that i dont see a
huge value in tons of them.    its good to have some but dont need a lot.

[franky1]

your missing the context of the tweet and now speculating based on reddit FUD scripts

the tweet said "FULL" not "useful"

No. The tweet said Only a node that is mining is a true full node. And he said that other nodes are useless, therefore my post was correct.

Are you a bot? Your master should change the config; your posts are too long: TLDR  

TL;DR;
no mention of useful.  only full (but now thats just entering another conversation about semantics)

forums are not like twitter or reddit. expect more text per reply

[franky1]

...economic nodes...

"economic nodes" is estimation only.  rough idea of who supports what.  its not actual buying/selling/transacting coins.

just sayin.

We might have different ideas about non mining nodes.  i'm more along with roger and Satoshi in that i dont see a
huge value in tons of them.    its good to have some but dont need a lot.

yep as soon as you get to a point of say 100,000 validating, archival, relay nodes(lets just use blockstreamists 'economic node' to shut them up by using their buzzwords).. the amount of 'hops' to get the block data to every economic node starts to become a hindrance rather than a benefit. so yep there needs to be a natural equilibrium thats diverse and distributed without going too 'wild'

but 'economic nodes' have a crucial symbiotic relationship with mining nodes. that should not be downplayed.

im not talking about node count. im talking about the physical validating and relaying of data that adits mined blocks to ensure the network accepts only a certain block that passes the test. where no single location or team has control

[MemoryDealers]

Roger Ver wanting nodes to be centralized & easier to control what people should expect him to say.

Roger Ver is against bitcoin being decentralized.

Everything about him is the inverse opposite of what bitcoin was designed to be.

Wow, you got every single point wrong.

1. I want Bitcoin to be uncontrollable p2p cash as described in Satoshi's white-paper.  (Not just a settlement layer)

2. Decentralization is the tool Bitcoin uses to achieve its censorship resistance.

3. Read the white-paper and you will see that unlike Blockstream and Core,  I'm advocating for the very thing that Bitcoin was designed to be from day one.

[anonymoustroll420]

Wow, you got every single point wrong.

1. I want Bitcoin to be uncontrollable p2p cash as described in Satoshi's white-paper.  (Not just a settlement layer)

2. Decentralization is the tool Bitcoin uses to achieve its censorship resistance.

3. Read the white-paper and you will see that unlike Blockstream and Core,  I'm advocating for the very thing that Bitcoin was designed to be from day one.

In the situation you described, where only miners run nodes, Bitcoin is highly controllable.

The alternative to running a node is an SPV wallet. If you don't know, SPV wallets connect to a Bitcoin node and use it as their trusted source of information from the network. SPV wallets can't fully validate blocks, so they have to trust the miners too, as well as the node. The miners can do a hundred malicious things to SPV wallets. The node you connect to knows all of your Bitcoin addresses. The node can fake unconfirmed transactions, so if you accept an unconfirmed tx from the node operator they could scam you. The node can also refuse to relay your tx, and if it does that you'll need to switch to another node, giving that node all your Bitcoin addresses too.


An SPV wallet is OK if you have a small amount of BTC. But if you have a large amount of BTC, you'll probably want to run a node as it will give you much more privacy, security and anti-censorship. Run one node and use it as your trusted source for all your SPV wallets.

Satoshi described payment channels, which is the basis of how lightning works. He added nlocktime, nSequence and transaction replacement in v0.1 to allow for this.

Satoshi Nakamoto:

An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced until nLockTime. It may contain payments by multiple parties. Each input owner signs their input. For a new version to be written, each must sign a higher sequence number (see IsNewerThan). By signing, an input owner says "I agree to put my money in, if everyone puts their money in and the outputs are this." There are other options in SignatureHash such as SIGHASH_SINGLE which means "I agree, as long as this one output (i.e. mine) is what I want, I don't care what you do with the other outputs.". If that's written with a high nSequenceNumber, the party can bow out of the negotiation except for that one stipulation, or sign SIGHASH_NONE and bow out completely.

The parties could create a pre-agreed default option by creating a higher nSequenceNumber tx using OP_CHECKMULTISIG that requires a subset of parties to sign to complete the signature. The parties hold this tx in reserve and if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

[Sadlife]

BU itself is a compromise now that everything has been revealed including the ASICBOOST, buggy code.
The plan for a centralized bitcoin is ruined now all their doing is preventing bitcoin from progressing by preventing segwit.
I think this will all stop if a Bitcoin scaling solution is actually implemented.

[Killerpotleaf]

go fuck yourselfs!!!

Roger Ver is one of us.

one of you.

someone that will not BEND OVER to the blockstream.


we would rather split then have your will imposed on us.

we are ready!  r u?

[jonald_fyookball]

In the situation you described, where only miners run nodes, Bitcoin is highly controllable.
 

Prove it.

Even with 32mb full blocks , that's 192 megabytes per hour.  Not exactly cost prohibitive for miners even with today's technology.
Heck, I can download 192 megabytes in about 20 seconds.

[franky1]

Wow, you got every single point wrong.

1. I want Bitcoin to be uncontrollable p2p cash as described in Satoshi's white-paper.  (Not just a settlement layer)

2. Decentralization is the tool Bitcoin uses to achieve its censorship resistance.

3. Read the white-paper and you will see that unlike Blockstream and Core,  I'm advocating for the very thing that Bitcoin was designed to be from day one.

In the situation you described, where only miners run nodes, Bitcoin is highly controllable.

what if, just what if you thought logically

100% node = mines and validates latest rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
90% node = validates latest rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
80% node = validates newish rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
70% node = validates old rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
60% node = validates latest rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
50% node = validates newish rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
40% node = validates old rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
30% node = mines, stores, relays, creates transactions
20% node = relays, creates transactions
10% node = creates transactions

now imagine he was describing the 100% node to explain a node that does everything.
but for instance a 30% node was a SPV pool node
and a 'economic node' was the 40%-90% nodes depending which version number/how long ago you upgraded EG core, BU, classic,xt, knots, etc

and the 10%-20% were more like web-lite wallets such as multibit/electrum, bitcoinJ, etc

[jonald_fyookball]

yo fuck this shit, let them DIE!
i dont want to go on with "them"

let us fork off! and rise above the BULL-FUCKING-SHIT

bitcoin brand name is worth a lot.

we can do both... we can create a forked coin now and see if it can get traction while we keep fighting for big blocks on this chain also.
everyone who owns bitcoins will own the new coins.   issue is security though...

[cryptoanarchist]

Satoshi's whitepaper was riddled with flaws and oversights and misjudgments.

Oh yeah, you're way smarter. So smart I'm ignoring you.