Roger Ver has been compromised

[FiendCoin]

And the shilling continues...

more whistles in the wind but ignoring the flaws of segwit.

so here they are again:
segwit does not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

multisigs themselves solve malleability by requiring a second person sign off on a transaction

segwit is not a 2mb or 4mb capacity growth promise. it requires EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs and stick with those key pairs without any native key users.. to even get close to the 2mb 'gesture'
EG 1mb 'promised' 7tx/s of everyone used lean tx's...
we have NEVER had a 7tx/s block in 8 years. so forget thinking segwit will get the 100% utility to hit the 'expected 2-4x capacity)


segwit has taken a year and a half of delays for a half gesture 2merkle TIER network.. yet could have been done in less time as a single merkle full network consensus upgrade that could have included other features like dynamics.. where there would not have been debates, drama and the community would have been united

forget the reddit sales pitches and scripts
forget the utopia
forget the 'love and adore blockstream' parade and actually scrutinise the code and technicals

if your just going to reply "shill" then save your time, use it more wisely learning bitcoin
let me guess if you dont shout shill as your only argument . it will probably be still ignoring the technical flaws.. and just most probably be a reply about some grammar details (the other empty argument to evade the real technical flaws)

All I hear...

blab, blah, blah, hate Core, blah, blah, blah, hate Blockstream, blah, blah, blah they suck, blah, blah, blah flawed code, blah, blah, blah SegWit sucks.. And the wheel in the sky keeps on turning 

Wow, sometimes its better to just be quiet and let people think you're stupid, than to make a comment and remove all doubt.

Congratulations, you're the 3rd or maybe 4th shill alt to call me stupid today, just brilliant.

Pat yourself on the back and keep up the good work!

[agatha818]

I read all the comments about roger ver!  And I couldn't agree more! He speak nothing but crap!

[samus.aran]

What are the motivations of this individual? How is it possible that someone with hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins brings so much drama.
Some evidence that he really has it? He looks like an altcoin guy.

[XbladeX]

What are the motivations of this individual? How is it possible that someone with hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins brings so much drama.
Some evidence that he really has it? He looks like an altcoin guy.

he sold BTC for alts that is why he is crying tooo much - this is so simple.

[jonald_fyookball]

Orphan rates are primarily affected by bandwidth, not first-bit latency, because you need the entire block to be transmitted and then validated before miners will build on it or subsequently relayed.

Ask a mining software expert like -ck to chime in if you like.  

No. Having a fast download speed doesn't guarantee jack shit if the amount of time it takes for you to transmit to the majority of the network is high. Falcon and Fibre are primarily about latency.
 

I love how after you were unable to refute my point about the entire block needing to validated, you then tried to switch arguments and started talking about upload vs download speed.

Switchng arguments instead of conceding you were wrong is a clasic symptom of an arrogant know-it-all (or a troll).

In the event you are not intentionally trolling, then you still do not understand the issue.

From bitcoinfibre.org:

Because TCP is designed to provide reliable transmission at reasonable bandwidth across medium-large amounts of data, it is incredibly bad at low-latency relay of small amounts of data

and:

the time to transmit 1MB over a 1Gbps link is still several milliseconds

Don't try to change arguments again.  You were against big blocks (32MB).  The latency issues are for "small amounts" of data (1mb).   Big blocks = medium-large amounts of data.


 

[dinofelis]

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.

Well, Satoshi said the same in 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

[manselr]

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.

Well, Satoshi said the same in 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

We corrected satoshi's mistake by thinking centralizing nodes into farms was a good idea. As we are seeing, a single man (Jihan) can control price by control signaling of segwit. If they also had control of nodes, it would be the end of the everything. You might as well use paypal at that point (which is what Roger Ver wants btw)

http://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/

[Lauda]

I love how after you were unable to refute my point about the entire block needing to validated, you then tried to switch arguments and started talking about upload vs download speed.

Nobody mentioned upload nor download speed. Since you insist on rebuttal, I have included it in this post. It was really trivial, and quite cute that you think you had a real *winning* argument.

Switchng arguments instead of conceding you were wrong is a clasic symptom of an arrogant know-it-all (or a troll).

Nobody is switching anything; these are growing signs of you delusional.

Don't try to change arguments again.  You were against big blocks (32MB).  The latency issues are for "small amounts" of data (1mb).   Big blocks = medium-large amounts of data.

You have no real argument, and this is probably because you have a major in something useless (e.g. arts or history). They were all designed to reduce propagation times, which was (or depending who you ask, still is) an issue today (regardless whether you're talking about 1, 8 or 32 MB). Both of those originated from the Bitcoin Relay Network:

http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/

The Bitcoin Relay Network .... b) decreases block propagation times between miners.

Bandwidth is obviously not negligible. However, the exact amount of constraint that is creates is inconsistent. You are forgetting certain things that factor into this:
1) Compact blocks, i.e. reconstruction of blocks from block sketches.
2) SPV mining (which is unfortunately still a thing)[1].

Now the worst case for bandwidth constraint (concerning orphan rates) is transacting a maximum sized block, containing transactions that no other mining pool/node has (or nobody is running a client supporting compact blocks). What is the likelihood of even a 1 MB block, from which no other party has any included transactions?  Here's a somewhat old, down-voted by trolls and shills, video based on data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

Note: This is data prior to the (public) existence of compact blocks, FIBRE, et. al. I couldn't find any recent data on this.
[1] - These two words completely destroy your previous statement:

Orphan rates are primarily affected by bandwidth, not first-bit latency, because you need the entire block to be transmitted and then validated before miners will build on it or subsequently relayed.

They don't need to validate it before building upon it nor before relaying it. Learn what SPV mining is. Or as franky1 puts it, LEARN BITCOIN.

[dinofelis]

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.

Well, Satoshi said the same in 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

We corrected satoshi's mistake by thinking centralizing nodes into farms was a good idea. As we are seeing, a single man (Jihan) can control price by control signaling of segwit. If they also had control of nodes, it would be the end of the everything. You might as well use paypal at that point (which is what Roger Ver wants btw)

http://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/

And if you read, Satoshi too.  Satoshi simply wanted bitcoin to be a kind of Paypal if you read him.  The period of libertarians was just a means to get useful idiots at work, for free and enthusiastic propaganda.
And then, Satoshi screwed up, or changed his mind, by putting in a "spam limit" of 1 MB (making spam extremely efficient LOL), frozen in for ever, maybe after that he considered that his mega farm would end up needing fees.

At least, Roger Ver and Satoshi understand that non-mining nodes have absolutely nothing to say.  They can at best download the block chain to verify for themselves and accept whatever chain the miner farms serve them, or stop working.

[jonald_fyookball]

They don't need to validate it before building upon it nor before relaying it. Learn what SPV mining is. Or as franky1 puts it, LEARN BITCOIN.

I'm aware of that.  SPV mining is irrelevant to the issue.     The entire network can't get by on SPV mining.  Even SPV miners will be downloading the entire block (even if they first download the blockheader) and they cannot relay the block until they do so, so bandwidth is still a key metric for big blocks. 

You should have stuck to your argument that 'we don't know if bandwidth improvements will continue'..that was the only thing you said that wasn't a spin or a bunch of noise.

Here's the only point that matters:

Both download and upload speeds are improving tremendously, and 1MB is ridiculously small.

[The One]

its about prunned/no witness(Stripped) nodes are more then likely to kill off more than half the network

how about you stop preaching the blockstream half baked features, take off the blockstream defender cap and wear the critical thinking logical cap about whats best for the bitcoin network

here is your own self debunking the myth that dynamics and big blockers will kill half the network

So says franky1 McShillinsteen 

Dude, you got to be the #1 anti-core/ anti-blockstream shill on this site. Your shill-tastic posts always make me LOL

You can't accuse someone of being a shill without evidence.

If you look at the all the posts, one can separate useless posts and posts that actually provide useful information. The thing is to do your own research, time consuming it is, and then decide if the the person is talking codswallop or not, FUD or not, shilling or not, etc.

[The One]

You're so anti-core, anti-blockstream that either you're paid to do this or gmaxwell has personally hurt you in some manner?

You're posts suggest you have a tremendous amount of hate and contempt for Blockstream and anything related to them. Its very suspicious.

Anyone who loves Bitcoin should hate Core and Blockstream.  They are malicious actors.

Sorry but i think all are malicious actors to a certain point. Hence why i decided to support none of the current proposals.

[Syke]

Here's the only point that matters:

Both download and upload speeds are improving tremendously, and 1MB is ridiculously small.

So true. On my home network, I can upload 1MB blocks to 10 peers in under 10 seconds. With 10 minute blocks, that's about 1% utilization for a consumer internet connection.

[Lauda]

-snip-
You should have stuck to your argument that 'we don't know if bandwidth improvements will continue'..that was the only thing you said that wasn't a spin or a bunch of noise.

Your response in a nutshell:


At least make up some fake data or something in an attempt to refute both the statements and data provided. Don't make shilling so obvious.

Here's the only point that matters:

Both download and upload speeds are improving tremendously, and 1MB is ridiculously small.

So true. On my home network, I can upload 1MB blocks to 10 peers in under 10 seconds. With 10 minute blocks, that's about 1% utilization for a consumer internet connection.

Anecdotal evidence in this case is as useful as you are. Remember what your overlord Ver has told you, your node is nothing but useless waste creating additional propagation delay. You shouldn't run it according to him.

[gmaxwell]

segwit dos not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

This is unadulterated jibberish technobabble.

A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst case block with no segwit.

The consensus rule for non-segwit signature operations is 20k before segwit and not changed (it can't be increased by segwit as that would be a hardfork), and segwit transactions are much faster to hash (on average and especially in the worst case where they are thousands of times faster).

I am only responding to this habitually dishonest bullshitter because his comments have been quoted in the media.

[rizzlarolla]

segwit dos not solve quadratics.. it makes it 4x worse:
0.12 4k maxtxsigops (~10sec validation time)
0.14 16k maxtxsigops (~8min validation time)

This is unadulterated jibberish technobabble.

A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst case block with no segwit.

The consensus rule for non-segwit signature operations is 20k before segwit and not changed (it can't be increased by segwit as that would be a hardfork), and segwit transactions are much faster to hash (on average and especially in the worst case where they are thousands of times faster).

I am only responding to this habitually dishonest bullshitter because his comments have been quoted in the media.

Please link a few of those media comments. (well done Franky1)

Just curious,
what about "A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst best case block with no segwit"

----

p.s.
Franky1 post's on many threads, why respond (probably off topic) on such a clear anonymous troll against Ver thread?
Tell us about it in a proper thread, or maybe post in Franky1's new "reputation" thread with the "dishonest bullshitter" comments!

[BitDane]

I read all the comments about roger ver!  And I couldn't agree more! He speak nothing but crap!

Well he is quite popular of being such.  Though I can say he is more experienced than me in terms of Bitcoin but that does not mean Roger Ver is right.  There are more people who are more knowledgeable than him so there are lots of rebuttal on anything he said about Bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

At least make up some fake data or something in an attempt to refute both the statements and data provided. Don't make shilling so obvious.
 

herp derp. how about some real data

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

[Lauda]

Please link a few of those media comments. (well done Franky1)

It's exactly the one post that Maxwell quoted. The post is complete bullshit, and I have told this franky1 at least once a few weeks ago in another thread. Obviously he ignored it.

herp derp. how about some real data

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

This is yet another useless straw man. That has no relevance to the things that I've stated, as I have never mentioned nor denied bandwidth growth. FYI, since you're uneducated, "Nielsen's law" isn't a law, it's an observation.

[jonald_fyookball]

A block that has even _one_ segwit transaction takes less time to verify than the worst case block with no segwit.
 

To be fair, we should also note that an intentional quadratic attack would then come from a miner
that is including only the transactions he wants in the block (the big ones for his attack).  
He doesn't need to include even a single segwit transaction, and shouldn't if he wants the attack to work.