The Lies About Roger Ver (me)
Many people who don't like Bitcoin (BCH) love to attack me for things unrelated to BCH. I took a few minutes to clear up the lies that are being spread about me. It is also worth noting that even if all the bad things people are saying about me were true, that would have nothing to do with BCH bbeing a better digital currency than BTC or not. BTC supporters are busy attacking the man (ad hominem) rather than the ideas. The original content for this video is from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comm... Proof /r/Bitcoin is completely censored: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brie... Get your free Bitcoin (BCH) at https://free.bitcoin.com
Wow, exactly the most important part you scroll over in the article about your lies about fees:
Your mining pool was mining half full blocks on the day that the fees were extremely high, this means that the blockspace was not to small, but you and other Bcash supporting miners were actively causing obstruction to support your own narrative! Two of the three blocks his pool minted were not even half full while hundreds of thousands transactions were waiting in the mempool, if it is to small to read go to the original article in the link below. It is hilarious, crying that the fees are too high while your own mining pool is causing it!
https://decentralize.today/roger-ver-lies-f5333e152858
Do you honestly expect people to believe that three blocks would have made a difference to the cluster-fuck of that many transactions trying to fit into those ridiculously small blocks?
A group of mining pools owning about half of the hashpower was mining empty blocks regularly too, combine that with spam and congestion is a fact.
1MB blocks are easier and cheaper to attack with spam than larger blocks are. The larger the block the more it costs to spam attack it. The ROOT CAUSE of Bitcoin being attacked with spam tx IS BECAUSE OF SMALL BLOCK SIZE. Big mining groups would have a harder time attacking large blocks with spam, so the problem with spam attacks largely goes away with larger blocks.
Your other points.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&scale=1
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-hashrate.html
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,all
Doesn't increasing block size because because of spam make the spam attack successful? Give up decentralization and reduce certainty what Bitcoin is in the future for a small group of people with bad intentions? This is the entire point to not increase the block size, not the increase itself. Now we been through the attack and Segwit and batching makes spam more expensive, and since I suspect it were miners spamming, it will be stupid to do now because they will drive people to Lightning. A network cannot grow and become resilience while functioning perfectly without tradeoffs, everything that grows will experience grow pains. BTC been through it and became stronger and Bcash made tradeoffs.
Increasing blocksize != giving up decentralization. For example, right now if we wanted to, we would all have 10 MBblocks and it only adds 5TB in 10 years. A 10 TBharddrive is like less than 120 bucks these days. The internet required to download 10 MB every 10 minutes is something like 2X dialup speed...
In chatting with you back and forth I am starting to see the issue here, you need to do the math on some of these things and you will see you are being lied to about decentralization.
We could have had 10 MB blocks 8 years ago when Bitcoin came out and had those 10 MB full and the average person could still run a node in their home + have enough storage for it now. It takes 10 years of 10 MB blocks to fill up 5 TB.
My xbox has 2 TB in it. My external HDD has 5 TB in it for like 60 bucks. I stream Netflix in 1080 P which uses something like 2 MB/S download speed(could download a 10 MBblock in 5 seconds).
I've been telling the same thing over and over again. But only as an argument. I don't plan to get stuck with dial-up internet. i'm with Dash and other Dash inspired coins like PIVX which keeps making history repeatedly.
https://steemit.com/pivx/@vimukthi/congratulations-pivx-for-making-hisotry-with-another-1st-in-the-crypto-sphere
No, in fact it makes it much harder to successfully cause congestion.
The block size limit was never intended to stop this particular type of a "spam", but a poison block attack. Keeping it much lower than intended was what made the spam attack possible.
SegWit was primarily intended to enable LN, but in any case the only (positive) thing it does in combination with batching is increase the distance to the blocksize cap.
The intention was always to have nodes run by fewer and fewer people, ultimately in server halls. You can easily see this both in the design paper and in private email as well as public forum posts by Satoshi.
Users would only have to run an SPV (which could be improved and made more advanced over time) to verify transactions. (Verify being the term used by Satoshi, not validate of course)
If the number of todays so called "full nodes" (which by the design paper you can see Satoshi actually did not consider to be full nodes at all and would rather have counted as a form of advanced SPV) still bothers you, consider that it would be possible to employ pruning and make downloading only the most relevant blocks necessary.
And even if this is not done, it will still likely take years before running such a connection becomes uneconomical for hobbyists. If it does become uneconomical.
As Satoshi explains in the whitepaper, the system then remains safe provided that the majority of the hash rate is controlled by honest self interested nodes.
Agreed
1MB blocks are too small. It caused Vitalik to create Ethereum instead of creating smart contracts on Bitcoin. Can you imagine how big Bitcoin would be if it had all the smart contracts on it that businesses and games are starting to use? Ethereum has 1.2 million tx per day on it that could have been on Bitcoin.
And being a long time member of bitcointalk forum(I am a Legendary Member) I can tell you that place is full of pure nonsense, run by Theymos who wants to censor all discussion. Well he can't any more because there are too many decentralized places for us to talk about stuff now.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/964126608654151681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbitsonline.com%2Fbuterin-theymos-deplorable%2F&tfw_creator=wpeaster&tfw_site=bitsonlinecom
ETH features on the main chain is the dumbest you can do. You introduce huge attack factors on the main chain, the part that gets it's value by the security feature. Im looking forward to see the op-codes implemented in Bcash, it is a very risky experiment and I'm happy it isn't done on BTC. That's what an altcoin is, tradeoffs in decentralization and security to gain more fancy features.
The OP codes can be used in different ways. What happens right now is not necessarily how BCH will make use of them in the future.
Satoshi suggested separate systems that would tie into the main chain. That is still on the table and would be consistent with the Cash concept.
Even something like LN is not impossible in the future, but that isn't actually needed in terms of scaling cash transactions.
I encourage you to read about POS, then Plasma and Sharding.
Minimum viable Plasma is already in their Github for Ethereum. Once POS is enabled this year Plasma will soon follow. Plasma enables anyone to make side chains that will directly settle onto the ETH network. YOu know how Lightning can do a bunch of tx on the LN and then it settles to bitcoin network later? Plasma can do that * infinity and has no scaling problems like Lightning does. Lightning can't scale, ever.
The reason Lightning can't scale is because everyone has to tie up BTC everytime they open a channel. If we assume 1 million people open up a channel the Lightning Network would completely crash. Creating a Mesh Network out of millions of connections crashes it(same reason why DDOSing someones website crashes it).
Lightning Network's only logical way of scaling is to create centralized hubs that are literally called Lightning Hubs. Since you have to tie up BTC to be able to send on LN, the only people who can afford to run HUGE LN HUBS will be exchanges and banks. For hundreds of thousands of users on LN a centralized hub would require the channel owner to tie up 10s of thousands of BTC to ensure liquidity(who has 10s of thousands of BTC, banks/exchanges/big mining pools). So Lightning Network is doomed in the regard of every being decentralized, it has to give up decentralization in order to scale.
Plasma doesn't have that problem, an infinite number of transactions can happen on a Plasma sidechain and then have one tx submitted to the ETH main chain that is able to prove all of the tx done on that particular side chain. An example would be, someone creates a brand new MMO game like World of War Craft lets say, they create a plasma sidechain in order to handle tens of millions of interactions/trades/buys/sells in their game(because they will have millions of players). On average the sidechain processes hundreds of thousands of tx every 10 minutes lets say, every 10 minutes it commits to the ETH blockchain 1 that has all of those 100,000 txs that are connected to the sidechain. It is all proveable and able to be verified and once they commit it to the ETH chain it is finalized and 100% secure.
ETH has scaling taken care of + is years ahead of Bitcoin Core for Smart Contracts.
A side note, BCash is actually a different alt coin that is Bitcoin + Zcash, so I just wanted to point that out to you incase you were not aware, a common mistake people make because they see everyone call bitcoin cash "bcash". There legitimately is a Bitcoin + Zcash implementaiton being worked on called BCash, so I wanted to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
Bitcoin Core could implement Gavin Andresens Graphene and increase the amount of tx a 1 MB can hold(graphene can do 10x extra capacity).
There is room for all coins.
Ethereum is the only way! Everything else is just rubbish.
Let them attack you, the more they do so, the more It leads to people knowing the real facts that how BCH is better than BTC.
Wait...when did B-Cash (BCH) become Bitcoin (BTC)? Is there any exchange that lists Bitcoin as BCH? Anyone outside of the Ver camp that refers to BCH as “Bitcoin” and refers to BTC as “not Bitcoin?”
I mean...you may want BCH to be THE Bitcoin, but just calling B-Cash “Bitcoin” doesn’t make it so. Even if you truly believe that your BCH fork is the real Bitcoin, it still suffers from the reality of perception...and the perception in crypto is that BTC is Bitcoin and BCH is just another fork from the main chain.
Instead of continually trying to fight for the name (or attempting to leech off of it to promote your fork and/or confuse people), why not brand it as your own superior chain and token? Surely, if it’s as good as you believe it is, convincing others of that and then rebranding shouldn’t be an issue...especially for a big money man like you. Right?
It actually is branded as Bitcoin Cash and philosphically as well as technically "the Bitcoin, to in the future defacto be considered Bitcoin", not merely as Bitcoin qua the only chain, the SL "Core" chain in particular or the coin that uses ticker BTC.
But I'll agree with you that some people in the community push too hard. That they do themselves a disservice by stooping to the level of trolls on the opposite side. A lot of people are jaded and that only feeds into an already confused and toxic environment.
While I completely agree Bitcoin Cash should just be branded and portrayed that way, it technically is still Bitcoin(and so are all other forks).
If we wanted to be completely accurate, the Bitcoin(BTC) that we know today is not the Bitcoin from years ago, probably the closest thing that can call itself "Bitcoin" based on the whitepaper would be Bitcoin Classic. And also, to your point, many coins make changes as they go along so basing it off of a whitepaper from a long time ago doesn't mean it isn't Bitcoin.
Bitcoin (BTC) is not Bitcoin in the sense of being "Peer to Peer electronic cash system"(the title of the white paper) https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Bitcoin now is being portrayed as a settlement network by a lot of the people who are developing it and part of team BTC, which is fine if that is the direction they are going to take with it. Whoever controls the github and has miner support gets to say what Bitcoin is. If the devs and miners all agreed tomorrow to change Bitcoin from PoW to PoS they could, they could hardfork off Satoshis coins if they wanted to(also something some of those devs have proposed). Bitcoin is their project so I think they do rightfully own it in that regard.
I would prefer people just stick to calling Bitcoin Cash Bitcoin Cash. In a weird way, we are getting into this world of "preferred pronouns" for cryptocurrency world and both sides get offended at what the other says. I personally see it as a waste of time to call it BCash(which is an actual implementation of Bitcoin + ZCash), and I also find it a waste of time to call Bitcoin Cash "Bitcoin".
But, that's just make .02
Roger, you're a good person who is trying to help people who are wrongly in jail. You've done tons. And after the new 32Mb upgrade, you can do what most people do - just stay out of the radar, low profile for say 6 months, to 9 months.
Let it settle, let some people dig in, do their own research. Make their own mistakes. Then when most of them realise they got many of it wrong, they would figure it out.
Bring your drone to Bali. Go to Nung Nung Waterfall in Bali, do some surf, or watch people, eat some local food such as ayam betutu, babi guiling. Make a Bali version of Anarchapulco. Make some pool party. Do some good old meditation, and perhaps meet some Brazilian jiu-jitsu enthusiasts here, or make a group to meet some newbies.
Then when the dust all settles, you can make a return of the jedi. Luke Skywalker, just chill in that island!
Thanks for putting this video together, Roger. I see so much crap out there, and I've been watching Rick Reacts videos for some sanity to focus on the facts, not the drama. The amount of deception, logical fallacies, and more surrounding how some people want to protect their tribe against another tribe and then blame it on some tribal leader, well it's just primitive.
Part of me thinks the POW crowd will get stuck debating BTC vs. BCH and blocksizes and get passed up by DPOS systems which have on-chain governance to work this stuff out.
Either way, thank you for remaining calm and collected as people continually tell lies about you. I love that when you make mistakes, you own them openly. I hope more people can shift this conversation away from personalities and tribal identities and more to the actual technologies and the goals we have to improve the world with them.
Oh, also, I got a kick out of how no one in the entire crowd at Anarchapulco 2018 would take you up on your offer to bet against Moore's Law. That was inspiring to see.
But why do you not distance yourself from the fraud that is Craig Wright? It's probably hampering your reputation more than anything else.
Congratulation rogerkver! Your post has appeared on the hot page after 24min with 6 votes.
Congratulations @rogerkver! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPYour Post Has Been Featured on @Resteemable!
Feature any Steemit post using resteemit.com!
How It Works:
1. Take Any Steemit URL
2. Erase
https://3. Type
reGet Featured Instantly & Featured Posts are voted every 2.4hrs
Join the Curation Team Here | Vote Resteemable for Witness
I am giving away free $ROGER token! Read tweet for details
https://twitter.com/TheHolyRoger/status/996842927103135746