Rogers Ver’s interview @ Ivan on Tech

BITCOIN
#1

Hey guys!
I want to bring up the topic “Roger Ver” which is very controversial, but still every story has 2 sides and I appreciate that Ivan had Roger in his channel to explain why the community hates him so much.

In the interview he claims that people started to ban him as he was one of the biggest advocates for the Block size increase and lower fees. Roger mentions that the blocksize increase would only have happened as they needed Segwit to be pushed first.
And that once Segwit was approved, the Block size increase was left aside and the modifications in the Protocol never happened as they promised.

  1. My question is: IS IT TRUE? Are they any Bitcoin core developers here that can confirm that the Blocksize increase was never a priority for the Bitcoin Protocol?

  2. IS IT TRUE that Adam Back & Greg Maxwell from Blockstream are popping champagne to celebrate the increase in Transaction Fees??

  3. IS IT TRUE that people are deleting Roger Ver’s posts from Bitcoin XTs discussion forums?

  4. IS IT TRUE that Greg Maxwell and Luke Junior forged the keys to Bitcoin’s GitHub repository and massively attacked Gavin Andressen on Social Media?

Appreciate some wisdom from my fellow legends of the Bitcoin Core development team and those who followed this part of Bitcoin’s history more closely.

Xx

4 Likes
#2

my understanding of some of problems you mention is as follows:

  1. increasing block size is not a longterm solution. You need something exponential to compete with Visa. Increase of block size is a very fast, cheap, short-term solution, which probably could be taken by BTC but because of politics (why increase size of block if Roger who is evil in eyes of BTC devs is already doing it, they must do something different, otherwise they confirm Roger approach is good) will not be. On the other hand you have Lightning which promises exponential growth of throughput so why bother with modifying base BTC protocol.

  2. I guess it’s exaggeration. BTC devs just see high fees of basic BTC protocol as a way of stopping transaction scammers, so in a way they see high fees as a good thing more then a bad thing. Again, with Lightning they promise low fees for small transactions done off-chain.

3,4. no idea

As with everything only time will tell if Roger is right or BTC core devs are right.

2 Likes
#3

Andreas Antonopolis has a clip on his channel were he explains that Segwit had transaction malleability and security as priority before blocksize increase.

I’m not sure whether he’s bitcoin core tho.

1 Like
#4

The ting is the discution and his reasoning has nothing to do why people hate him, people don’t care about Adam Back or Greg Maxwell (bitcoin is not owned by anyone) or roger ver for that matter, what they do care about is the damage he is doing to the space (yes if you attack bitcoin you attack the hole space, keep in mind bitcoin is the entry coin) and how fucked up and unethical it is, and how he is even confusing people that are new to the space.
If he just dit his own project Bcash and dit his own thing (forking bitcoin and increasing the block size isn’t a problem) there would be no hate.

2 Likes
#5

I think it is important to know that Nakamoto San (whomever they are) implemented the block size limit only after Bitcoin had been launched for about 6 months.

The block size limit is to ensure that the network is able to manage the blocks and transactions and will always need to be limited or you’ll force the master nodes to run extremely powerful machines to manage the network and your decentralisation goes out the window as lower end machines won’t be able to handle the blocksize, however awesome bitcoin is, the block size limit is an impediment to growth.

Increasing it cannot be done indefinitely, is a short term solution and is a quick fix that will lead to larger problems down the road. BCash forked and created larger blocks, but still limited to 8MB.

Segregated Witness (SegWit), moves the signature data into an extended block, thus reducing the size by about 65%; which is obviously a significant saving.

The Lightning Network is there for micro transactions and to reduce transaction cost, it also reduces the number of blocks you need on the main net as you can bulk transactions from lightning.

I have no views on questions 2-3-4. I do agree with @Smokum’s statement about Roger Ver and his attitude.

2 Likes
#6

good post, there’s alway’s someting more to learn, i din’t know satosi implemented the block size limit after bitcoin was launched, thanks i’m going to look it up and confirme it for myself.

#7

Here Nakamoto San talks about it himself (in not so clear words): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=994.0

Here’s a Reddit that outlines the reasoning:

1 Like
#8

Roger ver has bin a asshole for a long time look at this clip, this was ride before MTGOX whent down, and we all now how that whent.

He clearly reads from a script WTF.

But this was 2013 and he was full of bullshit, but now OMG his bullshit is of the charts.

2 Likes
#9

Guys…this Medium article from Whale Panda helped me to learn a couple of other “truths” about this story. If you have time, just read the whole thing…

Medium Article - Roger Ver’s unmasked

1 Like