5 ms·

>Roger and his cronies were spamming the network for months For fucks sake. Show the "spam," track it to an individual. The blockchain is transparent yet no on

>Roger and his cronies were spamming the network for months For fucks sake. Show the "spam," track it to an individual. The blockchain is transparent yet no one has done this. This is what my other comment was about. Named users in the community have been made into horrific caricatures who are the basis for conspiracies no one is able to prove despite the transparency of Bitcoin itself.

keymone 9y ago
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#all https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#all May was the peak of controversy, arguments and discussions about future of scaling bitcoin. core vs unlimited node count, miner support, vendor/merchant support - nobody knew how would things turn out. throughout that time one of main arguments was that blocks were full and mempool (unconfirmed transactions) was gigantic. the moment camps settled on agreeing to disagree - mempool was gone. feel free to continue pretending this all was simply a coincidence.
- RandVal30142 9y ago
  No seriously, show the transactions you consider to be spam. Classify them in some tangible way, then identify the users behind them. The specific claim was that it was from "Roger Ver and his cronies," not that a mempool backlog exists. Show the transactions you claim to be "spam," and identify the persons behind them. Go do it.
  - keymone 9y ago
    a simple glance on that graph with knowledge of notable events in bitcoin timeline screams that the "omg blocks full mempool gigantic" argument is fishy. i don't really care that i can't convince you without spending hours and hours satisfying your standard of evidence, i have better things to do.
    - RandVal30142 9y ago
      >a simple glance Show the damned transactions. > with knowledge of notable events The claim was very specific, show the damned transactions. >i don't really care that i can't convince you Because you can't show what the "spam" is let alone show who is "spamming."
      - tradersam 9y ago
        I can't prove the transactions were Ver's anymore than I can prove some are yours. But as keymone said, the timeline of events is fishy. How come they stop when the block size debate does, or Roger uses them as examples in post after post of why Core needed to be replaced because of this huge backlog. When, you can look at the transactions yourself, most are dust, and they peak when the debate does. I can't prove it, sure. But myself and many others think this because it is logical, and it sounds like there is no changing your mind so we'll stop here.

keymone 9y ago

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#all https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#all May was the peak of controversy, arguments and discussions about future of scaling bitcoin. core vs unlimited node count, miner support, vendor/merchant support - nobody knew how would things turn out. throughout that time one of main arguments was that blocks were full and mempool (unconfirmed transactions) was gigantic. the moment camps settled on agreeing to disagree - mempool was gone. feel free to continue pretending this all was simply a coincidence.

RandVal30142 9y ago
No seriously, show the transactions you consider to be spam. Classify them in some tangible way, then identify the users behind them. The specific claim was that it was from "Roger Ver and his cronies," not that a mempool backlog exists. Show the transactions you claim to be "spam," and identify the persons behind them. Go do it.
- keymone 9y ago
  a simple glance on that graph with knowledge of notable events in bitcoin timeline screams that the "omg blocks full mempool gigantic" argument is fishy. i don't really care that i can't convince you without spending hours and hours satisfying your standard of evidence, i have better things to do.
  - RandVal30142 9y ago
    >a simple glance Show the damned transactions. > with knowledge of notable events The claim was very specific, show the damned transactions. >i don't really care that i can't convince you Because you can't show what the "spam" is let alone show who is "spamming."
    - tradersam 9y ago
      I can't prove the transactions were Ver's anymore than I can prove some are yours. But as keymone said, the timeline of events is fishy. How come they stop when the block size debate does, or Roger uses them as examples in post after post of why Core needed to be replaced because of this huge backlog. When, you can look at the transactions yourself, most are dust, and they peak when the debate does. I can't prove it, sure. But myself and many others think this because it is logical, and it sounds like there is no changing your mind so we'll stop here.