4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoa 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 agoI 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.