Quote from: nikkisnowe on February 28, 2017, 01:42:43 AM

I'm a big fan of Roger Ver and I am a supporter of Bitcoin Unlimited. With that said, I am getting somewhat frustrated with some of his arguments or at least the way he supports some of his arguments. I've been involved in bitcoin for a decent amount of time. Late 2011 is when I became involved. While not as long as Roger, in the history of bitcoin, this can be considered a somewhat early adopter. I find it somewhat insulting when he supports his argument with the position as if his opinion or viewpoint has more weight than others that have come to bitcoin at a later date. We're all in this together and we all need each-other to succeed. I agree with almost all the points that he is making when supporting larger blocks. I agree with his viewpoint on thinblocks, censorship and the adjustable blocksize. I have a problem with him however when he frames his argument with the attitude that he is somehow morally superior because he came to the game earlier than others and I can guarantee that he is not gaining support with this attitude.

On a separate note, I think Tone Vays is great commentator on the state of bitcoin today and I think his cryptoscam podcast is a needed addition to the podcast scene. I also commend him for taking on the challenge to debate the blocksize issue with Roger Ver. My question however, is why is Tone Vays ushered into the role of defending Bitcoin Core. I have never seen a member of the Bitcoin Core stand up in a debate such as this willing to confront Bitcoin Unlimited supporters in such a way. Congratulations for Tone for taking on the challenge. I think he did a great job, but even he admits that he is not technologically proficient enough to answer some of the detailed questions. SO why has no developer within the bitcoin core been willing to do this? If someone has a link to such a debate I would love to review it. If not, it doesn't support their argument.

What I dont like about Unlimited is that it kills miner fees.
there will always be space for zero free transaction and that's not what you want for a golden standard that bitcoin is.
Bitcoin is not a online way of sending money its also a failsafe if fiat currency fails...
and that can be way more important as most people think for now.
I dont think bankers will say openly that the fiat system is beyond repair , but letting a alternative grow can be a very clear clue of the status of the fiat system.
like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjv-MtGpj2U
also the soft PBOC actions sugest that they could see it as a new gold standard.
Segwit would be way safer in this case because it is only about pre block transaction collection.
so the blockchain it self is not touched for small transactions. , Unlimited blocksize is clueless because it kills the whole miner fee structure.
and thats something you dont want if yiou want to keep bitcoin safe.
Roger ver sounded as a frustrated little kid , and he refused to play its own devels advocate...
Also cencorship is a bogus argument NOTING on internet was sucsefully cencored...
look at TOR network , bittorrent netwok , piratebay , cencorship simply does not work on the net,
good ideas can not be cencored on the net.
him crying about this gave a very poor impression.
good code can always be posted on github , if he can't pass 'cencorship' he sould not be writing code