Oft, claimed, never proved -- I bet him and Wright are great buddies. Maybe it was true at one point, but one doesn't retaining 100,000 BTC by buying loads of ripple, ethereum, and every other highly hyped altcoin that comes around.If it is true, it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin... and instead just investing in putting a sleazy looking gambling site on Bitcoin.com (and filling the site with pro ethereum news).

beastmodeBiscuitGravy



Offline



Activity: 181

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 181Merit: 100 Re: Roger Ver and blocksize June 02, 2016, 09:48:56 PM #22 Quote from: gmaxwell on June 02, 2016, 09:08:50 PM Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 02, 2016, 08:57:11 PM He owns 100,000+ BTC, not 100,000 shares of Blockstream. Pretty simple really.

Oft, claimed, never



If it is true, it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin... and instead just investing in putting a sleazy looking gambling site on Bitcoin.com (and filling the site with pro ethereum news).



Oft, claimed, never proved -- I bet him and Wright are great buddies. Maybe it was true at one point, but one doesn't retaining 100,000 BTC by buying loads of ripple, ethereum, and every other highly hyped altcoin that comes around.If it is true, it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin... and instead just investing in putting a sleazy looking gambling site on Bitcoin.com (and filling the site with pro ethereum news).

Less than 0.15% of all bitcoin in existence has revealed its owners intention on your oft cited website. I know I wouldnt be linking my opinions and addresses directly and publicly like this The sample size is so minuscule as to be perfectly useless, yet you gleefully raise it wherever you can.



My impression is that Roger is heavily invested in Bitcoin, both financially and ideologically, and wants it to succeed. He argues that miners should be the ones determining their own min. fees, not having fees determined by bidding wars between users to fit in a centrally planned production quota.



Like many others, it appears he signed up to the idea that Bitcoins economic incentives govern its trajectory and growth, not a handful of insular wizards that have a glaring conflict of interest. Dont you see? If Bitcoin is reliant on you and your friends to protect it with production quotas, its doomed to failure and/or irrelevance.



Looking for alternatives while Bitcoins potential growth is currently capped, and LN is not ready to take pressure off, is a sign of an astute businessman. Bitcoin does not have a monopoly on cryptographic value transfer, and only a fool would say it does while it is being purposefully handicapped. I know you are not a fool, which is why some question your incentives and motivations. Less than 0.15% of all bitcoin in existence has revealed its owners intention on your oft cited website. I know I wouldnt be linking my opinions and addresses directly and publicly like this The sample size is so minuscule as to be perfectly useless, yet you gleefully raise it wherever you can.My impression is that Roger is heavily invested in Bitcoin, both financially and ideologically, and wants it to succeed. He argues that miners should be the ones determining their own min. fees, not having fees determined by bidding wars between users to fit in a centrally planned production quota.Like many others, it appears he signed up to the idea that Bitcoins economic incentives govern its trajectory and growth, not a handful of insular wizards that have a glaring conflict of interest. Dont you see? If Bitcoin is reliant on you and your friends to protect it with production quotas, its doomed to failure and/or irrelevance.Looking for alternatives while Bitcoins potential growth is currently capped, and LN is not ready to take pressure off, is a sign of an astute businessman. Bitcoin does not have a monopoly on cryptographic value transfer, and only a fool would say it does while it is being purposefully handicapped. I know you are not a fool, which is why some question your incentives and motivations.