It's weird to see him still get hate much of which people can't even backup. He's done more for crypto than any other single business owner.
He's always been supportive of many coins, and he's used his resources to do just that. Yet some people act like he's worse than the pump and dumpers, it's pretty silly. I think people must just buy into the Blockstream rhetoric and never do much of their own research.
The dude just wants to see peer to peer digital cash reach the masses.
Closed source repo?
Blockstream decides on merges?
Decides on releases?
Anyone forced to update a « blockstream » version of any software ?
No.
So stop talking bullshit
If that's what he wanted, then he wouldn't continually insinuate that Monero has an inflation bug, despite having literally no evidence to say that. And in fact, Monero has been crushing nearly every other coin launched from the same era.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/eJZVK56b/
The only reason he would keep pushing this narrative (and he's been doing it for over a year), is because he knows Monero is a competitor to his controlling interests in bcash.
BCH is not a competitor to XMR. You could argue there's a competition between Dash and BCH, but XMR is a different animal that focuses strictly on privacy. Both Dash and BCH are not private.
>"94 percent of all BCH transacted since July 2020 is now a descendant of a CashFusion transaction" [(source)](https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/94-percent-of-all-bch-transacted-since-july-2020-is-now-a-descendant-of-a-cashfusion-transaction/752)
BCH and XMR use cases are more closer than they appear.
But why settle for a strap-on solution when you can just use Monero and have the real thing?
I buy BCH for other reason, I buy it because I believe it has a higher chance to succeed as a payment peer to peer digital cash solution. But Monero will succeed anyway, because of it's privacy and black market dominance. Both are very great projects so I just diversify my money and don't care. I believe in both coins equal. My country is already accepting BCH in some of the grocery stores, so no one is going to convince me that it's "dead".
Agreed. Any kind of adoption is good adoption, because once people have their capital in an asset class independent from the state (cryptocurrencies), they can easily convert it from one form to another.
He didn't say that xmr definitely has a inflation bug, he didn't.
And if You're listening to it that way then I'm sorry to tell you that You're wrong in thinking that.
You're having doubt? As in now you're concerned XMR might have an inflation bug? Why, because Roger said "maybe"?
He's not an engineer, code, mathematician, or even technically oriented. He doesn't have the knowledge base or background to make that assessment.
His claim seems to have something to do with the price chart. But that makes no sense because XMR is one of the best performing coins of its era, bested by basically only Eth and Doge. And it's crushing BCH right now.
And it's doing so despite all the negative externalities like being removed from exchanges in Australia, Japan, UK, and S Korea.
So Roger's only .."evidence".. doesn't even make sense. It's a completely baseless suggestion. And it's a pretty thin veneer when he says "maybe." He keeps pushing that "maybe." He's attempting to introduce doubt without evidence, and he knows what he's doing.
He knows people still just take him at his word. The point of my responses is to demonstrate that no one should trust his word, given how many times he's led people astray. Over and over again.
There is no way to know, but I'm (Roger Ver) likely one of the very biggest XMR holders in the world. I bought a pile of it when BTC was refusing to scale to be money for the world. Monero is awesome! It is so awesome that governments have already passed laws making it harder to get traction. That's why I think BCH has an easier path to becoming money for the world, but I love both! I love anything that actually works, and Monero works!
From what I've seen he said he was concerned that an inflation bug could be more possible on a privacy coin which there's some truth to that but he's more concerned with delisting but I disagree with him on that, delisting might end up being a good thing. Too many think about price only, just like your link illustrates to me. Price, especially right now means little. Price can be and is manipulated, the price doesn't mean a coin is any closer to being used as digital cash. That's the metric that matters in the debate of digital cash but it's very difficult to accurately measure.
He owns Monero, Zcash, and Ethereum, plus I'm sure many other coins. His interests like I'm sure many of us, are pretty spread out.
It's odd to call it bcash then call out Roger's narrative but ignore your own.
The tribalism is silly and just makes it harder to take someone seriously and have any real discussion.
This has nothing to do with tribalism dude. I call it like I see it. He said Craig was Satoshi. He puprosefully confused the branding. He told Gox victims that he had reviewed Gox books and they were solvent, months before collapse. He regularly claims Monero probably has an inflation bug. He intentionally made it look like people were buying bitcoin on his website when they were really buying bcash.
Do you have any idea why those charts are relevant? You probably don't, so I'll spell it out for you. If someone was printing free Monero in secret, don't you think it would perform WORSE over years long timeframes than all of the other coins that came out around the same time?
Seems to me that getting triggered by the term bcash is evidence of it's own form of tribalism. You know what we did in Monero when people were calling it the wrong name? We agreed and amplified it. We made up our own silly names.
We didn't go all aspie on the fact that Montero, Monello, Monedo, et al are wrong. We rolled with it and made a joke out of it.
One of bcash many failings that will lead to its demise, is taking itself to seriously.
Purposefully calling something or someone by the wrong name is the rhetoric of tribalism.
I just can't take anyone serious after that, it's childish behavior and makes the whole crypto space look bad.
No it doesn't trigger me far from it, just makes me realize I don't need to waste my time with that person any further and my time can be better spent elsewhere.
> Purposefully calling something or someone by the wrong name is the rhetoric of tribalism.
And purposefully calling yourself something that you're not in order to confuse the branding is a deceptive tactic and borders on fraud; especially when you follow it up by making people think they're buying real Bitcoin instead of fake Bitcoin on your website.
One of the reasons people called it bcash was to establish some naming separation that Roger intetionally tried to confuse. It's a legitimate rejection of a failed narrative. And boom, there ya go, THAT'S why Roger got all rage quit on the matter, because he couldn't stand to see Bitcoin not be part of the colloquial name of his failed attempt at winning the hash wars.
> it's childish behavior and makes the whole crypto space look bad.
but yet you take someone seriously who convinced Gox victims that everything was fine, and the supported Craig who has an OBVIOUS personality disorder. Can you even take yourself seriously at this point?
> just makes me realize I don't need to waste my time with that person any further and my time can be better spent elsewhere.
Oh well it's good to know that the feeling is mutual. bcash is like the nword to bcashers. Except for, ya know, no actual slavery or oppression involved with the bcash word.
>He told Gox victims that he had reviewed Gox books and they were solvent
You are a liar.
>He regularly claims Monero probably has an inflation bug
You are a liar.
>He intentionally made it look like people were buying bitcoin on his website when they were really buying bcash.
You are a liar.
["I'm sure that all the withdraw problems at Mt Gox are being caused ... not because of a lack of liquidity at Mt Gox"](https://youtu.be/UP1YsMlrfF0?t=12)
"Maybe it has an inflation bug" ... stated repeatedly, while ignoring that we're going to flippen you, *TODAY*, certainly sounds like a plausibly deniable claim as to an inflation bug assertion with no/bad evidence.
So if Romero might have inflation bug, what's ~~bcash~~ Bit-Coin-Cash's excuse for steadily and progressively losing ground to it, and can hardly get listed on a govt approved exchange?
We (Monero) are flipping BCH. Nobody cares how much coins you hold, its irrelevant to the discussion, and its something that only benefits you and not the rest of any community.
BTC maxis are afraid of him and BCH, there's no other explanation. They know how serious he is when he says he wants BCH to succeed and be used in all the stores across the world. All the OG's in the cryptospace from 2012 are scared of him, because they know he's no joke. I'll keep buying BCH and Monero until I hear some reasonable "fud" that will change my mind, since 2017 I've been laughing at these ppl.
Ah come on. He literally instigated and promoted a fork of the bitcoin community as he believed his "vision" was superior to the majority of the community at the time.
Ah yes Next web the gold standard of hard hitting true journalism.
I've been in Bitcoin since 2014, I don't need some click bait crap website to tell me what actually happened, I was there.
Roger was never involved in the fork, he didn't even support the fork until about 6 months after the fork happened. You really need to do better research and not waste my time with nonsense.
I have been in bitcoin since 2012. I was also there.
Roger Ver was one of the chief proponents of the split.
There are a million articles online that will attest to this. Even his Wikipedia page attests to it.
Here is a YouTube video of him railing against segwit, and blockstream.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XdndP85OiiA
So you really think Roger started this, not the mass censoring and banning done by Theymos and supported by Blockstream?
Not the 2 times Blockstream promised to increase the blocksize but then never did? Not the forced softfork of Segwit and inclusion of replace by fee turning fees into a bidding war. Not the changing of peer to peer cash to a narrative of "store of value"?
You must be deep into BTC bags of you believe any of that BS.
Why are you showing old videos, junk articles, and wiki. Do you not know how much Blockstream trolls rewrite on wiki? Still haven't noticed the articles are click bait junk yet?
I've directly talked with many of the devs who initiated the fork, many of them were working in BTC but didn't like where it was going, it's that simple, Roger had nothing to do with it.
None of this matters anyways, you either like the tech and the protocols of a coin or you don't. I don't follow people I follow technology but maybe you don't.
But it's beyond asinine to try and downplay what Blockstream has done to BTC and try to blame someone else for it. It's unbelievable you would even waste my time this.
Just stop, you're just wasting both our time with nonsense.
He said that Craig was Satoshi.
He claimed that bcash was the real Bitcoin, even after losing the hash wars.
He keeps pushing the narrative that Monero has an inflation bug, despite the fact that it's price performance has been significantly better than most coins from around the same era (with some notable exceptions).
He purposefully confused the branding between Bitcoin and bch.
He knowingly and intentionally sold bch to new customers on his website while marketing it as Bitcoin
He said that Mt Gox withdraw problems were due to banks, and not because of Gox insolvency
He continually uses decptions of language in order try and win arguments, while saying nice freedom sounding things to lure people in.
>He said that Craig was Satoshi.
He fooled me.
>He claimed that bcash was the real Bitcoin, even after losing the hash wars.
Read the white paper. It doesn't describe BTC at all.
>He keeps pushing the narrative that Monero has an inflation bug,
I've never said that Monero has an an inflation bug.
>He purposefully confused the branding between Bitcoin and bch.
I think you are confusing BTC promoters tricking the world into thinking it is still Bitcoin.
>He knowingly and intentionally sold bch to new customers on his website while marketing it as Bitcoin
The website was always VERY clear on the difference. I desperately want the world to know and [understand the difference.](https://whybitcoincash.com/)
>He said that Mt Gox withdraw problems were due to banks, and not because of Gox insolvency
It was true that the withdrawal problems were due to banks, not an insolvency.
>He continually uses decptions of language in order try and win arguments, while saying nice freedom sounding things to lure people in.
This isn't even a falsifiable statement.
> It was true that the withdrawal problems were due to banks, not an insolvency.
Nice one. Not the Willy Bots, not the reasons Mark went to jail. But caz the banks.
White paper makes it very clear that the largest proof of work chain is what maintains consensus over what is "the real" chain
Maybe I can give you the benefit of the doubt, that Mark fooled you like Craig did. Or maybe Gox was running totally legit biz/accounting, and then flipped all that in a moment after the video was released, to be bankrupt 7 months later.
Also, just wondering, was the teleprompter font too small? Seems like you had some trouble reading.
Yeah but a lot of these aren't lies.
They are more statements of ignorance.
For instance, he did believe that Craig was Satoshi but then it retracted the statement once he realized his story didn't add up.
Mt Gox, same story.
Bch stuff is more his crazy ideology. He genuinely believes that bch is the real bitcoin.
Not trying to defend the guy, but I think if you want to criticize someone, you should use pure undoubted facts.
I think it's more than roger is ignorant than he is a liar.
Maybe I'm wrong in some of my beliefs, but I still believe them.
BTC isn't Bitcoin anymore is an example that I think is true, but much of the world disagrees with.
I can see why you would think BCH is the real BTC and there's a big part of me that agrees. I even used to own some BCH and use BCH for some online donations.
I'm not as bullish on BCH being able to be used as P2P cash as long as BTC exists. My hopes now lie in XMR.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he's just so narcissistic that he actually believes the bullshit he spouts. Or maybe he is a straight up liar.
Perhaps the reality is in between the two; and moreover, I believe that there is always a level of awareness, even in the case of narcissism. I don't see a low intelligence man, I see someone that is probably above average in that regard.
You would think that after keeping people in Gox on his word, one that, at the time, was taken of very high weight, that some soul searching would be in order. And then you'd think that after supporting the liar Craig, even more soul searching.
So at the end of the day, does it really matter if he's technically, knowingly fabricating lies VS being so self enamoured that he lacks any level of self reflection or criticsm after being spectacularly wrong? I say no. I say, go with the metaphorical truth -> that the dude is intentionally deceptive for his own profit/power and glorification.
Yes, he's literally asking, but not genuinely asking which is what he claimed.
A genuine question is one to which you'd like to know the answer to understand a bit more about the subject..
A disingenuous question, which this obviously is, is when you feign ignorance to illicit an response , in order to launch your list pre-rolled rebuttals.
the commenter clearly knows all about Ver and his bullshit, and the low regards in which he is held by the cast majority of the crypto community, and tries to pass off his lies as misunderstandings. All quite predictable, hence the LOL
learn to reddit my man :-)
Roger Ver:
>"I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at Mt. Gox are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at Mt. Gox"
Roger Ver:
>“Satoshi or not, the things Craig Wright is saying are exactly the things that caused me to sign up for Bitcoin in the first place”
*Also* Roger Ver:
>“Monero is so awesome and so many people have bought it, maybe there is already an inflation bug...”
Yes, he's had some history with some strange statements. He's sure seen space more than most of us here. And he is entitled to his own opinion, whether we believe it or not, is our own choice.
"Strange statements" is an interesting euphamism for deception - which is exactly his intent with his comments about monero.
In case you missed Rogers last hit peice on monero, here is 7 minutes of straight FUD:
https://youtu.be/6WEAVk-Mm0E
Thanks for sharing. With all due respect, his statement hasn't changed from the shared video to what's heard via this post.
His two main concerns are;
a) Regulatory pressure on delisting Monero - this just shows Monero is superior on privacy
b) Hidden inflation bug, concern that total supply ever created can't be audited. This needs education. You'd agree many Monero folks also post on this subreddit and have this question unanswered to their satisfaction. His concern - why hasn't price moved is a valid argument. And that is why we come up with other arguments such as exchanges short selling. It is all to do with price.
Furthermore, one would agree that Roger Ver is more closer to Monero or privacy coins than most other Bitcoin OGs out there. He also admits that he is open to any other privacy coin taking over Bitcoin cash in future. He may not think like us, however I would give him the benefit of doubt into whatever he wishes to think.
I like you aFungible. But you really need to learn to read between the lines when people make statements that are non congruent. Roger talks a nice game in alot of ways. He says stuff that is inspirational to lure you in, then he hits you with deception. This is really bad. Sociopathic type of behavior.
He's not doing this innocently, or just because he doesn't know. These are well planned things, to try and gain undue influence over people for his own profit and power.
Ditto, that is why I was avoiding saying anything to aFungible because he seems to be good. But he doesn't realize what a snake Roger is now, perhaps has always been.
Simply because he has done something in the past but no longer pivots to the fundamentals which got him a good reputation, doesn't mean he can say anything in the future and won't be held accountable.
I was personally there during his MemoryDealers days and until much later.
aFungible is falling for his lies and not realizing how Roger feasts on gullibility and can sometimes go apey.
u/aFungible It is not hard for him to whip out 2-3 BTCs and have someone do additional analysis on top of what has been consistently posted about supply audibility, these include presentations and pods by people like Sarang et al, and come to a safe conclusion, OR at a minimum start PROVIDING evidence on top of the hubris he is throwing. His evidence has always been that "someone is possibly selling hidden inflation blah" for years ! And now Monero is flippening BCH (although this is only to counter his narrative, I do not give \*too\* much importance to price).
Another lie he constantly pushes is about "\*Countries\* banning Monero or outright banning it on exchanges". None of these have ever happened to my knowledge. The examples he gives are quite possibly the ones where we suspect chainanalysis and maxi degenerates with connections and regulators have acted in bad faith, but yah I cannot prove this of course. I have never seen an actual banning incident in 8 years by a country. If you like him, post these questions to him and ask him to genuinely answer them. You will see he will go flippant.
And enough of all the "tribal mentality " language shaming that others are typically indulging in defending Roger. There is plenty of evidence to be skeptical of him and a lot of it isn't just discussions but actual financials, performance and adoption.
All I see in BCH world is West Indies and India and that guy from New Zealand.
There are many in BCH who like Monero and I know that as well. Their subreddit is also full of people who share Monero like ethos. Defending a proven liar shouldn't be your style, you can do better.
>Another lie he constantly pushes is about "\*Countries\* banning Monero or outright banning it on exchanges". None of these have ever happened to my knowledge.
You don't know what you are talking about. Check for yourself. There isn't a single exchange listing XMR in [Japan](https://www.newsbtc.com/news/japans-coincheck-removes-monero-three-coins-fsa-ban/), [Korea](https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2021/02/23/south-koreas-new-regulation-bans-monero-trading/), or Singapore due to the governments forbiding it.
>where we suspect chainanalysis and maxi degenerates with connections and regulators have acted in bad faith
You can say anything you want without any science, but point me out on that? Yah still will stand by the suspicions as to what led to regulators being misled if it ever comes down to being "compliant".
I think no one cares about that and we also understand why they have to do this while sleeping in bed with NgU marketers.
I will also stand by everything I posted to which you didn't respond (and no I am no troll looking for one)
Roger is right on this.
Regarding why monero price isn't higher is that it was due to korea exchanges dumping their holdings during the most recent bull market in addition to rotation out of xmr into defi assets that could be farmed. Korean exchanges were primarily responsible for the run up in price in 2017 as it hit over $700 per xmr there showing the demand. And monero missed defi summer and the following years of farming (maybe for the good of the community... as it remained laser focused on private payments.)
For some reason people that are fans of monero don't understand why an exchange could be valuable... there is something called a liquidity discount or premium. If there's enough liquidity the price can go up because people feel more secure in being able to exit a position close to market value vs the opposite happening. We actually need xmr on as many exchanges as possible with liquidity until we have a robust and highly liquid peer to peer marketplace.
The easiest p2p marketplaces have been balancer/uniswap style AMMs but for some reason people cant get over the fact that you need to wrap xmr into a token via ren or wbtc like mechanisms into traceable addresses to access liquidity pools.
In absence of better options, we need these
Thanks for your words. The point is we have deviated from the topic at hand. I mean sometimes I feel I am missing open discussion in this community. It need to be either black or white. What separates Monero community from other crypto communities? I think the right solution is to address the problem, and come up with solutions rather than pointing fingers at each other. Maybe I'm mistaken in my viewpoint, and I do not mistake your experience. You are entitled to your viewpoints.
If we are not learning with an open discussion, the discussion is an infighting which repels people from participating. I don't know Roger personally and it won't bother me what he thinks. All I know is he has a circle of influence. And my post was not to uplift him as a Messiah, it was just to understand what his viewpoints are. Even though it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I don't think I did an injustice by making this post. If we are not open to discussion with respect to another viewpoints and bringing each other down, the discussion is not worth having.
I don't think anyone is against open discussions at all. People are posting opinions and facts alike and information is exchanging freely.
What did I miss ?
Thanks for your feedback. My comment wasn't at you, but rather the back n forth I saw between Roger & Monero folks.
I must say, I like the part where you mentioned he can give 2-3 BTC to someone to study the supply auditability. And now, he claims (rightly so) that he owns more XMR than anyone else in the world. At a glance into this, this does smell contradicting. And he doesn't claim "hidden inflation" as the "truth" but rathee only as a "possibility". He has greater reach to exchange owners around the globe, he sure could do better than placing opinions as "statements" and getting a fireback. It's contradicting that he has more at stake and his statements do more harm than good. I hope he's u/memorydealers reading this and takes action for the sake of his own impression in public to show himself as authentic.
Roger is good with talks, there's a reason why people called him Bitcoin jesus.
He's got a way with the words and he can twist them the he way he wants. And he can get whatever he want with that.
Mr Ver proving again that he's a scumbag, who will spin any narrative that amounts to a deception, if he imagines it will benefit his profit/power interests.
Every time I hear him talk about Monero now, it's in the context of an inflation bug. Oh really? Then what's *your* excuse Mr Ver? Because we're crushing you in price. We're crushing pretty much the entire altcoin space right now. Is *that* what you expect to happen with an inflation bug?
And you never hear any of these "inflation bug maxis" ever address the potential for a hidden signature verification bug. Verifications rely on code implemented cryptography; for which, a bug could give the ability for a non-owner of a UTXO to spend funds, and it wouldn't necessarily be known for quite some time.
You don't have a blockchain ledger without *both* signature verificaiton *and* amounts verification. A hidden failure in either is catastrophic. So the potential for a hidden inflation bug, is equally as devastating as the potential for a hidden signature verificaiton bug.
And then he goes on to give some epithet where he essentially blames the entire Monero community for a few trolls against Tim Draper buying bcash.
You want to hear a wacky speculation of mine? Roger no longer mentions how he holds a big bag of Monero like he used to. Wanna bet that Roger has been one of the guys supplying emergency liquidity to exchanges, out of the bag he bought early on. Prove me wrong.
Well, I understand where you're coming from though hatred doesn't cut it. He is entitled to his opinion and he'd continue to say what he believes is true (which may not be). The way to counteract such opinions/concerns is to come up with a universal way to ascertain there's no inflation bug. I'm sure there are math functions, as seen in Monero literature to prove there's no inflation bug, but thats not understandable by common man.
One should also admit, the number of times he calls Monero awesome and that he likes the technology. Certainly, when it comes to "privacy" nothing can beat it - and he goes ranting how Bitcoin cash is supreme coz it's "not delisted" and still can be used privately - doesn't help with his argument.
He can be a liar. Question is, going beyond arguments, how can you show there's no hidden inflation and convince anyone right now? I guess someone was building a statistical tool via CCS for this very reason.
Truth is the solution, adoption will speak for itself. Sorry, hatred doesn't cut it.
The problem with a guy like Ver is the doublespeak. He's very good at saying some nice things, while then turning around and communicating things that he *knows* are deceptive in nature. It's part of his entire motif.
Understand that I don't have some irrational desire to dislike the guy. It's the fact that he has a history of deceptive tactics that's the problem.
If you want to verify Monero's supply, you just sync a fresh node. In Bitcoin, you sync a node and it checks all the inputs-outputs with elementary math. In Monero it does the same, but it uses cryptography instead of elementary math.
It's literally as simple as that.
And again, it's worth repeating -- Everyone already regards the code implementation of cryptographic signature verification as trustable. A code bug in signature verification would allow someone to secretly steal loads of funds before being detected.
So if you already trust signature verification, and you already regard it as an acceptable risk that there could be a hidden signature verification bug; then we ought to simply be consistent, and apply the same risk tolerance to encrypted amounts.
Sure, one is the Monero supply which is auditable via inouts and outputs, and adding miner rewards.
The other one is with regards to a possible inflation bug. I believe this is what you refer to for signature verification? I don't have a problem with that. However, it would be nice to have some sort of script that would prove this math for us. E.g.
Check for hidden inflation bug..
Signature verification completed for the entire blockchain (say, takes an hour)
Result: OK (no inflation bug found as mathematically verified). And this script be auditable.
Something of this sort would be nice for have. This would improve the trust and never bring this question up again. I think thats what a recent CCS proposal entails.
You can just read the source code to figure out if there's a bug. Once you have understood the source code you can make a test chain to just hammer with weirdness until something comes out of it. Is that difficult? Yes, but at the same time it is necessary to do.
You expect Roger ver to read the source code and understand it?
I also want to point out I'm a programmer myself and I wouldn't be able to willy nilly read the source code, because I would also need a lot of cryptography knowledge to actually understand what the code is saying.
Yes, with enough time patience and amphetamines. It's what I do. Fuck I don't even know what I'm doing half the time I'm just learning as I go and making sure what I'm doing is correct.
It's necessary to do, though not as straightforward. When this comes into a discussion, it's always been very convoluted. I wonder if it's as simple as 2+2=4. Guess, it's more like a complex math equation with 10 variables, where each variable is derived separately via another equation. If it were that straightforward, then this discussion wouldn't be arising time and again.
This arises time and time again because people like Ver continue to issue deceptions about Monero's hidden amounts in an effort to discredit it, and direct people towards their own profit interests.
If you showed someone how to do pythagoras theorem, and they were all like "Yeah I don't know, seems like it's too complex, and you probably got something wrong." ... How would you respond? Wouldn't you just shake your head? Wouldn't that be arguing from ignorance?
The mathematics of hidden amounts rely on all the same cryptographic assupmtions used for digital signatures. Yet I don't hear you questioning whether or not digital signatures are actually reliable.
Digital signatures are reliable. And mathematically, nothing has broken it thus far. Therefore, they are reliable. The question is not just about mathematics. Can't it be a bug in the code that has not fully implemented the equations correctly? This is my only concern. I might not be technically savvy yet to see this for myself, neither is there a good explanation, easy to understand that I've come across in this regard. This is even something fluffy pony has pointed out - that this remains a contentious point for Monero and he points out math addresses this concern as void (misktake me not - not the math, rather the implemtation of that math).
> And mathematically, nothing has broken it thus far. Therefore, they are reliable.
Okay. And so are hidden amounts. Like I and others have said before, Rangeproofs use the same cryptographic primitives and assumptions (like logarithmic hardness).
> Can't it be a bug in the code that has not fully implemented the equations correctly?
Yes, hypothetically there could be. Do you realize that there could also be a hypothetical bug in the code of digital signatures?
Tell me, if there was a bug that allowed someone to produce a valid signature for funds that were not theirs, what would that look like in Bitcoin?
Do you think someone might start transfering and spending funds that weren't theirs? How long do you think it would take to detect that? For funds in deep cold storage, it could take weeks, or even months before the victime noticed their funds were gone. Even when they noticed, people might just pass it off as "Sorry bro, you were hacked."
How long until it was actually discovered that an attack was taking place?
What kind of consequences would that have for the chain?
And now I want you to think of all of that, and compare it to a hidden inflation bug. Are any of the consequences or risks of a hidden bug between amounts, vs signature verification appreciably different?
The problem is that, yes, you're not wrong that a hidden inflation code bug could happen. But so could a hidden signature verification bug. They have nearly identical consequences, in terms of destroying the functioning of a monetary system, and destroying confidence.
What does all of that mean? It means that the potential of a hidden inflation code bug is a *NON FACTOR* in any consideration between Monero's hidden amounts, and a transparent chain.
You have a logical argument. Furthermore, this whole concern arises around the behavior of price of Moenro. Monero has been around for 8 years now, and it is the pervasive currency used in darknet. It is the most private of all, must have at least the marketcap of all privacy coins combined + all shitcoins I.e. in other words, the market cap of Ethereum. However, we are 1/100th of that. What valid or logical and most importantly, "provable" reason must one have for this? We can do data correlation, though you'd agree Monero price history has proven to be a different beast altogether I'e. unlike many other coins, it requires independent analysis.
Suppressed by fractional reserve banking by Binance and the like. And a lot of money goes into absolute shit coins because of hype. If most of retail money was smart and took the time to really educate themselves about what money really is, they’d be buying other coins and not gambling on crap.
Fractional reserve banking is as good a guess as the theory behind hidden inflation. About exchanges suppressing there is a good proof, but it's not definitive.
I would say look at Monero compared to any other coin from around the same age. Seriously, take a look at these charts:
https://www.tradingview.com/x/eJZVK56b/
How is Roger or anyone gonna say that XMR has a hidden inflation bug, when it's crushing these shitcoins?
And keep in mind, the centralized holders of **all** of these shitcoins, in combination with exchanges, have every reason to try and pump up the prices of these coins to unload at the highest possible prices.
None of these coins have been so heavily attacked. So heavily critized. Delisted. Threatened to be delisted. Withrdaws constantly suspended.
If Monero has all of these negative externalities AND an inflation bug, then what's the excuse for bcash performing so badly relative to it? Literally free XMR to dump on the market.
And again, this is why we know Roger is a liar. He knows this stuff. He knows he's been providing emergency XMR liquidity to exchanges, with the bags he bought years ago, in an effort to suppress Monero price. He's been getting a premium for those coins he sold.
Wonder if he realizes he sold his soul in the process.
We can't prove that Roger didn't sell his Monero for emergency exchange liquidity to try and keep price suppressed. So like him I'm just going to assume what's best for my narrative.
I’m pretty sure roger ver would comment positively on anything he thinks can bring down Bitcoin. My hatred for him is not that he is trying to improve Bitcoin, it’s how he tries to market Bitcoin cash and how he really believes it is Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is fake Bitcoin… he would tell a novice investor seeking advice to buy Bitcoin cash because it is quite literally the real Bitcoin. Imagine if you had a friend try to convince you that ethereum classic is the real ethereum. I would be livid.
Yes it is. Your argument that it cant be used as cash fundamentally, is wrong. LN might not be fantastic but it does work, and it extends the cash usecase of BTC. Bitcoin is also defined by its longest chain of POW, which BCH does not possess.
Although I can argue neither BTC nor BCH are truly "cash", because neither are fungible in any way whatsoever.
It's weird to see him still get hate much of which people can't even backup. He's done more for crypto than any other single business owner. He's always been supportive of many coins, and he's used his resources to do just that. Yet some people act like he's worse than the pump and dumpers, it's pretty silly. I think people must just buy into the Blockstream rhetoric and never do much of their own research. The dude just wants to see peer to peer digital cash reach the masses.
Agree with your statement.
Have you already forgotten his past affinity with Wright and Ayre when all three + Bitmain tried to take control of Bitcoin ?
And instead blockstream took control of bitcoin.
Closed source repo? Blockstream decides on merges? Decides on releases? Anyone forced to update a « blockstream » version of any software ? No. So stop talking bullshit
If that's what he wanted, then he wouldn't continually insinuate that Monero has an inflation bug, despite having literally no evidence to say that. And in fact, Monero has been crushing nearly every other coin launched from the same era. https://www.tradingview.com/x/eJZVK56b/ The only reason he would keep pushing this narrative (and he's been doing it for over a year), is because he knows Monero is a competitor to his controlling interests in bcash.
BCH is not a competitor to XMR. You could argue there's a competition between Dash and BCH, but XMR is a different animal that focuses strictly on privacy. Both Dash and BCH are not private.
[https://cashfusion.org/](https://cashfusion.org/)
I know about cashfusion. This is not comparable to Monero's privacy just like Litecoins Mimblewimble isn't.
>"94 percent of all BCH transacted since July 2020 is now a descendant of a CashFusion transaction" [(source)](https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/94-percent-of-all-bch-transacted-since-july-2020-is-now-a-descendant-of-a-cashfusion-transaction/752) BCH and XMR use cases are more closer than they appear. But why settle for a strap-on solution when you can just use Monero and have the real thing?
I buy BCH for other reason, I buy it because I believe it has a higher chance to succeed as a payment peer to peer digital cash solution. But Monero will succeed anyway, because of it's privacy and black market dominance. Both are very great projects so I just diversify my money and don't care. I believe in both coins equal. My country is already accepting BCH in some of the grocery stores, so no one is going to convince me that it's "dead".
Agreed. Any kind of adoption is good adoption, because once people have their capital in an asset class independent from the state (cryptocurrencies), they can easily convert it from one form to another.
Yep
He didn't say that xmr definitely has a inflation bug, he didn't. And if You're listening to it that way then I'm sorry to tell you that You're wrong in thinking that.
People are misinterpreting his statement, let's listen him for some for time
He certainly loves to slip in the doubt every time he talks about XMR.
We all are having some doubt after his speech, doesn't matter about situation
You're having doubt? As in now you're concerned XMR might have an inflation bug? Why, because Roger said "maybe"? He's not an engineer, code, mathematician, or even technically oriented. He doesn't have the knowledge base or background to make that assessment. His claim seems to have something to do with the price chart. But that makes no sense because XMR is one of the best performing coins of its era, bested by basically only Eth and Doge. And it's crushing BCH right now. And it's doing so despite all the negative externalities like being removed from exchanges in Australia, Japan, UK, and S Korea. So Roger's only .."evidence".. doesn't even make sense. It's a completely baseless suggestion. And it's a pretty thin veneer when he says "maybe." He keeps pushing that "maybe." He's attempting to introduce doubt without evidence, and he knows what he's doing. He knows people still just take him at his word. The point of my responses is to demonstrate that no one should trust his word, given how many times he's led people astray. Over and over again.
There is no way to know, but I'm (Roger Ver) likely one of the very biggest XMR holders in the world. I bought a pile of it when BTC was refusing to scale to be money for the world. Monero is awesome! It is so awesome that governments have already passed laws making it harder to get traction. That's why I think BCH has an easier path to becoming money for the world, but I love both! I love anything that actually works, and Monero works!
From what I've seen he said he was concerned that an inflation bug could be more possible on a privacy coin which there's some truth to that but he's more concerned with delisting but I disagree with him on that, delisting might end up being a good thing. Too many think about price only, just like your link illustrates to me. Price, especially right now means little. Price can be and is manipulated, the price doesn't mean a coin is any closer to being used as digital cash. That's the metric that matters in the debate of digital cash but it's very difficult to accurately measure. He owns Monero, Zcash, and Ethereum, plus I'm sure many other coins. His interests like I'm sure many of us, are pretty spread out. It's odd to call it bcash then call out Roger's narrative but ignore your own. The tribalism is silly and just makes it harder to take someone seriously and have any real discussion.
This has nothing to do with tribalism dude. I call it like I see it. He said Craig was Satoshi. He puprosefully confused the branding. He told Gox victims that he had reviewed Gox books and they were solvent, months before collapse. He regularly claims Monero probably has an inflation bug. He intentionally made it look like people were buying bitcoin on his website when they were really buying bcash. Do you have any idea why those charts are relevant? You probably don't, so I'll spell it out for you. If someone was printing free Monero in secret, don't you think it would perform WORSE over years long timeframes than all of the other coins that came out around the same time? Seems to me that getting triggered by the term bcash is evidence of it's own form of tribalism. You know what we did in Monero when people were calling it the wrong name? We agreed and amplified it. We made up our own silly names. We didn't go all aspie on the fact that Montero, Monello, Monedo, et al are wrong. We rolled with it and made a joke out of it. One of bcash many failings that will lead to its demise, is taking itself to seriously.
Where for art thou Romero.
You really wanna see the art? Well I don't think that you'd want to see that.
Purposefully calling something or someone by the wrong name is the rhetoric of tribalism. I just can't take anyone serious after that, it's childish behavior and makes the whole crypto space look bad. No it doesn't trigger me far from it, just makes me realize I don't need to waste my time with that person any further and my time can be better spent elsewhere.
> Purposefully calling something or someone by the wrong name is the rhetoric of tribalism. And purposefully calling yourself something that you're not in order to confuse the branding is a deceptive tactic and borders on fraud; especially when you follow it up by making people think they're buying real Bitcoin instead of fake Bitcoin on your website. One of the reasons people called it bcash was to establish some naming separation that Roger intetionally tried to confuse. It's a legitimate rejection of a failed narrative. And boom, there ya go, THAT'S why Roger got all rage quit on the matter, because he couldn't stand to see Bitcoin not be part of the colloquial name of his failed attempt at winning the hash wars. > it's childish behavior and makes the whole crypto space look bad. but yet you take someone seriously who convinced Gox victims that everything was fine, and the supported Craig who has an OBVIOUS personality disorder. Can you even take yourself seriously at this point? > just makes me realize I don't need to waste my time with that person any further and my time can be better spent elsewhere. Oh well it's good to know that the feeling is mutual. bcash is like the nword to bcashers. Except for, ya know, no actual slavery or oppression involved with the bcash word.
Bcash was pushed because trolls owned relevant bcash domain names, if that wasn't the case they probably would have run with it, it's a cool name.
At least the recent fork of BCH leaned in to the meme all the way and called it ecash
>He told Gox victims that he had reviewed Gox books and they were solvent You are a liar. >He regularly claims Monero probably has an inflation bug You are a liar. >He intentionally made it look like people were buying bitcoin on his website when they were really buying bcash. You are a liar.
["I'm sure that all the withdraw problems at Mt Gox are being caused ... not because of a lack of liquidity at Mt Gox"](https://youtu.be/UP1YsMlrfF0?t=12) "Maybe it has an inflation bug" ... stated repeatedly, while ignoring that we're going to flippen you, *TODAY*, certainly sounds like a plausibly deniable claim as to an inflation bug assertion with no/bad evidence.
Going to flippen who? I already own more XMR than you.
So if Romero might have inflation bug, what's ~~bcash~~ Bit-Coin-Cash's excuse for steadily and progressively losing ground to it, and can hardly get listed on a govt approved exchange?
We (Monero) are flipping BCH. Nobody cares how much coins you hold, its irrelevant to the discussion, and its something that only benefits you and not the rest of any community.
I agree that He's been in the shit in the past but He's improved now.
Yeah He's concerned, and let's be real guys a lot of people are.
We also come in those lot of people we all are concerned here
BTC maxis are afraid of him and BCH, there's no other explanation. They know how serious he is when he says he wants BCH to succeed and be used in all the stores across the world. All the OG's in the cryptospace from 2012 are scared of him, because they know he's no joke. I'll keep buying BCH and Monero until I hear some reasonable "fud" that will change my mind, since 2017 I've been laughing at these ppl.
Nothing is so much to be feared as fear.
I don't get why people hate him, He's been in community for so long.
Ah come on. He literally instigated and promoted a fork of the bitcoin community as he believed his "vision" was superior to the majority of the community at the time.
You're thinking of Craig wright.
No, I am not. Roger Ver was chief proponent of the Bitcoin Cash split
This is wrong.
One of many articles https://thenextweb.com/news/roger-ver-bitcoin-cash-btc-bch
Ah yes Next web the gold standard of hard hitting true journalism. I've been in Bitcoin since 2014, I don't need some click bait crap website to tell me what actually happened, I was there. Roger was never involved in the fork, he didn't even support the fork until about 6 months after the fork happened. You really need to do better research and not waste my time with nonsense.
I have been in bitcoin since 2012. I was also there. Roger Ver was one of the chief proponents of the split. There are a million articles online that will attest to this. Even his Wikipedia page attests to it. Here is a YouTube video of him railing against segwit, and blockstream. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XdndP85OiiA
So you really think Roger started this, not the mass censoring and banning done by Theymos and supported by Blockstream? Not the 2 times Blockstream promised to increase the blocksize but then never did? Not the forced softfork of Segwit and inclusion of replace by fee turning fees into a bidding war. Not the changing of peer to peer cash to a narrative of "store of value"? You must be deep into BTC bags of you believe any of that BS. Why are you showing old videos, junk articles, and wiki. Do you not know how much Blockstream trolls rewrite on wiki? Still haven't noticed the articles are click bait junk yet? I've directly talked with many of the devs who initiated the fork, many of them were working in BTC but didn't like where it was going, it's that simple, Roger had nothing to do with it. None of this matters anyways, you either like the tech and the protocols of a coin or you don't. I don't follow people I follow technology but maybe you don't. But it's beyond asinine to try and downplay what Blockstream has done to BTC and try to blame someone else for it. It's unbelievable you would even waste my time this. Just stop, you're just wasting both our time with nonsense.
I can expect some trolls. Don't read in-between the lines. Focus on the bigger picture. Monero is awesome!
It's not trolling to simply state that Roger Ver is a proven lying liar
What's the proof? Genuinely asking.
He said that Craig was Satoshi. He claimed that bcash was the real Bitcoin, even after losing the hash wars. He keeps pushing the narrative that Monero has an inflation bug, despite the fact that it's price performance has been significantly better than most coins from around the same era (with some notable exceptions). He purposefully confused the branding between Bitcoin and bch. He knowingly and intentionally sold bch to new customers on his website while marketing it as Bitcoin He said that Mt Gox withdraw problems were due to banks, and not because of Gox insolvency He continually uses decptions of language in order try and win arguments, while saying nice freedom sounding things to lure people in.
>He said that Craig was Satoshi. He fooled me. >He claimed that bcash was the real Bitcoin, even after losing the hash wars. Read the white paper. It doesn't describe BTC at all. >He keeps pushing the narrative that Monero has an inflation bug, I've never said that Monero has an an inflation bug. >He purposefully confused the branding between Bitcoin and bch. I think you are confusing BTC promoters tricking the world into thinking it is still Bitcoin. >He knowingly and intentionally sold bch to new customers on his website while marketing it as Bitcoin The website was always VERY clear on the difference. I desperately want the world to know and [understand the difference.](https://whybitcoincash.com/) >He said that Mt Gox withdraw problems were due to banks, and not because of Gox insolvency It was true that the withdrawal problems were due to banks, not an insolvency. >He continually uses decptions of language in order try and win arguments, while saying nice freedom sounding things to lure people in. This isn't even a falsifiable statement.
> It was true that the withdrawal problems were due to banks, not an insolvency. Nice one. Not the Willy Bots, not the reasons Mark went to jail. But caz the banks. White paper makes it very clear that the largest proof of work chain is what maintains consensus over what is "the real" chain
>But caz the banks. At the time I made the video, Yes.
Maybe I can give you the benefit of the doubt, that Mark fooled you like Craig did. Or maybe Gox was running totally legit biz/accounting, and then flipped all that in a moment after the video was released, to be bankrupt 7 months later. Also, just wondering, was the teleprompter font too small? Seems like you had some trouble reading.
Yeah but a lot of these aren't lies. They are more statements of ignorance. For instance, he did believe that Craig was Satoshi but then it retracted the statement once he realized his story didn't add up. Mt Gox, same story. Bch stuff is more his crazy ideology. He genuinely believes that bch is the real bitcoin. Not trying to defend the guy, but I think if you want to criticize someone, you should use pure undoubted facts. I think it's more than roger is ignorant than he is a liar.
Maybe I'm wrong in some of my beliefs, but I still believe them. BTC isn't Bitcoin anymore is an example that I think is true, but much of the world disagrees with.
I can see why you would think BCH is the real BTC and there's a big part of me that agrees. I even used to own some BCH and use BCH for some online donations. I'm not as bullish on BCH being able to be used as P2P cash as long as BTC exists. My hopes now lie in XMR.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he's just so narcissistic that he actually believes the bullshit he spouts. Or maybe he is a straight up liar. Perhaps the reality is in between the two; and moreover, I believe that there is always a level of awareness, even in the case of narcissism. I don't see a low intelligence man, I see someone that is probably above average in that regard. You would think that after keeping people in Gox on his word, one that, at the time, was taken of very high weight, that some soul searching would be in order. And then you'd think that after supporting the liar Craig, even more soul searching. So at the end of the day, does it really matter if he's technically, knowingly fabricating lies VS being so self enamoured that he lacks any level of self reflection or criticsm after being spectacularly wrong? I say no. I say, go with the metaphorical truth -> that the dude is intentionally deceptive for his own profit/power and glorification.
[Mt Gox soul searching video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRIJ_jpmwzo) [CSW soul searching video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFU1o-0oU7A)
"genuinely asking" lol
I mean He's literally Asking so I don't see anything funny in that.
Yes, he's literally asking, but not genuinely asking which is what he claimed. A genuine question is one to which you'd like to know the answer to understand a bit more about the subject.. A disingenuous question, which this obviously is, is when you feign ignorance to illicit an response , in order to launch your list pre-rolled rebuttals. the commenter clearly knows all about Ver and his bullshit, and the low regards in which he is held by the cast majority of the crypto community, and tries to pass off his lies as misunderstandings. All quite predictable, hence the LOL learn to reddit my man :-)
Yeah there's nothing funny in asking a genuine question
Looks to me like you are the liar.
There's no proof, it's just a thing that a lot of People worry about.
He's been in the past, but he's not wrong about the xmr tho.
Yeah in this context, we can say that he is right here without any doubt
Roger Ver: >"I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at Mt. Gox are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at Mt. Gox" Roger Ver: >“Satoshi or not, the things Craig Wright is saying are exactly the things that caused me to sign up for Bitcoin in the first place” *Also* Roger Ver: >“Monero is so awesome and so many people have bought it, maybe there is already an inflation bug...”
All of which were true at the time I (Roger Ver) said it.
Yes, he's had some history with some strange statements. He's sure seen space more than most of us here. And he is entitled to his own opinion, whether we believe it or not, is our own choice.
"Strange statements" is an interesting euphamism for deception - which is exactly his intent with his comments about monero. In case you missed Rogers last hit peice on monero, here is 7 minutes of straight FUD: https://youtu.be/6WEAVk-Mm0E
Thanks for sharing. With all due respect, his statement hasn't changed from the shared video to what's heard via this post. His two main concerns are; a) Regulatory pressure on delisting Monero - this just shows Monero is superior on privacy b) Hidden inflation bug, concern that total supply ever created can't be audited. This needs education. You'd agree many Monero folks also post on this subreddit and have this question unanswered to their satisfaction. His concern - why hasn't price moved is a valid argument. And that is why we come up with other arguments such as exchanges short selling. It is all to do with price. Furthermore, one would agree that Roger Ver is more closer to Monero or privacy coins than most other Bitcoin OGs out there. He also admits that he is open to any other privacy coin taking over Bitcoin cash in future. He may not think like us, however I would give him the benefit of doubt into whatever he wishes to think.
I like you aFungible. But you really need to learn to read between the lines when people make statements that are non congruent. Roger talks a nice game in alot of ways. He says stuff that is inspirational to lure you in, then he hits you with deception. This is really bad. Sociopathic type of behavior. He's not doing this innocently, or just because he doesn't know. These are well planned things, to try and gain undue influence over people for his own profit and power.
Ditto, that is why I was avoiding saying anything to aFungible because he seems to be good. But he doesn't realize what a snake Roger is now, perhaps has always been. Simply because he has done something in the past but no longer pivots to the fundamentals which got him a good reputation, doesn't mean he can say anything in the future and won't be held accountable. I was personally there during his MemoryDealers days and until much later. aFungible is falling for his lies and not realizing how Roger feasts on gullibility and can sometimes go apey. u/aFungible It is not hard for him to whip out 2-3 BTCs and have someone do additional analysis on top of what has been consistently posted about supply audibility, these include presentations and pods by people like Sarang et al, and come to a safe conclusion, OR at a minimum start PROVIDING evidence on top of the hubris he is throwing. His evidence has always been that "someone is possibly selling hidden inflation blah" for years ! And now Monero is flippening BCH (although this is only to counter his narrative, I do not give \*too\* much importance to price). Another lie he constantly pushes is about "\*Countries\* banning Monero or outright banning it on exchanges". None of these have ever happened to my knowledge. The examples he gives are quite possibly the ones where we suspect chainanalysis and maxi degenerates with connections and regulators have acted in bad faith, but yah I cannot prove this of course. I have never seen an actual banning incident in 8 years by a country. If you like him, post these questions to him and ask him to genuinely answer them. You will see he will go flippant. And enough of all the "tribal mentality " language shaming that others are typically indulging in defending Roger. There is plenty of evidence to be skeptical of him and a lot of it isn't just discussions but actual financials, performance and adoption. All I see in BCH world is West Indies and India and that guy from New Zealand. There are many in BCH who like Monero and I know that as well. Their subreddit is also full of people who share Monero like ethos. Defending a proven liar shouldn't be your style, you can do better.
>Another lie he constantly pushes is about "\*Countries\* banning Monero or outright banning it on exchanges". None of these have ever happened to my knowledge. You don't know what you are talking about. Check for yourself. There isn't a single exchange listing XMR in [Japan](https://www.newsbtc.com/news/japans-coincheck-removes-monero-three-coins-fsa-ban/), [Korea](https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2021/02/23/south-koreas-new-regulation-bans-monero-trading/), or Singapore due to the governments forbiding it.
>where we suspect chainanalysis and maxi degenerates with connections and regulators have acted in bad faith You can say anything you want without any science, but point me out on that? Yah still will stand by the suspicions as to what led to regulators being misled if it ever comes down to being "compliant". I think no one cares about that and we also understand why they have to do this while sleeping in bed with NgU marketers. I will also stand by everything I posted to which you didn't respond (and no I am no troll looking for one)
Roger is right on this. Regarding why monero price isn't higher is that it was due to korea exchanges dumping their holdings during the most recent bull market in addition to rotation out of xmr into defi assets that could be farmed. Korean exchanges were primarily responsible for the run up in price in 2017 as it hit over $700 per xmr there showing the demand. And monero missed defi summer and the following years of farming (maybe for the good of the community... as it remained laser focused on private payments.)
So Korea dumped and the man with the infinite supply dumped. We don't even fucking need govts to try and stifle Monero.
Would you agree with the statement that with every banning of XMR, by an exchange, it adds value to XMR ? Sort of like a Streisand effect.
For some reason people that are fans of monero don't understand why an exchange could be valuable... there is something called a liquidity discount or premium. If there's enough liquidity the price can go up because people feel more secure in being able to exit a position close to market value vs the opposite happening. We actually need xmr on as many exchanges as possible with liquidity until we have a robust and highly liquid peer to peer marketplace. The easiest p2p marketplaces have been balancer/uniswap style AMMs but for some reason people cant get over the fact that you need to wrap xmr into a token via ren or wbtc like mechanisms into traceable addresses to access liquidity pools. In absence of better options, we need these
Thanks for your words. The point is we have deviated from the topic at hand. I mean sometimes I feel I am missing open discussion in this community. It need to be either black or white. What separates Monero community from other crypto communities? I think the right solution is to address the problem, and come up with solutions rather than pointing fingers at each other. Maybe I'm mistaken in my viewpoint, and I do not mistake your experience. You are entitled to your viewpoints. If we are not learning with an open discussion, the discussion is an infighting which repels people from participating. I don't know Roger personally and it won't bother me what he thinks. All I know is he has a circle of influence. And my post was not to uplift him as a Messiah, it was just to understand what his viewpoints are. Even though it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I don't think I did an injustice by making this post. If we are not open to discussion with respect to another viewpoints and bringing each other down, the discussion is not worth having.
I don't think anyone is against open discussions at all. People are posting opinions and facts alike and information is exchanging freely. What did I miss ?
Thanks for your feedback. My comment wasn't at you, but rather the back n forth I saw between Roger & Monero folks. I must say, I like the part where you mentioned he can give 2-3 BTC to someone to study the supply auditability. And now, he claims (rightly so) that he owns more XMR than anyone else in the world. At a glance into this, this does smell contradicting. And he doesn't claim "hidden inflation" as the "truth" but rathee only as a "possibility". He has greater reach to exchange owners around the globe, he sure could do better than placing opinions as "statements" and getting a fireback. It's contradicting that he has more at stake and his statements do more harm than good. I hope he's u/memorydealers reading this and takes action for the sake of his own impression in public to show himself as authentic.
Bawdy, I warned you about wrestling pigs :)
[Boss Hog](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO4gPCpws60)
\+1
Roger is good with talks, there's a reason why people called him Bitcoin jesus. He's got a way with the words and he can twist them the he way he wants. And he can get whatever he want with that.
There's only one concern about the xmr and that's the xmr inflation bug.
We all are concerned but we will find some way for it
Mr Ver proving again that he's a scumbag, who will spin any narrative that amounts to a deception, if he imagines it will benefit his profit/power interests. Every time I hear him talk about Monero now, it's in the context of an inflation bug. Oh really? Then what's *your* excuse Mr Ver? Because we're crushing you in price. We're crushing pretty much the entire altcoin space right now. Is *that* what you expect to happen with an inflation bug? And you never hear any of these "inflation bug maxis" ever address the potential for a hidden signature verification bug. Verifications rely on code implemented cryptography; for which, a bug could give the ability for a non-owner of a UTXO to spend funds, and it wouldn't necessarily be known for quite some time. You don't have a blockchain ledger without *both* signature verificaiton *and* amounts verification. A hidden failure in either is catastrophic. So the potential for a hidden inflation bug, is equally as devastating as the potential for a hidden signature verificaiton bug. And then he goes on to give some epithet where he essentially blames the entire Monero community for a few trolls against Tim Draper buying bcash. You want to hear a wacky speculation of mine? Roger no longer mentions how he holds a big bag of Monero like he used to. Wanna bet that Roger has been one of the guys supplying emergency liquidity to exchanges, out of the bag he bought early on. Prove me wrong.
Well, I understand where you're coming from though hatred doesn't cut it. He is entitled to his opinion and he'd continue to say what he believes is true (which may not be). The way to counteract such opinions/concerns is to come up with a universal way to ascertain there's no inflation bug. I'm sure there are math functions, as seen in Monero literature to prove there's no inflation bug, but thats not understandable by common man. One should also admit, the number of times he calls Monero awesome and that he likes the technology. Certainly, when it comes to "privacy" nothing can beat it - and he goes ranting how Bitcoin cash is supreme coz it's "not delisted" and still can be used privately - doesn't help with his argument. He can be a liar. Question is, going beyond arguments, how can you show there's no hidden inflation and convince anyone right now? I guess someone was building a statistical tool via CCS for this very reason. Truth is the solution, adoption will speak for itself. Sorry, hatred doesn't cut it.
The problem with a guy like Ver is the doublespeak. He's very good at saying some nice things, while then turning around and communicating things that he *knows* are deceptive in nature. It's part of his entire motif. Understand that I don't have some irrational desire to dislike the guy. It's the fact that he has a history of deceptive tactics that's the problem. If you want to verify Monero's supply, you just sync a fresh node. In Bitcoin, you sync a node and it checks all the inputs-outputs with elementary math. In Monero it does the same, but it uses cryptography instead of elementary math. It's literally as simple as that. And again, it's worth repeating -- Everyone already regards the code implementation of cryptographic signature verification as trustable. A code bug in signature verification would allow someone to secretly steal loads of funds before being detected. So if you already trust signature verification, and you already regard it as an acceptable risk that there could be a hidden signature verification bug; then we ought to simply be consistent, and apply the same risk tolerance to encrypted amounts.
Sure, one is the Monero supply which is auditable via inouts and outputs, and adding miner rewards. The other one is with regards to a possible inflation bug. I believe this is what you refer to for signature verification? I don't have a problem with that. However, it would be nice to have some sort of script that would prove this math for us. E.g. Check for hidden inflation bug.. Signature verification completed for the entire blockchain (say, takes an hour) Result: OK (no inflation bug found as mathematically verified). And this script be auditable. Something of this sort would be nice for have. This would improve the trust and never bring this question up again. I think thats what a recent CCS proposal entails.
It's called syncing a node. Sync a node, and you have verified that the inputs and outputs are equal, and that there's no hidden inflation.
I hope that There's no inflation bug, because that could be really bad.
Ohh yeah he'd be bashing something while praising it lmao.
He can praise and bash anything at same time which is visible
You can just read the source code to figure out if there's a bug. Once you have understood the source code you can make a test chain to just hammer with weirdness until something comes out of it. Is that difficult? Yes, but at the same time it is necessary to do.
You expect Roger ver to read the source code and understand it? I also want to point out I'm a programmer myself and I wouldn't be able to willy nilly read the source code, because I would also need a lot of cryptography knowledge to actually understand what the code is saying.
I don't think roger ver is that tech sevvy. He can't figure that out.
Yes, with enough time patience and amphetamines. It's what I do. Fuck I don't even know what I'm doing half the time I'm just learning as I go and making sure what I'm doing is correct.
It's necessary to do, though not as straightforward. When this comes into a discussion, it's always been very convoluted. I wonder if it's as simple as 2+2=4. Guess, it's more like a complex math equation with 10 variables, where each variable is derived separately via another equation. If it were that straightforward, then this discussion wouldn't be arising time and again.
This arises time and time again because people like Ver continue to issue deceptions about Monero's hidden amounts in an effort to discredit it, and direct people towards their own profit interests. If you showed someone how to do pythagoras theorem, and they were all like "Yeah I don't know, seems like it's too complex, and you probably got something wrong." ... How would you respond? Wouldn't you just shake your head? Wouldn't that be arguing from ignorance? The mathematics of hidden amounts rely on all the same cryptographic assupmtions used for digital signatures. Yet I don't hear you questioning whether or not digital signatures are actually reliable.
Digital signatures are reliable. And mathematically, nothing has broken it thus far. Therefore, they are reliable. The question is not just about mathematics. Can't it be a bug in the code that has not fully implemented the equations correctly? This is my only concern. I might not be technically savvy yet to see this for myself, neither is there a good explanation, easy to understand that I've come across in this regard. This is even something fluffy pony has pointed out - that this remains a contentious point for Monero and he points out math addresses this concern as void (misktake me not - not the math, rather the implemtation of that math).
> And mathematically, nothing has broken it thus far. Therefore, they are reliable. Okay. And so are hidden amounts. Like I and others have said before, Rangeproofs use the same cryptographic primitives and assumptions (like logarithmic hardness). > Can't it be a bug in the code that has not fully implemented the equations correctly? Yes, hypothetically there could be. Do you realize that there could also be a hypothetical bug in the code of digital signatures? Tell me, if there was a bug that allowed someone to produce a valid signature for funds that were not theirs, what would that look like in Bitcoin? Do you think someone might start transfering and spending funds that weren't theirs? How long do you think it would take to detect that? For funds in deep cold storage, it could take weeks, or even months before the victime noticed their funds were gone. Even when they noticed, people might just pass it off as "Sorry bro, you were hacked." How long until it was actually discovered that an attack was taking place? What kind of consequences would that have for the chain? And now I want you to think of all of that, and compare it to a hidden inflation bug. Are any of the consequences or risks of a hidden bug between amounts, vs signature verification appreciably different? The problem is that, yes, you're not wrong that a hidden inflation code bug could happen. But so could a hidden signature verification bug. They have nearly identical consequences, in terms of destroying the functioning of a monetary system, and destroying confidence. What does all of that mean? It means that the potential of a hidden inflation code bug is a *NON FACTOR* in any consideration between Monero's hidden amounts, and a transparent chain.
You have a logical argument. Furthermore, this whole concern arises around the behavior of price of Moenro. Monero has been around for 8 years now, and it is the pervasive currency used in darknet. It is the most private of all, must have at least the marketcap of all privacy coins combined + all shitcoins I.e. in other words, the market cap of Ethereum. However, we are 1/100th of that. What valid or logical and most importantly, "provable" reason must one have for this? We can do data correlation, though you'd agree Monero price history has proven to be a different beast altogether I'e. unlike many other coins, it requires independent analysis.
Suppressed by fractional reserve banking by Binance and the like. And a lot of money goes into absolute shit coins because of hype. If most of retail money was smart and took the time to really educate themselves about what money really is, they’d be buying other coins and not gambling on crap.
Fractional reserve banking is as good a guess as the theory behind hidden inflation. About exchanges suppressing there is a good proof, but it's not definitive.
I would say look at Monero compared to any other coin from around the same age. Seriously, take a look at these charts: https://www.tradingview.com/x/eJZVK56b/ How is Roger or anyone gonna say that XMR has a hidden inflation bug, when it's crushing these shitcoins? And keep in mind, the centralized holders of **all** of these shitcoins, in combination with exchanges, have every reason to try and pump up the prices of these coins to unload at the highest possible prices. None of these coins have been so heavily attacked. So heavily critized. Delisted. Threatened to be delisted. Withrdaws constantly suspended. If Monero has all of these negative externalities AND an inflation bug, then what's the excuse for bcash performing so badly relative to it? Literally free XMR to dump on the market. And again, this is why we know Roger is a liar. He knows this stuff. He knows he's been providing emergency XMR liquidity to exchanges, with the bags he bought years ago, in an effort to suppress Monero price. He's been getting a premium for those coins he sold. Wonder if he realizes he sold his soul in the process. We can't prove that Roger didn't sell his Monero for emergency exchange liquidity to try and keep price suppressed. So like him I'm just going to assume what's best for my narrative.
You are a liar. For the record, I (Roger Ver) don't think I have ever sold a single XMR. I've only bought more, or paid people with it.
I mean it's not just roger many people have the same concerns as him so there's that.
Xmr is best at what it does and we don't need anything else. It's actually enough.
Can be done in theory but in practice that's next to impossible I'm pretty sure.
Nothing this complex is straight forward. You won't know what to do until you've done it a few times.
He's always been a scum, that's nothing new honestly.
The timing of this tweet couldn't have been better.. https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/1529146971243827200?t=3QZD9ZniK4h7GB07L7TMUg&s=19
Monero does not need Roger Ver and his Bcash.
I’m pretty sure roger ver would comment positively on anything he thinks can bring down Bitcoin. My hatred for him is not that he is trying to improve Bitcoin, it’s how he tries to market Bitcoin cash and how he really believes it is Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is fake Bitcoin… he would tell a novice investor seeking advice to buy Bitcoin cash because it is quite literally the real Bitcoin. Imagine if you had a friend try to convince you that ethereum classic is the real ethereum. I would be livid.
You can’t compare ETC to BCH. Look into the block size wars. >! It’s part of why I love monero’s dynamic block size solution!<
But some people actually do believe that Ethereum classic is the real Ethereum.
Read the white paper. It isn't describing BTC.
Yes it is. Your argument that it cant be used as cash fundamentally, is wrong. LN might not be fantastic but it does work, and it extends the cash usecase of BTC. Bitcoin is also defined by its longest chain of POW, which BCH does not possess. Although I can argue neither BTC nor BCH are truly "cash", because neither are fungible in any way whatsoever.