Roger hasn't programmed in his life, and has no in-depth technical knowledge. He's a salesman, and all he knows how to do is push his "product" with little else backing it.
Consider this article, which goes into depth about why Roger's ego-fork is a mistake, and his assumptions about scaling are dead wrong.
Some excerpts:
This is not about archival nodes. This is about fully validating nodes. I don’t care if you prune the history or skip the line to catch-up with everyone else. This is about about staying in sync, after the fact. Light nodes aren’t nodes.
Roger makes assumptions about the difference between "light" nodes and full nodes, and he barely knows the distinctions between them. If he does, he simply lies about the rest - because he knows his arguments are based on belief, not facts.
My Argument: Larger blocks centralize validators.
It’s that simple. It’s the central argument in the entire cryptocurrency community in regards to scaling. Not many people familiar with blockchain protocol actually deny this.
Roger is out of his depth, yet again, because highly technical people who understand blockchain mechanics better than he does actually "get it" when it comes to the relationship between bloated blocks and resource requirements vs centralization.
Because of Ethereum’s (and soon BCash's) exponentially growing blocksize, the bottleneck is not regulated below these external factors and as such results in a shrinking and more centralized network due to network demands that increasingly exceed the average users hardware and bandwidth.
Funny fact, 49% of BCash's nodes are run in the same Alibaba (Chinese Colocation Space) server racks -- ~~~ embed:1016578569093332992 This means centralization in the Cashie network is already happening, and their blocks haven't even been stuffed full yet. twitter metadata:cmVhbEx1ZHZpZ0FydHx8aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9yZWFsTHVkdmlnQXJ0L3N0YXR1cy8xMDE2NTc4NTY5MDkzMzMyOTkyIFRoaXMgbWVhbnMgY2VudHJhbGl6YXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIENhc2hpZSBuZXR3b3JrIGlzIGFscmVhZHkgaGFwcGVuaW5nLCBhbmQgdGhlaXIgYmxvY2tzIGhhdmVuJ3QgZXZlbiBiZWVuIHN0dWZmZWQgZnVsbCB5ZXQufA== ~~~
But what else do you expect from someone that uses lies and underhanded mimicry and deception to promote his altfork. Roger is a con-man, a scammer, and an outright liar when it comes to pushing his scheme on to unsuspecting newbies.
Some history on his lies -- https://archive.fo/XfYDP
In the blockchain space, there is a saying "Don't trust. Verify." -- All I ask is you read and verify what I'm saying, and don't trust documented liars like Roger Ver.
Wrong. He's coded a little and has a professional background in Information Technology. More importantly if you actually listened to his arguments you'd realize his understanding of the economics and architecture of bitcoin is among-st the best in the field. Might be worth while doing a detailed investigation about someone next time before you spread false rumors to try to discredit them.
[Citation Needed]
I know what his "arguments" are. They're all shit. Roger Ver is losing supporters, like Erik Voorhees, because of his constant tilting-at-windmills when he's obviously wrong.
Vitalik called out one of his partners, Craig "Faketoshi" Wright, for being a fraud and technically incompetent.
Jimmy Song, a leader in the space -- and a highly technical guy -- has called out Roger for being disingenuous in his statements. For instance, claiming to be Austrian in his economics when Roger is clearly a Keynesian.
I've been following this space since 2011 - and I don't need you trying to tell me what is going on.
I already know. That's why I'm taking Roger to task, because useful idiots like you don't know the difference.
More reading for the misinformed -- https://archive.fo/XfYDP
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that Roger is a Keynesian. If your evidence is Song's recent video, then you just don't have much of an argument. Song might be a great technical guy, but he seems to misunderstand Keynes and/or Roger.
As usual, the BTC supporters seem to be low on economics knowledge. The video is on Youtube if anyone is interested.
Oh look, another Cashie spouting off with no references, citations, or any kind of in-depth description.
Its just "wrong". Suuuuuuure Cashie, sure.
For the smarter among you, here's the video the Cashie doesn't understand:
Yes, that's the video. It makes my point (for anyone who has the most basic knowledge of Keynes' theories). I thought this was obvious.
If it wasn't: Mr. Song is conflating currency debasement as a means to spur spending (Keynes) with currency being useful in commerce.
Roger has (to my knowledge) never supported "forcing" people to spend. He just wants people to have that option.
A crypto with only SOV and no MOE is not going to work. People will just move their funds to cryptos that have both qualities.
Again, Cashies seem to have trouble isolating important concepts.
In the video, Jimmy immediately defines why he is posting it:
(In the same point, talking about Roger Ver)
This is precisely what he's talking about - Roger espouses this notion that you NEED to spend, or else it isn't worth anything.
That is a KEYNESIAN strategy -- centered around spending to boost economic growth.
But again, I'm arguing with a Cashie that doesn't care what Roger says, as long as it aligns with the view that Bitcoin is "bad" and your alt-fork is somehow the answer.
It isn't, and from every metric I can see -- a majority agree with me.
No. He espouses the notion that you need to be able to spend. At least that is my take on his opinion.
Once again, network effect in a vacuum has no value.