Bitcoin Forum

Finally, Rodger is taking a good rest and we are not being annoyed. Thanks to What's on Crypto for sharing this amazing news for Bitcoin fans


Twitter has suspended @Bitcoin account for violating its rules (perhaps: trademark abuse, impersonation, etc.) reports https://t.me/whatsoncrypto

This is very unfortunate. This is targeted attach on Bitcoin, more importantly on free speech. This is bad from Twitter. I just hope price bounce back soon. Good luck everyone. Thanks for sharing the info.

Next time, I recommend you research before posting because it's clear you don't have a clue what you're saying.

The @Bitcoin Twitter account was under the control of Roger Ver. The same Roger Ver that created Bitcoin Cash. In the past few months, the @Bitcoin Twitter handle has been tweeting statements/articles supoorting Bitcoin Cash, and going against Bitcoin. You can look up an archive of their tweets to see what I mean.

In additition, the account was reinstated earlier today, although it is rumoured Roger Ver no longer controls the account.

Many people believe that bitcoin.com and the @bitcoin twitter are officially pages for Bitcoin. The truth is they are/were BOTH owned by Roger Ver. I am not part of the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash debate but even I can recognize that the bitcoin.com website and @Bitcoin were clearly biased towards Bitcoin Cash.

It looks like they are really looking for everything related to crypto to be banned. Remember they are already banning crypto ads to it will really make sense for them to hunt for accounts which they think are hying ICO's or has been reported as scamming people using their platform, so everyone should be very careful specially hash tagging.

But yes its a free market. And Twitter targeting accounts with bitcoin or crypto as a whole is like suppressing our free speech. I'm sure that twitter will get a lot of backlash from making this bitch moved.

What you say is true, even today we can still see and read some sentences posted @Bitcoin and I hope this is just a misunderstanding which is done by the Twitter to @ Bitcoin.

I doubt that they will touch every twitter account which is mainly used for crypto purposes. It'll too hard for them to regulate thousands or even millions of our accounts.
Also, I'm sure they don't want to divert crypto people into another site because we still causes a lot of traffic and impressions.

________________________________________

I've noticed OP is posting a lot of topics just to advertise his/her telegram group.

It's true, but it should not be too important, or it's just a drama to lower the price, but I always think well for the bitcoin progress in the future.

Taking on account that as "crypto" enthusiasts .. we are some sort of dysfunctional family  ;D

and since those guys have a lot money to hire good lawyers .. I guess we can grab a bucket of popcorn ..

My question ..
What exactly terms of Twitter's TOS was violated by the banned user?

https://twitter.com/en/tos

 

Looks like that in these days a lot of accounts related to cryptocurrencies and ICOs have been banned on Twitter, this is not actually a good news, it's a kind of censorship.

Only by making a good management system, the blockchain technology can truly bring unlimited benefits to mankind.

Twitter abused its rights and banned the free speech of digital encryption.

Bitcoin has not had an official management team, Bitcoin hasn't any twitter account. So, If you are talking about Roger Ver's @Bitcoin account then that twitter handle was for supporting bitcoin cash not worthy for bitcoin. This News will not affect on Bitcoin  ;D And, Thanks for the news, Mate.

I think the suspension is not really a problem for bitcoin, bitcoin will always evolve and advance for a better future, that's the best.

In addition to this I think they are going to get all serious when the price of bitcoins is already this low..
You know what they say about stomping on the enemy when he is already down ?
I do think that they are trying to kill the bitcoins once and for all.

They just want the Bitcoin cash to spurge about bitcoins this year so that their own investments could bring good rewards .

Pretty crazy to see this actually happen, I didn't think twitter would ever go ahead in removing Ver from the space which he has had such a holdover on twitter. Though I do have to say, in one way I agree with the ban -- he's not Bitcoin and shouldn't be saying that he is through his Bitcoin Cash shit. Though, he is being censored for his views on bitcoin -- at least this is what I got from it -- if someone else could find a reason from twitter then I'd have to reevaluate my view here.

Lets see folks!

I noticed the suspend just yesterday 10 hours ago from the statement of ver on  twitter

Can you give some sources where crypto-related accounts on twitter have been banned? Suspension of account/s is different from banning them. And @bitcoin is now back but beware there is the same username giving free btc, just ignored them or be scammed.

It's called promotion/marketing to get more followers  :D

EDIT: Check its Reddit's thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8aojsg/twitter_finally_suspended_the_compromised_bitcoin/

Why'd you say that he is being censored for his views on bitcoin? He is still free to carry his "babies dying" and "I am the first investor in the world to invest in bitcoin" megaphone around.
The @bitcoin twitter handle wasn't meant for him to use for covertly attacking bitcoin and promoting BCash. Same for bitcoin.com.

If this wasn't crypto and if bitcoin actually was a company, he would have been sued by now for misrepresenting another trademark. He knows that such a thing cannot happen but someone had to stop him from this underhanded, unethical practice.

I am glad that twitter did it. Either due to complaints from the bitcoin community or due to their own policy.

I will stick to the agreement terms of service between twitter and users ....

if an account is closed and/or suspend ..twitter must to give plausible reasons and cite specifically witch article of TOS was violated.

it depends on why they banned that account. i seriously doubt they just banned it because of what it was posting, they don't care about that. but they may have banned it because it was a stolen/hacked account.

also as for "free speech", if that is what you think is free speech then we should created a @BitcoinCash account and post 30 tweets per day saying bitcoin cash is a scam and will steal your money. how does that sound?

Roger Ver is a scumbag, never trust that sneaky snake!

as I said I will not take "Ad hominem" path ... My interest is only regards to Twitter Inc. and their relationship with their costumers.

ps-> btw.. I had to google "who is Roger Ver" .. and I end up at Wikipedia page ...

I don't have any source but it's something we're discussing on the Italian subforum and also on some Italian Telegram chats, some people got their accounts blocked/banned. Also an Italian Twitter profile of crypto news has been banned, they've been trying to contact Twitter for days but until now they got no answer. And I repeat, it was all about crypto news, nothing else.

About time!

Adios Rog!

As he's the single most divisive figure in all of crypto, he won't be missed.

I didn't see any news/article about that this if its true, except for the @bitcoin twitter account that has previously suspended.

If it's legit then coindesk, cointelegraph, and the twitter handle of bitcoin.com that is owned by Ver and some crypto-related site that has hundreds of thousands of followers of their twitter handle are affected because of this.  :-\

Twitter, Facebook, Google and other social media seem to trying to ban Bitcoin. They ban advertisements that related to cryptocurrency.
This might effect on Bitcoin price.

there're many scams going on so it maybe under observance i think

It's been reinstated - apparently it got shut down because it got hacked:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17217354/bitcoin-twitter-shut-down-conspiracy-theories

Twitter could have suspended or suspended Bitcoin's account on its social media network, maybe if it violates the established rules. In addition, the number of spam accounts are also considered harmful to other Twitter users. I think :)

Thank you for the information was also there is news like this and hopefully this will not happen because of the fear in the future will result in this cryptocurrency may be very different from previous news such as twitter and others.

as i found in internet, "In a Twitter-based continuation of the Bitcoin (BTC) vs Bitcoin Cash (BCH) debate, the BCH-promoting Twitter handle, @Bitcoin, has been suspended by Twitter, seemingly due to a large number of complaints from Twitter users – likely Bitcoin supporters."

Booo!

Cmon hackers, back to work!!!

 :D

Hmm,  the @bitcoin handler was created by Roger ver which was popularly known as the bitcoin Jesus,  but now known as the bitcoin Judas,  and watching what was going on at the page, since the born of bitcoin cash,  roger very has always been promoting his project,  he is even trying to trick newbies into new into the space,  telling them that bitcoin cash or bcash is the real btc we have.

To watch these actions to try to win the competition with Bitcoin by kidnapping its brand - it's a quite disgusting show.

yawn

more band camp drama...
something bad must be happening in the core camp for them to be really pushing out the 'look in other direction' finger pointing

anyway, so what if something is not advertising CORE.
core should not have any decisions over what a twitter account should tweet about.
core lost hundreds of thousands of merchant usage, and kept announcing thier fork is vault (value store) not common spend utility
core devs/sheep should not decide that everything has to be about them

in the end it will end up with something like litcoin that goes mainstream due to all this bandcamp crap

here is a crude 30scond mockup of the band camp debate (dont knitpick the lack of quality of 30 seconds drawing)
https://i.imgur.com/Ag0DXD8.png

(1) bandcamp a: "A is the real bitcoin"
(3) bandcamp b: "B is the real bitcoin"
(3) smart reality: "neither are.. they are both different to the 2009-2016 network typology, but sheep will follow the loudest sheep herder even to a different field and still call it home"

You're not the least bit disgusted by comments by Ver to the effect of "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", and "Bitcoin is no longer a cryptocurrency"?

That idiot (Ver) pushes his self-serving propaganda night-and-day all under the guise of being "Bitcoin Jesus."

When in fact he hates bitcoin and roots for its demise on a daily basis.

You must be a bigtime BCH holder. There's no other rational explanation for your lack of moral fortitude.

Sorry to hear about your ever-surmounting losses. But you backed the wrong camp, and you're getting what you deserve.

PS: Merchant adoption of BTC is growing, despite your personal opinions. And merchant adoption of BCH remains comparatively nonexistent.

https://www.ccn.com/retailer-adoption-of-bitcoin-is-growing-in-the-us-and-canada-despite-price-fall/

That's exactly what happened. I would have had the slightest bit of respect for Ver had he come up with his own coin name instead of trying to ride on the coat tails of the success of the bitcoin brand.

im not in any band camp. sorry but i don't play that sheep game.
just because i detest cores controls and centralisation of their roadmap plans. does not mean im in other camps.

i have not touched my main hoard since 2013 so i dont swing either way. i just have a birds eye view over the whole landscape

merchant adoption of selling produce in the real world for cores chain has dropped. the tx fee drama caused that.
and before you even try more FUD. the fee drama was caused by mixers. not by pools and not by 2 certain guys reddit points fingers at.. if you cared to look beyond the reddit sheep copy and past propaganda drama.

anyway back to merchant adoption.
have you even bothered checking on how coinbase and bitpay have changed... i guess not
as for the article you linked all its blasting is newegg.. funny thing is newegg has been accepting bitcoin since 2014

but now go and check out coinbase and bitpay and you will see why the article YOU posted says "demand for cryptocurrencies".. and then appends 'future growth for bitcoin'
you will see that merchants have moved away from cores network (apart from a few big OLD names that remained loyal hense named singularly) with the hope the thousands of others that use other cryptocurrency switch back in the future once core/if core can sort their crap out

and as i said, in the end it will probably be that something like litecoin or ethereum whichs ends up dominating the merchant acceptance market, because if you actually look beyond the couple named core loyalists. you will see many many more made a shift.

but hey. when you see core devs themselves admit that cores chain is not for merchants, but for store of value. and even big named fanboys like andreas saying if you dont like cores roadmap go play with other coins..
samson mow said prtty much the same thing, cores chain isnt for meerchants. but for value store
many fanboys/core loyalists have literally been screaming that cores chain is not the "buy coffee for btc" purpose

thus not even trying to retain merchants.. you cant deny that cores chain is losing its merchant desirability and core dont care.
most devs, dont think of bitcoin as an ecomomy. their buzzword is "experiment" and they are too afraid to even take it out of beta. because to them its a game, not an economy

but again hey. stick your head in the loyalist sand and pretend core are your kings and deserve their decision making power to ruin the original ethos of bitcoin and move away from the 2009-2014 purpose of bitcoin.

enjoy your home in the other field with the sheep that all agree with you that its all your home. even if the landscape is different than the original field

maybe next time. take off the core defence cap.. and wear the bitcoin 2009-2014 ethos defence cap. you know think about bitcoin(2009-2014). not core.. then you might see beyond the field you have set as your home to see the wider landscape.

this is the reality of what has been happening. rectangles are blocks with their total size and lines represent transactions.

both forks happened from the old chain (blue one) like any other fork before them. the first one with SegWit was adopted by the majority and is used by the majority (like the forks before it) so it IS bitcoin. the second one was rejected by the majority and it is not even used by anyone (B) and yet they mislead people into believing it is "real bitcoin".

https://i.imgur.com/yu2Eils.jpg

So far Core's done a pretty good job. The point isn't so much that I trust them. Its more that I do not trust Roger Ver.

Transaction fees are down to an average of $0.14, but if you don't actually use bitcoin then I wouldn't expect you to know this.

There is another @bitcoin account.

https://twitter.com/bitcoin. I'm confused because it is a very active account now, just a few days ago it looked like a random account that was never used. Maybe after the account was suspended someone else was able to register with it???

nope
(3)rectangles are the network. and the lines are the clients.
the blue network. starting from the left had one client.. satoshi... which started in 2009
then in 2010 a github version started (the triangular shape that goes blue to orange)
the other lines are other clients that worked happily on the network without becoming a altcoin. but had opposing bips. consensus decided not to upgrade the network for som of them

then there was a (orange box) bitcoinABC (made by the BLOQ team, funded by the same guys that fund gmax and BS core dev salaries) the purpose was to make a split event at a certain date. to avoid consensus.. but to intentionally cause an intentional split. all bevause core couldnt get above a 35% consensus threshold and blockstream were running out of time before they were desiring to VC beg another seed round of funding..

so with the aid of partners. bloq got cores opposition away from the original network and onto a purple network, thus with no opposition due to the deportation event. core could trigger segwits network typology which is the yellow network

the point of bitcoin is you dont have to trust anyone.
by giving in and saying you prefer a team.. your handing them the crown and giving them the centralist plan they have

by saying no other node should exist on the network and saying its an attack if there is another node that opposes cores roadmap, and the opposition should "fork off" like many core fanboys have. and even going to the ends of getting a subsiduary team to cause a controversial fork. rather than using bitcoin consensus. is again giving core the crown and the centralist plan they have.

what you dont realise about bitcoinABC (made by bloq) is that they were not independant, nor were they bitcoin 'unlimited' fans. they are part of the same BScartel crew that core main devs are funded by.

but i think you have yet to shed your shep skin to fly above the field you call home. thus still not able to see the whole landscape.
but hey, i feel that even in a years time you will still be with the core sheep running in the direction the core sheep hurder directs you

until you can actually rlease yourself from wearing the core defense cap. you will not see the whole picture

as for the twitter account. it seems there is no ban. but instead many trolls got blocked

Nah. If you look through the tweets, it looks like control of it was handed over to someone else, but now it's back with its original owner (probably Roger Ver?) It's back to spreading the usual message that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin again, at least.

As for the Core vs Cash argument, I honestly have nothing against Bitcoin Cash. I simply see it for what it is, which is a different approach to the scaling problem. What I have a problem with, is that its fans are parading it around as Bitcoin, which is confusing at best, and downright fraudulent at worst.

you focused on the process but i focus on the results.
it is true that a lot of shitshow went into activating Segregated Witness but the result is the bitcoin we see today. and it is the real bitcoin because the majority accepted this change.
if we start saying bitcoin is not the real bitcoin of Satoshi because it received some addition (upgrade) then bitcoin stopped being real bitcoin somewhere in 2009-2010 with the first major upgrade.

That's what happens when retarded people get paid to choose side. I am sure that if you try to bribe everyone in this forum to 'support' BCrash, more than 50% of them would gladly do so, which just shows that people aren't here to support Bitcoin, but just their greed for payment. BCrash without paid support doesn't have support at all - the only reason people were initially interested was because they got an insane exchange rate for worthless trash coins. If Ver and Jihan didn't had their wealth, BCrash would be equal to BTG right now, a coin that got dumped down and no one is interested pumping money in. I seriously hope Jack comes up with something to hand over that account to someone worthy of maintaining it on the Core side, because this is just ridiculous.

I thought it will happen oneday....  8) 8)

I think Twitter recently imposed strict restrictions on ICOs and cryptocurrencies. This is a serious blow to the entire cryptocurrency industry, including Bitcoin, because Twitter is currently the largest cryptocurrency information dissemination platform. Both Facebook and Twitter have taken restrictions. So which social media can now freely disseminate information on cryptocurrencies?

Microsoft/LinkedIn (biggest ad revenue for sites that allow crypto ads) and Snapchat.

For your reference: https://www.recode.net/2018/3/19/17123674/cryptocurrency-bitcoin-advertising-ban-microsoft-twitter-google-facebook-oath-snap (https://www.recode.net/2018/3/19/17123674/cryptocurrency-bitcoin-advertising-ban-microsoft-twitter-google-facebook-oath-snap)

Have at it.

The irony i find is all these so called Bitcoin maximalists support a centralised platform that is censoring descending voices

It's a very slippery slope. If we let others seize a perfectly legitimate account that technically isn't breaking any rules, where do we draw the line on what's acceptable and what isn't? The incident had Bitcoin Cash supporters crying censorship, and while I don't normally take their opinions seriously, I agree with this particular one.

Their claim that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin is morally repulsive to me, but they're not breaking any laws or rules, so they should be free to express themselves. Silencing them simply because one does not agree with their opinion is censorship, which is what Bitcoin has come to stand against.