Bitcoin Forum

I'm an avid watcher of Roger Ver's bitcoin channel and he was talking about bitcointalk forum and how his old threads have him labeled as a scammer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=10310

I think Roger Ver is gernerally a good guy and has done a lot for crypto, He worked his butt off to promote bitcoin in the early days and is one of the reasons that crypto has come so far.

Why can't we just let people have their own beliefs on what the block size to be, I don't remember Roger actually ever stealing money from anyone, I don't think he deserves those red marks.

He is a misdirection to the community. He still speaks for Bitcoin but sells his BCH shit. He is still selling the name of Bitcoin to benefit from his BCH shit. For example: the site name --> BitcoinDOTcom

Go to the site, you will see he is pushing BCH but the entire site is branded with Bitcoin's fame. There are a lot of people still come to the scam accusations board complaining that they thought they were buying Bitcoin but bought BCH.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2835521.0

I don't care about Roger Ver all that much, but promoting BCH as BTC using Bitcoin.com is fraud.

In past? Yes
Today? Many people would say no


If you check comment of the red trust, the main reason some member did it because Roger Ver misleading users between BTC and BCH.
Imagine if you want buy BTC, but got BCH instead. It's even worse if you realized it after attempt to withdraw it to your BTC wallet.

I don't keep up with the big names of the crypto community, but I'm familiar with Roger Ver's name and have seen him speak in some video about bitcoin.  If he did indeed mislead people into buying BCH instead of bitcoin, then he certainly does deserve a red tag.  That's not my battle, and I'll take people at their word here who said he did just that. 

The dude seems really kooky IMO, and my impression was formed by a few things he said (which I can't recall) and not just his hard-on for bitcoin cash.  How is it that all the crazy people get rich?

Yeah, that's just ridiculous.  And it's sad, because I'm sure there are many newcomers to bitcoin who wouldn't know the difference.

This is why he is red trusted - he is a shameless liar. His cult of personality dependent altcoin cannot stand and survive on its own (lack of) merit. He knows that, and his bag holders know that too. So they turn to the only weapon they have left; trick newbies in to thinking BCH is "bitcoin" by lying all across their website. They aren't even brave enough to use bitcoincash.com or a bitcoincash twitter handle. Everything they do is to try to fool people who don't know better in to thinking that BCH is a bitcoin and not some useless, barely used, altcoin.

He's more than welcome to believe whatever he wants regarding block size. He isn't being red trusted for holding an opinion about block size. He is being red trusted for lying, scheming and scamming newbies out of their money by selling them a second rate altcoin which he disguises as bitcoin.

Never mind if someone like to fork bitcoin blockchain since its open source. But if they present their coin as a real bitcoin then it would not fair at all and its highly equal to fraud. A fork of Bitcoin could not be real Bitcoin. All fork coin should be consider as a normal Altcoin. But Roger Ver & Craig Wright did same thing. Both of them claimed that their forked coins (BCH & BSV ) are real bitcoin. And Roger Ver promote his coin behind of bitcoin.com. By this way he have mislead Bitcoin users especially who are nob. That's the reason why lot of forum users think that he is a fraud. Never  mind even he is a multi Billionaire but on this forum he is a user like us. So whoever think Roger Ver cheating with community they might left negative feedbacks even they are not on DT network.  


I am wondering why OP is much interested about that matter? Are you hunting merit by creating a Hot topic? I am suspecting that.


Fortunately your one line post history preventing to send you merit. I and not going to feed you because so many spammer will gather on this thread.

Almost forgot:

I believe Roger Ver is misleading everyone as he is shilling an altcoin on a page accessed with the https://www.bitcoin.com/ URL.
This website is referring to Bitcoin as Bitcoin Core, which is only the name of a Bitcoin client/wallet. Why won't they sell some "Electrum" coin ?  ::)

What he does is a fraud.

Also, he seems to be easily condescendant and haughty towards people.
Just look at this 1mn video to see what I'm talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB0mG7wMvM8

Ver was once called "Bitcoin Jesus", but this time is long gone now.
That title goes to Andreas Antonopoulos nowadays.

Maybe we can refer to Ver as the "Bcash god" today.  ::)

I am not a general opponent to valid forks based on consensus, but I am certainly opposed to hijacking type political type forks, which IMO BCH does clearly qualify for. It is debatable if he deserves these tags, but one of crypto's main weaknesses is the ability to run these politically motivated forks based on popularity. This is not what forks are intended for. Forks are intended as a way for the general user base to "vote with their feet" so to speak in support of a fork that makes significant, required, and substantial improvements to the networks protocol. What BCH is, is essentially an altcoin rebranded as a fork. If he had just called it an altcoin I personally would be 100% supporting him right now. This is one of the main weaknesses of the general open source crypto protocol as it exists now, at any moment events can be manipulated to split the community in two and cleave off not only market share, but brand name recognition, and infrastructure. I find this inherently deceitful.

Here is place where I stopped reading. Ver is a good guy? C'mon... Yeah, maybe in past he did good things, but it don't justify what he is doing now. Spreading propaganda against Bitcoin, shady promotion of Bitcoin Cash is reasons why he deserves red trust. Just look at his Youtube channel, Bitcoin.com website, Reddit/btc and you will see how he is brainwashing people.
Though, this red trust have minimal impact for Ver, since he don't use Bitcointalk anymore and he is using these feedbacks for another his fake story.

Some fair points raised but I still agree with Roger on a lot of topics, especially the censorship of r/bitcoin.  Can't say anything negative about bitcoin or even any discussion of alternate coins and theories without the mods deleting your post.

He still genuinely wants all of crypto to succeed, he doesn't just hold bcash, he has lots of alts including fat stacks of bitcoin still.  I really think he is a good guy but he can be too passionate sometimes.  Think he is someone we need on our side because our main enemy is the traditional finance system.

I can't talk about cucumbers on the Apple subreddit... must be censorship.


I don't think having a proven liar "on our side" is going to help, not to mention that you can't really get him "on our side" merely by removing red trust. We would all have to convert to his bcash religion.

If someone buys BTC thinking it is "Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system" they are being scammed. 

So what is your definition for "peer to peer electronic cash currency system"?

Adding "cash" with a forked coin does not make it "The Bitcoin".
And what is "Bitcoin core"?


If you have problem with Bitcoin then why are you using the Brand image of Bitcoin to sell your BCH altcoin?
Misleading the people who heard about Bitcoin and wanted to have some and since they do not know much about the coin, you take the chance and inject them your Bitcoin Cash saying it's Bitcoin. You are not helping people in the Bitcoin space anymore, you are after your personal gain.

Right, but doing this was totally not scammy at all:
https://i.redd.it/w3az1r4877i31.jpg

For bonus laughs, compare the BTC and BCH prices to today.

I never want to laugh at anyone that lost a lot of money but I will say that BCH increased more than BTC after that last market low back in December, I have some friends that bought BCH at $80 and cashed out at $400.

I'm guessing Roger is at least a billionaire, and I'm sure he genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. I do see his argument about peer to peer cash system but there are other altcoins that do that even better and I still don't own any significant amount of BCH.

If someone buys BCH thinking it is "Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system" they are being scammed.

This is what you do.

---

Kudos for expressing yourself here, and I can only encourage you to do it further !
We understand you don't like how people must bid with fees in order to get their tx included, but consciously advertising BCH for BTC is not an answer.
It only misleads newcomers and makes the whole "crypto thing" even more difficult to apprehend.

Serious question: Have you ever read "A Cypherpunk's Manifesto (https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html)? Please read it, it will only take you a few minutes. It explains perfectly what is meant by 'electronic cash'. It has nothing to do with (unsafe) 0-confirmation transactions or low transaction fees.

People want to but BTC not your shitcoin you fucking dry lunch. You got issues son and it’s not only the way you look

There are only 2 cryptocurrencies in the world.
One is Bitcoin, another is shitcoin  :D
Shitcoin must be given red tag so that it can't deceive the noobs. If I were theymos, I would take down the VIP status from all the shit scammer, lucky that theymos supports freedom of speech.

Roger Ver is richer than all you fucking gambling shills will ever be, I think this is mostly a jealously thing, they hate to see how rich Roger is so they try to bring him down.

If somebody buys BCH thinking it is BTC, that's why people think you're a scam artist.

Why didn't you just pick a new name for your coin instead of trying to ride the coat-tails of Bitcoin? Its not too late to rebrand. Perhaps you'd be better off doing so.

He is promoting bcash as the real bitcoin and that's the direct definition of a scam.

Bcash has neither the support from the miners, nor from the community.

Just another shitcoin.

He doesn't step back from his position neither. He is a scammer.

“Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.” - Erik Voorhees

This holds even more true today than it did a year ago when first stated (https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/989657463858253824), yet Roger's charade continues... Unbelievable.  ::)

Making people believe that Btrash is the real Bitcoin is like scamming people. You're brainwashing people, or at least trying. You don't really have a lesson to give here, let alone advice.
Deceiving people as you do shows your true face, a bit like people abusing seniors by ripping them off by selling insurances or solar panels. You're maybe good in money management but that's all.
Oh by the way, still posting fake photos on your Twitter :D

His negative feedback doesn't label him a scammer. What it does is show a warning banner to unregistered users if they look at old sales threads created by Roger. It only goes as far to say one or more users believe him to be a scammer, and serves as a general warning applied to many accounts that receive negative feedback.

The feedback itself is justified as that's Nutildah's thoughts on the matter, which are shared by a large number of people out there. If you care enough you can dig deeper into how the trust system here works. If you are referring to people just flatout calling him a scammer in threads, he's very pro freedom of speech and opposed to heavy moderation; so I imagine that is welcomed by him. Again that is all open to how people perceive his actions, if it were wrong or even overly contentious it would bring about a good discussion and not so much a long line of people with the same impression.

His reputation itself is his own doing. When you consciously and actively use double-speak to present a convoluted argument to rookies and newbs ultimately leaving them less informed and confused; what do you expect.


I rewrote this. This comment is off-topic but made me think. This is where you went wrong, and a lot of projects do. You removed yourself from an environment where your ideas for change would have been challenged and may have even been reformed. Instead you chose to surround yourself with other like minded individuals and used a marketing machine to promote you agenda. If you had continued to discuss and listen, you might have found a way to deliver a product the world needed instead of attempting to usurp a title. I'm not the one to debate you on the networks or the inner workings of crypto, it goes well beyond my fundamental understanding. I like yogg's advice come back and have open discussions with people, it can make a world of difference.

Personally I initially held you in a high regard, and followed a lot of what you were saying. This was because in 2017 as a newbie fresh as can be I followed into sites like bitcoin.com, and hey this dude has done a lot been around for a long time. I mined with your pool, was checking out the forum really followed the path.  Here I am trying to figure out wallets and addresses, keys and understand the fundamental differences between coins. Now I have a personality that I was trusting intentionally spreading a false narrative. Hey I was buying into it, how could one not when you don't know what information is legit. I was making enough rookie mistakes of my own at the time, but you helped me realize the worst. I was taking a man shilling his project at his word. I guess I should thank you for that as it probably saved me later on.  I don't care that you have an altcoin, I don't care that you want to piggyback off the Bitcoin (BTC) BTC name, but stop trying to force your will upon the world 1 newbie at a time, and own your project for what it is.

Really? From when you have realized that? After fork of BCH ? Is it not enough evidence that you are misleading bitcoin users? I don't think someone will trust you whoever fully aware about bitcoin. That's the reason why you have tagged on this forum. Its pretty much clear that you want to mark bitcoin as a scam coin which is totally wrong. Your wrong statement would discourage new bitcoin user. Yout fork coin is just a altcoin like others, nothing else and you will realise that once a time. And obviously, your thoughts will not effect on bitcoin community.

If I was cynical I'd say a troll buys a farmed shitposting account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2019242;sa=showPosts), starts a thread as if anyone cares about him, and steps in to troll us so that he could have more material for one of his whiny-ass videos.

But I'm not so I won't. Carry on feeding the critter.

This is indeed where the problem lies.  Forking Bitcoin with Bitcoin Cash was never the issue as that is not uncommon in open source projects.  Using Bitcoin assets like Bitcoin.com to push the unpopular narrative of BCH being the real Bitcoin was where things went bad in my opinion.  I believe had Roger continued publicly positively supporting Bitcoin with Bitcoin.com and launched a competing Bitcoincash.com site, he could have eventually found himself in the good graces of both projects as cooler heads eventually prevailed. 

Agreed. I think most of the community doesn't actually have anything against the coin BCH per se. There are many forks of bitcoin out there, but none attracts the same disgust as BCH because none of them lie to naive users and try to pass themselves off as something they aren't.

I find it particular disingenuous when Roger complains about censorship and says "You only need censorship if your arguments are weak / aren't strong enough to stand up on their own". Well, in the exact same vein, you only need to pretend to be another coin if your coin is too weak to stand on it's own.

Dude, I can create a paper and paint a stick figure on it and call it Roger Ver.

But that does not make that piece of thin vanilla paper anything other than just that .. thin vanilla paper.

Bitcoin is a peer to peer electronic cash system.

Whatever your Bitcoin Cash is - it is just that - BITCOIN CASH a.k.a not Bitcoin.

I didn't do that, and the instant I was made aware of it, I had it corrected.

If it isn't A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System it isn't Bitcoin. - Roger Ver

What's your point? May be you can define cash and currency.

Will you change the domain name and the Bitcoin branding too?

Hello Roger,

Thank you for rectifying this.

I believe that the current situation is simply the addition of all the tiny little mistakes as the one highlighted here.
Even if you didn't do it, it ended up on the website that you advertise and goes towards your version of what happened with BTC.

Please, keep on the effort of clarifying the differences between BTC and BCH, instead of trying to blur the lines.

Also, there is no "Bitcoin Core" coin.
It would be equivalent to talk about an "Electrum" coin, then.

Where is bcash's hashrate? How can you claim it to be the real bitcoin while you got that tiny amount of hashrate?


He is a self made millionare who went to jail for selling illegal explosives. We already know that. Still he is so salty for getting red trust. Must suck to be him. Even when he is rich af, he still cries for getting tagged.

The Bitcoin Cash community still allows free speech and open discussion.
The BTC community is still heavily censored: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 (https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43)

Mass downvoting for differing opinions is another form of censorship... something /r/btc definitely takes a part of. If you aren't repeating the rest of the echo chamber you're a "blockstream troll" and instantly downvoted

My point is that BTC is no longer Bitcoin. (https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/by-far-the-biggest-crypto-scam-ever-and-its-still-happening-a23ed102d039)


No.  I bought the domain name fair and square and will use it to promote "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", BTC isn't that.

This is what I just posted in WO LOL

---

In your point, BCH is a scam too?

But you are still using the fame of Bitcoin (BTC) to promote your altcoin (BCH).
Isn't it ironic?

Bitcoin is what miners and the community say it is.

Which one do bcash have? Neither. Then what is bcash?

Yep, keep avoiding the important questions.

It might be Ethereum's future tho, given the backlash on BSV. :P

Owe you some merit there. Can someone favor me please. Thanks

Exactly. Even if this wasn't you (and we can only take his word for it), this is just an example of your entire ethos - pretend your coin is something it isn't. Whoever did do it obviously thought you would approve, because the rest of your site is littered with the exact same nonsense of deliberately muddying the waters, using the word "bitcoin" to refer to either just your coin or to both coins (but never to actual bitcoin), and bitcoin core (which isn't a coin and doesn't exist outside the mind of BCHers) to refer to actual bitcoin.

If your coin is so much better, why do you need to leech off bitcoin's success? If you truly believe bitcoin is a scam, why are you so eager to steal its name?

I know the trick you're relying on is using your personal definition of cash to suit your end goal. The fact that BCH has smaller transaction fees does not render it fitting of the definition of "cash" while BTC is thereby rendered "not cash." Either they are both "cash", or they both aren't.

You lost your battle in the hearts and the minds of the community a long time ago, as well as on paper.

Please do the right thing and change the name of your coin.

Look in the mirror.  BTC isn't Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system.
The Bitcoin white paper doesn't specify a ticker symbol.
BTC has no white paper.

Do you realize that BCH has no white paper as well, then, by your own definition ?
And you forgot the piece of software (which contains the BTC ticker) that came with the white paper.
But ... This is barely an omission. ::)

BTC isn't "Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" by your definition of "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system".
This is subjective.

Stating the obvious won't obfuscate the fact that you try to blur the lines as much as you can, so uneducated newcomers end up buying BCH thinking they are buying "Bitcoin".

Me: Why isn't BTC bitcoin then?

You: Because it has high fees that prohibit it from truly acting as "cash."

Me: But BCH also has fees.

You: Yes but they are very low.

Me: But it still has fees. They both have fees. Just because one coin has lower fees than the other does not mean that one is cash while the other is not. You are making an arbitrary distinction and using it as a semantics-based talking point which fails to detract from the fact that the broader community (users, merchants, exchanges and miners) has decided Bitcoin (BTC) is Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is an altcoin.

If you wanted to appear more honest you would concede the fact that the community does not accept your premise, nor is it likely to in the future, and you would rename your coin so it is no longer possible for others to accuse you of engaging in deceptive practices.

Quoting myself, would love to hear Roger answer.

There is nothing fair and square about this.

You bought the domain through an opportunity and instead of selling the domain back at a higher price - which most 2nd grade domain resellers like yourself do - you cashed in big time by creating your own shitcoin.

Okay, maybe there is nothing "wrong" in what you decide to do with your property. But you are never going to not be a thieving immoral opportunistic scumbag.

And all those folks that you dupe into buying your shitcoin instead of BTC itself, they will come back to dump your shitcoin by the masses and with it, your ass as well.

Sure you did. :P
Core is all over the place, including:

https://i.imgur.com/iMgthlo.png

I see both shitforks share the same narrative - we are better than our daddy the king.
Pfff, if it wasn't for daddy BTC, you wouldn't exist in the first place.
You owe everything that you are to BTC - never ever forget that - have some respect or just:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlmsK59ncHs

It's Christopher Williams, relax..

Deep breaths Roger...is this really worth your mental health?

I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay.  I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.

Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, (https://lesperanceassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mr.-Vers-Sentencing.pdf) detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers.

Nice find... and an interesting read.  Seems he got off reasonably lightly given what he'd done.  Also seems the thought he had a history of issues that meant he doesn't think rules should apply to him. 

It all fits.

It is all fun and games until you get punched in the mouth.

That jail time was his first lesson but guys like Roger ain't fast learners.

Most people here likely do not have the tech chops to know whether BTC or BCH keeps more strictly to satoshis principles or not.

Either way it would have been sensible and correct when one was trading at 10x the price to make sure people understood that the majority of people considered BTC as just bitcoin and never attempted to confuse by  calling any other variant bitcoin alone.  Even if you believed the majority were wrong to support BTC as bitcoin since it could result in losses for those that were not familiar with the entire debacle.

I think if it is claimed that bch keeps more to satoshi principles than btc it should have just been called bitcoinclassic.

If people believe his intention was to mislead others into believing the majority considered bch as the original bitcoin and the one with the most abundant support then that could be seen as red trust worthy.

I do not think it looks good for bitcoin though that one of the most avid and original supporters of bitcoin has glowing red trust with such over blown terminology it looks very negative for the entire movement. A better wording could be something like.

Roger believes that bch holds more true to satoshis original principles and in his exuberance showed extreme lack of care that lead other people to understand that this was a view held by the majority which is was not. So caution is adviced when dealing with roger.

I think a big scam warning header on his threads looks pretty fucking bad for bitcoin jesus too.

Going forward it is important to recognize that the majority consider btc to be bitcoin. If that were ever to change in the future then there could be argument for revisiting this but I think bitcoinclassic is a better name. Looking at the support for both that looks unlikely to happen any time soon anyway.

There is certainly a case to argue this board is losing its free speech if you dare to approach the wrong set of people or topics. That should not be the case and this must be closely observed.

There is also possible cause for concern regarding some of the other projects roger has supported. This may be due to lack of research but even so you leave yourself open to criticism if you openly support projects where there is strong evidence the project is scammy or that any scammers are part of the leadership.

Since the influence and scale of roger is considerable then it is likely his actions were perhaps scrutinized and the reaction was stronger than if it had been an average member, on a personal level his actions seem LESS deliberately untrustworthy than many of the people choosing to leave him red trust. This statement can be validated by carefully reading this thread and looking for the names of those insisting they paint him red.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0


I think bitcoin.com can be used to promote bch, but it should make clear the majority of people consider BTC to be BITCOIN and both are clearly mentioned.

We don't like the projects (alts) he became involved with, but he was obviously once a very big force behind bitcoin and contributed to bringing a lot of attention to the trustless decentralized arena we are trying to develop. It is sad to see him given red tags by documented deliberate scammers. At least have some people with zero instances of observable financially motivated wrong doing leave the red . This is bitcoin jesus we are dealing with. He should only be nailed up by those with clean hands if it must be done.

We don't know if bch or btc holds more closely to satoshis principles. It seems there is strong argument for both sides. If objectively from a more trained and capable point of view roger is correct then we understand your frustration. Still it is important to make others aware this is not the view held by the majority of investors or miners at this time even if you can prove it is true. Since the new influx of crypto supporters should be protected from any misconceptions, we don't want them instantly put off if they feel they have been lead into making a mistake.

Surely either variant is way better than what the mainstream currently use.

Doesn't look that bad when he isn't jesus anymore. The look fits perfectly for a scammer he is.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Roger, that you have not sold this account or the account has not been taken over by someone else, so in that regard, I understand that you have been around these parts quite longer than me, and even that you have been in bitcoin and promoting it longer than me, even though you got all pissy in around 2014 or 2015 or so when you could not get along with core developers and you began to both take matters too fucking personal and you started to assert that you deserved some kind of bigger voice and respect than you really did deserve.  So who knows what the fuck was going on with you - if you were always broken or if you became broken (and then more broken with the passage of time). 

Your situation is NOT really that much different from Vitalik or other whiners who felt that they could not get their way with bitcoin and then went into attack mode.  Sure, you are one of the famous disgruntled fucks, and you seem smart enough to be able to figure out ways to protect yourself (at least financially), even though you are likely pissing away a whole lot of value in your pursuits to attack bitcoin - and probably at the same time attempting to profit (or at least not lose value) and to maintain your psychological soundness (to the extent that is even possible anymore, because you do seem like you are morphing more and more into a BIGGER nutjob with the passage of time.

I understand, Roger, that you have a lot of people here bashing on you, and I really don't like to devolve into personal attacks, unless either I have been attacked personally, or maybe the person on the other side has really devolved into such personal peacocking or made these kinds of topics about them.  You surely have become guilty of this second part over the years, and you seem to have little to no couth when it comes to a devolving morality while rationalizing away regarding your behavior(s).   

Probably, the best that any of us can hope is that you do not mislead, deceive or damage too many innocent folks along the way.  Surely, there are some of your followers who deserve to be hurt because of either their greed, dumbness, vindictiveness and lack of refinement.   Some folks will learn along the way, yet like I mentioned, I remain concerned, moreso, about the innocent ones that you are luring into your nonsensical "baby saving" propaganda.

I have a question for MemoryDealers.

What's the deal with the @bitcoin twitter account? Why did it recently go from supporting BCH to supporting BTC?

I too am curious if the account was sold or seized.

I originally read it in the late 90's, and read it again just now.
It has everything to do with safe 0-conf transactions and things like the Silk Road.
The very things I've been very supportive from day one.  I even helped fund and implement the very first wide spread privacy tool for BTC (Cash Shuffle inside the blockchain.info wallet that was eventually destroyed by the full blocks), and that's why I'm now busy funding and implementing things like cashshuffle.com (http://cashshuffle.com) for BCH today.

I've never sold a single domain name in my life.  I've only purchased them, and then used them.

That shows just how little you know about the situation.  I didn't create Bitcoin Cash.  In fact,  I didn't start promoting it until many months later, after a bunch of economic illiterates managed block segwit 2X.  I openly stated that if Segwit 2x was blocked,  I would devote all of my time and resources to promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Now the BTC maxis are just jealous because BTC lost one of its very first and best proponents when I started working on Bitcoin Cash.

  I'm sorry you have been tricked into thinking that BTC is "Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system".
Please consider reading the white paper again and ask yourself what it is describing.
I'm still supporting the very same coin I got involved with in 2011.  The BTC camp are working on something else.  They have managed to keep the Bitcoin name as used in popular culture,  but it doesn't have the same characteristics as the Bitcoin I started working on in 2011.  That Bitcoin is now called Bitcoin Cash.

Good job believing and spreading the government's character assassination tactics.  If there had been pipe bombs, they surely would have charged me with it.

Historically the majority have believed all sorts of stupid and wrong things.  The majority previously thought the sun goes around the earth, and they literally forbade Galileo from pointing out the truth.  This sounds a lot like the censored Bitcoin forums today.


I don't think anyone is confused by this point.  We have entire articles on the site explaining exactly what the history is, and where we are today on this topic.


But we do know:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw)

Just imagine how frustrated Galileo must have felt.

The original owner had been involved in Bitcoin since 2009, and agrees that Bitcoin Cash is the version of Bitcoin he got involved in.
Unfortunately he needed money for other things, and the new owner of the ID clearly has a different opinion.

Something is off. He didn't sell it to you, strangely.

That's strange. Way too strange. Knowing you, I am pretty sure you are lying again.

If the original pro-bcash owner needed money... he should have come to you first. You would pay the most buck for that account. But for some strange reason, he sold it to a pro-bitcoin guy. Nope. It didn't happen like that. Doesn't make sense.

The other possibility which makes more sense is...

That original owner was you and the shit is falling apart on your side. You had to let it go. Is this a Bingo?

https://i.imgur.com/uPmlZHV.gif

You are cornered Roger. Your 2nd lesson is about to blow up in your face.

You are not Galileo.

You took a pre-existing concept, slightly tweaked it, and now go around insisting it is the original thing.

Nobody has a problem with you starting an altcoin. Its the whole pretending its the "Original Bitcoin" thing that we don't care for. Its not working for Craig Wright. Its not going to work for you either.

We don't care about your particular definition of the word "cash," which is entirely subjective. Galileo's beliefs were rooted in scientific principle. Yours are rooted in ego.

Anyway theymos you better start censoring all this unseemly guff.

There is no such thing as safe 0-conf transactions. Satoshi made that clear from the beginning:


Merchants can still choose to accept 0-conf transactions with Bitcoin if they want to. As you are well aware of, there a plenty of double-spends happening on the BCH chain: https://doublespend.cash

I really don't understand why you are so against having multiple layers. How can you expect to replace an entire monetary system on a single layer? Even Hal seemed to understand that 9 years ago:


I know that block size is a delicate subject for BCH users but you are making serious trade-offs by increasing it. Everybody should be able to run their own node. Not just 'to help the network' but to be able to verify your own transactions (instead of depending on a third party explorer), increase your personal privacy and giving you a choice when it comes to development updates.  You continuously mention how much you value economic freedom and yet you are completely missing the bigger picture by merely focussing on fast and cheap payments. There are dozen of altcoins that are faster and cheaper than Bitcoin (and BCH) yet they are hardly being used. They are (including BCH) all lacking the components that truly matter.

If bitcoin.com was honest about its belief in a 'better' Bitcoin and advocated for BCH whilst acknowledging that most others do not feel that way that would be fine.

It's the weasel words and trickery that justifies the kicking it gets.

There's a decent chance someone's very first introduction to Bitcoin will result in confusion and deception because of bitcoin.com. That is the definition of untrustworthy.

:D  I can assure you that NO ONE is jealous of "losing you" to your scammy bcash shitcoin.  However, I guess believe whatever makes you happy Ver.

We entirely agree. This forum and your own forum must not prevent people from presenting their views if they can support them with a credible argument. We agree this forum is actually starting to become an echo chamber on certain issues. I do not think you should be prevented from presenting your case. It is unlikely theymos is directly censoring you since he seems open to allowing any one to present output that does not break the rules. Other admin although are certainly not as open to free speech and we have witnessed this greatly of late. Theymos himself seems to just be interested in keeping the peace and if that means sub layers of control get to abuse their positions he is willing to look the other way UNTIL it gets too blatant or effects some members he does care about.

I think the problem is as we stated. You "may"  be correct that bch upholds more firmly satoshis original principles.  However, because the majority (even if they are wrong) consider bitcoin to be BTC at this point,  then it is important not to add any confusion when they are first becoming involved with the decentralized trustless movement. Confusion could and has contributed to new investors losing money and feeling  (rightly or wrongly is certainly up for debate) betrayed . That is why there are these accusations and red marks on your account.

It could just be that you believe (perhaps correctly) that bitcoin (the original set of principles) lives on truly as BCH and not BTC,  so when you called BCH bitcoin, and called BTC bitcoin core... then you were not being dishonest at all. You believe this to be the case. So that on it's own does not require red trust.

I think the issue is that new members unaware were duped into buying bch believing it was BITCOIN as the majority see it ( even if they are wrong) which has financial consequences.

So as we said.

1. the warnings should correctly state what happened NOT brand you as an intentional scammer.
2. The red trust should certainly not be from those themselves that have scammed here in the past or tried to facilitate scamming for a price.

Now that you have made things more clear as to prevent new members not being confused. I think in future the red marks and red flags should be perhaps revisited to perhaps a low warning level.

I don't think it looks good for one of the most famous bitcoin proponents should have THIS PERSON IS A SCAMMER warning on his threads. The true story should be there and people can make up their own minds about your actions.

Honestly though, the people leaving you red tags are either proven scammers or scam facilitators. These should not even have positions on this boards trust system.

It is sad that the project the majority consider bitcoin lost one it's more vocal and famous supporters. One could wonder where  a single project called bitcoin could have been if all the fragmentation of the original supporting group had not taken place.

Then again in life one must do what one thinks is correct.

Surely though you must still consider btc > fiat

Even if you consider bch > btc

?

Perhaps there is room for both projects anyway. I certainly don't think that either side should be sniping at the other. Fighting against each other is not the way.

Sort of like "hey we are bitcoin original, since we feel it essential to hold closer to the original design of satoshi for these reasons..", or "Hey we are BTC we feel we can improve the design in a few ways".

We support bitcoin and hold BTC and some BCH.  We also hold a few other projects that seem to have great developers and very interesting potential.

It is perhaps not a case " of there can be only one".

Bitcoin cash does not seem to get your message across as much as if you had called it bitcoin classic or bitcoin original... or something like that to demonstrate what distinguishes it from btc and why it is essential people read and understand this before they decide if they want to go for one or the other or get a bit of both of them.

Anyway hope you get fair treatment from members that have any business being in positions of trust here.

A sensible and accurate message if they feel you must have red trust not screaming scammer. What can you expect from these morons (real scammers) that have taken over the systems of control of this board.

Most smart people refer to BCH as bcash.  It saves ambiguity.  Sure, bcash forked off from bitcoin on August 1, 2017, and since the bitcoin community did not follow bcash, therefore bcash became an altcoin, also known as shitcoin and also known as an attack vector against bitcoin.  Yes, bcash had goals to supplant bitcoin and to be recognized as bitcoin, but that did not happen... yet you continue on with your support of bcash as if it were bitcoin..

You seem to be living in a fantasy if you either believe that bcash is bitcoin because there is no fucking way that is true, even based on your conclusory assertions that you made in your above inserted video from March 2018.  Furthermore, bcash is NOT going to become bitcoin by luring bitcoin's network effects over to it.  It seems that too many people recognize bcash as a scam and even  centralized in various ways with a small number of supporters (leaders) like you, so it seems to be a very pie in the sky endeavor to believe that bitcoin's network effects are going to migrate over to bcash, absent some kind of cataclysmic happening.  And, none of us should be employing our investment (or support) strategies based on cataclysmic happenings that are quite unlikely to happen.

That is exactly what happened.  He did offer it to me. I thought, and still think the price was too high, so he sold it to someone else who lied to him about his views on myself and Bitcoin Cash.

Then you got bamboozled again.

Nice. Very nice. This is even better than my theory.

First Karpeles, then Craig and who knows whoever else fooled you in the past.

Not just that somebody outbid you, he also fooled the owner. (and you) This is what happens when you go to war against a much bigger community than yours. Now you know, no trade you'll ever do is gonna be safe.

That is an often repeated lie.  Take a look at the site.  There are basically ZERO successful double spends taking place.

This is another often repeated lie.  I have ZERO problem with multiple layers.  In fact, I think it is a good idea.
I just happen to think that it was an incredibly stupid and reckless idea to strangle the base layer before any of those second layer solutions are ready.
That's why BTC has such low market share today, and going lower.

I have zero problem with this.  Just don't strangle the base layer before the secondary layers are ready.



This is absolutely an argument worth having!  The big blockers were objectively winning that argument in terms of online debate, and hash rate on the network when Theymos decided to censor all discussion of it.  If the small blocker arguments are correct, Theymos resorting to censorship has severely undermined them.

https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
https://news.bitcoin.com/former-mod-explains-r-bitcoin-censorship-and-why-he-was-removed/

This argument goes both ways.  What about the people who buy BTC thinking that it is the Bitcoin that was described in the white paper and became popular to begin with?  In my opinion they are clearly being duped, and I've put for strong factual arguments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw) that that is the case, while the BTC camp has mainly resorted to censorship and name calling to support their case that BTC is Bitcoin.

Agreed!  That would have been the case if Segwit 2X or any of the other block size increases hadn't been blocked by censorship and social media attacks.



Of course!

Agreed again!
Let's grow the size of the crypto pie, not fight over the percentage of the current sized crypto pie.
Unfortunately drastically changing the roadmap of BTC and limiting the block size set back all of crypto currency adoption by nearly half a decade![/quote]

Sounds accurate, and a good plan to me, but it also seems clear which one of those two coins have a stronger claim to the word Bitcoin in the name.

As do I.  Any smart businessman would.

If the name had ended up being Bitcoin Original, I think the pro BTC camp would complain even more than they do about the name Bitcoin Cash,  and they would complain an equal amount if it was called Bitcoin Classic.   I think the real reason they complain so loudly about Bitcoin Cash is that they know it has a real chance of surpassing BTC's market share, and merchant adoption.  There are already more physical shops around the world accepting BCH than BTC.  They fight against it because they fear it will hurt their investment in BTC.

Thanks for such a level headed post! We need more of those on the internet, and less name calling.

Hey Roger, you do realize that you are in agreement with the No1 nominated troll bitcointalk has ever seen, right?
Not that it would matter to your - already - self destroyed reputation, just saying.

When BCH ATL? When zero satoshi? ;D

You ain't winning shit.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EExeXeUW4AgtLIc.jpg

This is your lead dev.

Ver,
Just accept that BCH is an altcoin and brand it that way, leave Bitcoin alone. No one will have any problem with you.

Nominated by the same crew that are trying to defame and give one of bitcoins earliest proponents misleading and over stated red trust in branding him a scammer.

Nominated by the same people that when challenged CAN NOT present 1 post where I have presented a central point that they can debunk nor demonstrate is incorrect. That is their trolling.

Nominated by the same crew of people that are guilty themselves of scamming and willing to facilitate scamming for a price.

Nominated by the same crew of people that have manipulated and gamed theymos's broken systems of control to try and create and echo chamber here, that they use for their own personal gain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0


How can memory dealers be agreeing with a set of questions?? he is giving his opinion. We are merely suggesting reasons some may use to validate the need for leaving him a warning on his account.  

It is apparent that Roger Ver has a STRONG POINT in that any person that seeks to have a fair debate on "CERTAIN TOPICS" even if they bring observable instances and hard evidence to support their claims, are at times, censored and shouted down by a bunch of rabble. If the rabble can not defeat your arguments or look to have had their own arguments debunked they will then seek to:

1/ give you red trust
2/ seek to have you banned
3/ claim you are a troll
4/ get their moderator pals to delete your posts
5/ enlist hoards of mornic noobs (like you) to scream support for their debunked arguments


If pushed and pushed on a point until the above tactics fail they will

1/ claim the opinions they spout in opposition to your views require no reasoning or to be substantiated in anyway
2/ claim they are no longer interested
3/ claim the truth does not interest them
4/ claim it is good when the innocent are punished
5/ change the very definition of words to their opposite meanings


In light of the above points. We are saying that Roger Ver aka memory dealers may have some VALID POINTS that can not be dismissed out of hand just because you happen to believe BTC is the real bitcoin  ( that could or could not be true and does not impinge on the validity of his other points).

The people currently leaving him red trust are PROVEN scammers and have displayed multiple instances of financially dangerous behaviors.
You are siding with PROVEN SCAMMERS - this is an accurate statement but still does not null you other points (although you are obviously unable to process information at a level we could even think of being able to rely on)


I think his comments have demonstrated he is following his beliefs based on principles he truly believes in. That to us in this instance does NOT warrant him having a message screaming he is a scammer. If NON SCAMMING members here believe he needs a warning on his account it should be accurate.
I don't think a person with a huge amount of bitcoin or crypto wealth would be deliberately trying to scam people. The returns on such behaviors would be net negative.

We also think calling every alt a shitcoin is quite foolish. Some projects have developers that have created some very interesting designs. We tend to stick to developers that are also trustworthy and honest. That is one area for improvement for roger in the future. Although again investing in projects without doing your DD can not perhaps be reason for a scam tag.

Let him present his views and then  analyse them by objective standards and through fair debate. No more branding people with some bullshit term like TROLL or SCAMMER and trying to invalidate their statements and points without objective analysis. That is bogus and sub optimal for the entire movement.

Try learning what a debate is.

This board operates more like an uneducated mob than a community of individuals looking to collaborate and contribute to building an end to end decentralized trustless arena.

Every argument and point should be analysed and debated on its own merits. Not dismissed out of hand on the basis of some title that "some" members feel appropriate.

We have been as fair as possible. Better not to have war between the 2 projects. He should stop perhaps being so negative about theymos and we should stop screaming scammer at him and rather engage in sensible debate. To those claiming we are negative about theymos himself, you are wrong.

Would be better if theymos and roger have a sensible open discussion on the amicable route forwards for both projects. No point having further debate on the designs since that has been thrashed out and there seems no agreement. Just better to discuss how both projects can move forward without causing friction that hampers both sides. A treaty if you want to call it that.

bch says we appreciate btc believes they can make some changes to improve in certain areas we wish them well
btc says we appreciate that bch believes they should stick more to the original design we wish them well

more highlighting the positives of your own approach rather than focusing on the negatives of the other approach.

People will likely end up holding a bit of both and using them RATHER than fiat eventually (along with a few of their fav alts)- what's the problem?  Let's co-operate. We hold several alts and never feel the need to drum up fighting over the different design ideas. It is counter productive for the entire sphere.

I don't think being so hostile to roger on this board is productive when looking at the bigger picture for BTC. People tend to become negative about you when you attack them as visa versa.

We still trust in theymos to a large degree, even if he is in our opinion fucking up this board with merit and other experimental designs. Still we look at his individual assessment of other issues and topics here and find we are often in strong agreement with him, and especially his political views. He seems on a personal level a "fair person" so roger needs to keep in mind theymos is doing what he feels is correct also. People simply will disagree at times.

Less hostility from both sides = better chance of success for each.

https://images2.imgbox.com/12/62/7ZldIFg4_o.png

There is nothing to debate.

Excuse me, how can you debate with a compulsive liar? ::)

LOL

Yape! Demonstration is very clear looking at your profile reputation 🤪

Sorry TOAA, you have nothing left to prove here. In fact, this topic is not about you at all.

Ver does not have a ground to argue here with valid logic. The false impression he gives about the support and stuffs about his altcoin (BCH), is all lie. Not many people care much about BCH. If anyone is holding it then they are holding it with the hope that some day the price will spike and they will sell it for Bitcoin.

I see that self-made millionaire 'Roger Red' is back to face his arch enemy 'Terrible Theymos'
Oh it will be Battle of The Ages
RR vs TT

 

Did he (Roger) admit yet that he was talking about wrong topic and apologized to theymos for spreading a lie?


Watch it from here: https://youtu.be/hU7343Ji8GI?t=233

His couple moments were not enough or it was just a part of all those lies.

He still thinks the same, as he explained himself



https://i.imgur.com/UKzNvIM.png

Thanks for proving our points.

You do not present a central point of ours that was debunked via a debate?

You rather rely on a bunch of debunked statements that a bunch of PROVEN SCAMMERS and their supporters have plastered on our profile in the form of red trust.

This is  sub optimal and to be honest it is completely net negative and damaging to this movement. It only serves to mask the truth.

This is why you can not possibly rely on the trust score (on this old system) and that is why we entirely understand and sympathize with roger vers points. The people here are not interested in the TRUTH they are interested only in pushing the narrative that supports their own selfish gain.

You do not have the technical understanding to objectively demonstrate BCH does not hold to the original satoshi principles more than BTC does. Or do you? then why not offer RV a chance for you to debunk his points in public?

That is speculation however probable you believe that is. We speculate most holding BTC are only waiting to sell for 100k usd levels and will unload in droves when that happens. That again is speculation.

Let roger present his points in debate. If you can clearly debunk them then that is fine. Screaming scammer does not invalidate ALL of his points. You need to objectively debunk each one. If he repeats his points that you have debunked as being true then only at that point can you call him untrustworthy.

Yes that video termed "theymos is the worst thing to happen to bitcoin" is indeed ill advised and inflamatory.  This kind of thing benefits nobody. Theymos has political views that we mostly support and seems reasonably fair. To try to brand him as the worst thing ever for bitcoin is certainly going to prevent people from treating you fairly. This needs to be addressed by Roger. Theymos also seems to be a person that is not hostile in an aggressive manner and not overly emotional. Better to have a measured and civil public debate. Then if no clear winner and no agreement just go separate ways and focus on the success of your own projects and leave the other to get on with theirs.

Our point of coming to this thread is only to say that each person must have fair chance of objective debate. Not instantly be dismissed just because a tiny proportion of members (some proven scammers) want to fix a certain label to your account.

Get some FAIR AND HONEST people on DT then we can start to perhaps have some faith in their statements and judgement. Even then each person should investigate for themselves.

Where are mikey, eddie, actymyname, dark_star, and some of the others we have previously noticed actually care to give some thought before arriving at judgement? although we disagree with some of their points we find they will offer some attempt to justify their decisions. What do these members say about the situation?

Certainly though roger should change that video title. That is pretty bad considering theymos has provided or watched over this forum for many years and given millions of people the chance to learn and benefit from the projects here.  I'm sure if theymos was really this bad he would have lost a lot more support by now. Most people here feel he seems a fair and decent person.
I suspect any unfair treatment you have had here roger would not be directly at the hands of theymos. Indirectly though theymos is guilty of allowing innocent members punished, this he certainly need to improve on.

Come on though roger you can't expect objectively fair treatment here if you make a video like that about theymos it is going to inflame the entire thing. Rather just present observable instances you believe are wrong that theymos or this board has done towards you or bitcoin and leave it at that. Keep though to what you can prove is true. Saying he is the worst thing ever for bitcoin is certainly not sensible. If possible though just focus on your own project and not waste energy on being negative about btc.

I'm sure I have seen theymos defend you roger when people have made extreme negative remarks about you. I could be wrong but I think he tries to be balanced about the entire disagreement.

Then again I thought roger already said sorry about that video? so why we bringing it up again?

Wait, so all this butthurt because theymos deleted something from Reddit?

Holy shit, that's some next level cryptocuntery.

Good thing that he apologized to theymos however I see his attitude never changed. He changed his direction to the flag warning visible from the guest profile.

Now Google takes the hit. He made Google the culprit because they did not give him the right topic in his search 🤪

By the way Roger, use incognito from now on. Lesson learnt, isn't it?

---

Our!
You mean you and Ver made a joint venture to create another shitcoin?

TOAA, in the early time (http://archive.is/tJebc#selection-335.4-353.1) I really wanted to help you but it seems all my try wasted. Sorry brother, people do not take your words seriously at all.

https://i.imgur.com/Ivx7nMI.jpg

And it is well known what Judas did when he realized his mistake.

In bitcointalk (FTFY)

I mean this:


I wasn't aware that Roger Galileo is holding a grudge for something as petty as this and is using it as a crutch for his ailing totally-not-a-copy-pasta-shitcoin.

^ My bad, sorry. I thought you were talking about the recent deletion from the Russian section.

---

Roger Galileo - sounds nice 🤪

Sorry for claiming a persons points deserve objective debate and not to be written off on the basis of some " tag" applied by proven scammers.
That is clearly our central point.

People only need read our words and then independently verify them. If they are untrue then you can dismiss them. If they are true though......

We ask for no trust or belief. Check each statement independently and then if it is true = accept  if it is false = dismiss.

This is how each members should be treated here. It is the only fair way.

Same for roger ver or theymos. Each persons words need to be analysed and objectively verified.

We would ask some more "objective" and "non scamming" DT members to comment on the situation.  Let's bring some semi credible people to the conversation.

Roger should take NOTE that theymos is opposing his flag. This is a measure of theymos's character even after being attacked. Although he seemingly only really gets involved with members he feels are important. Others he leaves to the wolves he has unintentionally birthed via the merit and trust systems.

Members should note we are not opposing or supporting at this time. Only that he deserves to have his points debated and debunked not just dismissed on the basis of what some proven scammers have labelled him.

LoL he was fooled again!

I lost the count how many times he got fooled?

https://images2.imgbox.com/e9/78/PcpxO6Xk_o.jpg


https://images2.imgbox.com/ec/be/D9L1prk4_o.jpg

GOOGLE FOOLED ME!!!

What it comes down to is this:

Bitcoin is still a nascent technology and much of the world has little to no understanding of it. They find the idea of cryptocurrency to be confusing, and introducing multiple "Bitcoins" into the marketplace only makes it more so.

Continuing to insist that Bitcoin (BTC) is not Bitcoin and some other coin is is a tactic used by scammers to sell their own coin. Its deception. It does not matter what one's philosophical motivation behind doing so is, the end result is the same: people get duped into buying something other than what they intended to buy, and the "duper" benefits.

Whatever singular metric Roger wants to point to in order to make the case that BCH is more popular than BTC is overshadowed by BTC's staggering advantage in market cap, hash rate and transactions per day. It absolutely dwarfs BCH in terms of real world, every day usage, and all other altcoins along with it.

There is no competition between the two. There is Bitcoin, and then there are a few altcoins piggybacking on its good name.

Of course there might be room for BCH to carve out a niche for itself in the future. It would probably go a lot further in this regard if Roger didn't keep insisting it was the Bitcoin.

Let me know when BCH processes half the average number of transactions that Bitcoin does, and then we'll talk. Right now this number is 15%. Let's talk again when its 50%.

Don't tempt him by setting arbitrary figures.

They'll start their own weather app posting whatever the hell the bsv one is posting too with extra knobs on.

Black humor. ;D

Bitcoin is Bitcoin and is "BTC"

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash and is "BCH"

That is effectively the message being given out on the Ver exchange albeit with "Bitcoin Core" being used.

Most of the community do not buy the argument put forward that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. No, Bitcoin is Bitcoin and "Bitcoin Cash" is a fork.

In other words, it's an altcoin.

Don't be so ridiculous about the supposed censorship allegations.  You are not being stopped from propagating your bullshit nonsense in this forum as long as you engage in such bullshit propaganda in the right threads. I doubt that any of your posts in this thread are going to get deleted based on your attempting to get your stupid-ass deceptive bcash arguments out, unless you engage in obvious breaches of the forum's rules.. but if you are merely attempting to argue substance, then no one is stopping you, as long as you are doing it in threads in which such topic is within the range of the thread.  If you are spamming or trolling threads that would be a different story, and likely in need of deletion or even suspending or banning account holders who persistently engage in such spamming and trolling of threads that have a topic other than their post contents.




Pie in the sky speculation.

You have no way of having any solid sense of if BTC's growth has been limited based on NOT increasing the block size (beyond the blocksize increases that the adoption of segwit has contributed/allowed)





I agree that the smart thing is to diversify, but with your purported passionate belief in bcash, it seems a bit ironic, if not even hypocritical that you continue to invest in bitcoin in any way..

Maybe you can describe your allocation to help with this?  So for example, if you believe that bcash has a 90% chance of surpassing bitcoin, then it would be logical (and likely less hypocritical) that you would be invested 90% bcash and 10% bitcoin.... So maybe clarification is needed regarding this aspect, especially since you remain such a ready, willing and able outspoken proponent of bcash being the real bitcoin.



We will see how it plays out, but it seems that you are engaging in real fantasy thinking with your above assertion.  Largely people are going to realize that bcash is the sham coin that does not hold its value and operates based on a lot of shenanigans and copycat-isms rather than adding any actual value to the space.  


Hopefully, those "shops" accepting bcash are smart enough to convert out of bcash and into BTC before they get r3ckt, and to the extent that anyone in the BTC camp is fighting against bcash it is because bcash remains a kind of snake oil rather than the real deal, and likely there is some hope in the bitcoin camp that not too many innocent people are deceived by such snake-oil realities when the thing that they bought does not hold its value (unless they happen to be able to get out on a bcash pump or something like that).  Of course, I doubt that many folks in the btc camp give too many shits about bcash supporters who go into bcash willingly and knowingly and end up getting screwed because they actually had believed that bcash is the real bitcoin.

Reading your post... well, you do have a point.

With Ver backing MtGox when all those rumours were swirling around gave users false sense of security and many did not try to withdraw their crypto when they had the chance and many unfortunately sent their crypto there thinking the website was safe and secure. Many people became victims directly as a result of Ver backing MtGox.

Don't be ridiculous in your assertion that less hostility is an appropriate way forward.  Bcash deserves the vast majority of the hostility that it receives.  It's acts largely as an attack vector and a pump and dump vehicle.  From the start, those nutjobs were not inclined to really attempt to improve upon bitcoin.  They were largely motivated by pump and dump motivations (such as avoiding covert asic boost) and ways to attempt to undermine bitcoin's built in difficulties to changeability (many of them asserted that they wanted bitcoin to be more easily changed - which would have largely destroyed bitcoin in terms of resilience towards corporate attacks/dominance that would have become bitcoin's fate as merely another payment mechanism rather than real censorship resistant sound money).

In other words, there is no reason to give an inch to attack vectors.  Maybe their pump and dump is somewhat innocent in that it is the "capitalistic way" and allowable in the freemarket to attempt to make money however you can, but the ongoing attempts towards attacking bitcoin remains the much more egregious aspect of bcash and other crypto projects that engage in such behaviors which justifies much of the employment of hostility of bitcoiners towards such historical or ongoing attack vectors.

Setting aside the arguments regarding MemoryDealers' character, the scammer flag is not a correct use of the system, and should not be active. Supporters of the flag affirmed that this statement was true:

Where is the written contract? Who are the victims? Hypothetically, how could MemoryDealers make the victims of the act whole or receive their forgiveness?

The strongest case for a scammer flag AFAICT is when bitcoin.com (MemoryDealers' responsibility) was set up in a way which could've confused people into thinking that they were buying BTC when they were actually buying BCH. But you need to identify specific victims so that MemoryDealers could hypothetically say, "Oh damn, you're right. Here's some compensation for the mixup." If you just throw out a vague statement of, "Confusing information existed, so someone could've been scammed into buying BCH," then reconciliation is impossible. Scammer flags are for extremely clear cases with obvious victims, not cases which are impossible to definitively resolve due to political divisions and vague claims.

Oftentimes MemoryDealers expresses the opinion that BCH more accurately follows the original vision of Bitcoin than BTC. This is just an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, and it should not enter into the trust system at all. On several occasions, I think that he's crossed a line where he's implied that when people say/think "Bitcoin", they mean BCH, even in contexts where this is not actually the probable meaning; this perhaps reasonably contributes to a type-1 flag, as do many of the other things mentioned in this thread such as the MtGox incident, the bc.i doxxing, the spreading of misinformation, supporting CSW, etc.

Fair enough that you are highlighting misconceptions regarding single metrics, but also any meaningful comparison discussion would also consider something like the seven network effects that had been outlined by Trace Mayer:

 (https://twitter.com/tracemayer/status/934672438385954818?lang=en):


>>>>>The Seven Network Effects of Bitcoin: 1. Speculation 2. Merchants 3. Consumers 4. Security 5. Developers 6. Financialization 7. World Reserve Settlement Currency<<<<<<

Within those seven network effects, you kind find a lot of sub-metrics, too, and help to assess both the relative status or movement(s) in the status of one project to another.  All coins with any kind of price are going to have some of these, and I would not even expect deception coins, like bcash, to disappear anytime soon, so over the next 10 to 50 years we are going to see various coins and projects that build some of their network effects and might even be considered as competitors to bitcoin; however, so far, we don't see any coins or projects that come even close to bitcoin's various fundamentals, even when we attempt to measure how they are playing out, in terms of network effects.

Sensible and courteous reply. Imagine you took the time to research and structure such clear insight into all matters here.

You seem to be directly inline with what we have said here on this core issue. If we were a merit source then your clear and correct insight is likely the only post (other than our own) that deserves merit and we would have given you some.

The important point is: He may believe (rightly or wrongly) bitcoin evolved to what BCH is today as a result of BTC violating or not following certain satoshi principles. Therefore that rightly or wrongly is his GENUINE opinion he believes bch should be called "bitcoin". However, it is highly probable and sensible to conclude that the vast majority were seeking BTC when trying to purchase "bitcoin" and would feel betrayed or even scammed if they ended up with a variant they were not intending to hold.

More irresponsible (not foreseeing the implications of not making it 100% clear)  than scamming.

This matter should also not AUTOMATICALLY invalidate any other unrelated points that he wishes to make in future, although the above point may be part of any sensible debate.

The person RV (like it or not) is going to be historically very important in the trustless decentralized movement. Having  a big SCAMMER notices above his threads and scam tags giving misleading and over stated damning almost defaming remarks should be fixed to a lemon flag and sensible accurate descriptions in the trust feedback.

They should say " irresponsible actions that resulted in people purchasing bch rather than the btc they wanted"

It would be interesting though to see some kind of comparison chart matching btc and bch against KEY points and requirements of the original satoshi white paper.
It is also interesting that both sides seem to be making the same claims about each other in some areas like " it will lead to it being centralized and controlled by X"

The network effect (of both) would certainly flow with less friction if a truce could be negotiated for each side to just get on with their own project and seek out their own adoption.

It is also worrying to have proven scammers and scam facilitators screaming "scamming scumbag" regarding what would seem to be far less dangerous and self serving motives than they have shown willing to employ themselves. Also finding ways to shut down peoples free speech and ability to even conduct and objective debate without derailing with off topic irrelevant insults and false allegations. Reign these people in before they really do open this board to criticisms that will be impossible to deny. That would certainly damage btc and the entire movement.

Stick around theymos and start sorting the real enthusiasts from the self serving scum bags that have almost seized full control of merit/trust and even moderator positions.

We support your position on this matter and many other matters (not our own)

IF people are incorrectly supporting flags THEN REMOVE THEM FROM DT. Start to get the message across that if you consistently make poor judgement calls or engage reasoning that collapses under scrutiny then you are not fit for a trust position  (leaving aside the fact proven scammers should not be part of a trust system).  You should have done this with the old system also. SADLY you have grandfathered this kind of abuse into the system now. If you have more negs than + before the flagging system you still get a THIS IS A SCAMMER message on all of your threads.

This is very strange, when you consider we have a flagging system BECAUSE the old system was being clearly abused? makes zero sense and punishes a lot of innocent members.

Not necessarily true, many people got into bitcoin for two simple reasons "Decentralization and Security", your vision for Bitcoin goes exactly against these two features, I wonder who is going to be able to run a BCH full node in a couple years from now ? 

I do not completely discard the need of increasing block size at some point, but with current technology limitations, it only makes sense that we focus on off-chain scaling, there is no need to rush, those who want super fast and cheap transactions without bothering about both security and decentralization should use something else and leave bitcoin to those who don't want to compromise the two most important features of bitcoin.

Absolute FAIL -- again, JJG. It has been pointed out to you before that one of the central changes in the The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (you know- other than segwit itself) - was a modification to make the protocol easier to change in the future. This is BTC we're talking about, not BCH.

The way the big blockers see the issue, they (we) were saving the original properties of Bitcoin from the core devs' insane Raspberry Pi fetish.

I think it's a lot more than what you just said here.

What would you call a person who claims that Bitcoin = Bitcoin core and Bitcoin Cash, a shitcoin that is not more than 3 years old is the "Real Bitcoin"
He is busy misleading people on his bitcoin.com website into buying his shitcoin using the bitcoin name.

He totally deserves the negative tags

I like that. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.msg51440671#msg51440671) As far as I know, MemoryDealers never offered skabooboo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2835521.0) any form of compensation; not the BTC he thought he was buying, not a refund of the Euros he paid for them, not even so much as an almost-expired coupon for half-price french fries at Burger King.

You are full of shit, jbreher.... trying to act like you know something, and also engaging in both historical revisionism and also attempting present supposed benevolent goals of BIG blockers.

In the above quoted portion of my post, I was referring to the actual goal of BIG blockers to change the governance of bitcoin rather than having any actual technical concerns that those diptwats were trying to fix in bitcoin.

Regarding the supposed purpose of segregated witness, get over yourself, likely segwit does allow for easier abilities to build second layer solutions on bitcoin, but it is no way a change for the mere sake of change or a change that makes bitcoin easier to change.  You misleading fucktwat.  Segwit is backwards compatible so you don't even have to use it, as you know. 

Furthermore, segregated witness was passed, locked in and activated in August 2017 by overwhelming consensus, as you know and roger knows and jihan knows...

So get the fuck over your whining over something that has already happened and is largely done (and successful, too).. and not likely to be reversed. 

Either you want to be a part of bitcoin that includes segwit, or better yet, get the fuck out of here and go play around with your various bcash forks, whether the ABC version or the SV version... who fucking cares.. you can do all of the onchain transactions that you like with all of those lanes of highway that have been made available to you, Roger and the other purported BIG block believers.   ...

By the way, I recognized that neither you nor Roger are leaving because the goal(s) of neither of you is to actually attempt to build some kind of better bitcoin.  You and he would rather just whine about it, and also to engage in a variety of tactics to naysay bitcoin and to attack bitcoin in various ways, including spreading misinformation which seems to be a BIG blocker specialty (from a large number of the BIG blocker tards..).

I agree this is an incorrect use of the flag system. I never supported this flag as Lauda never demonstrated how they were personally harmed. I have removed my negative trust for Memory Dealers as apparently my feedback contained a factual inaccuracy anyway.

At the end of the day, nothing that happens on this forum is going to stop Roger from continuing to damage the credibility of bitcoin for his own financial gain, so why bother trying.

Since the deal didn't go through, can you share how much the original owner demanded for the account?

Technically the flag is still invalid unless skabooboo is Lauda's alt.

So bcasher sold out his beliefs to a higher bidder? Even when he had an option to sell it to you, presumably for just a bit less? Hope he at least got paid in BTC. Start building bridges back, China's funding won't last forever.

This is a great way of looking at it.

Look, for what it might be worth it is clear that the majority of people in the community see Ver as somebody who will do what he can to make money off the Bitcoin name but is happy to bite that fed him.

There is no question that Bitcoin made Ver and it took him from being a nobody with a recent criminal past and a recent jail sentence to a multi-millionaire. Why on earth he needed to create BCH with Wu and others just out of spite because he could not control the direction of Bitcoin is something many in the community will never forgive him for.