Bitcoin Forum

This has been talked about on this forum. Roger Ver has been (supposedly) misleading newbies, making them believe that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin:

A group of cryptocurrency enthusiasts is considering filing a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com owner Roger Ver, claiming he deliberately misleads novice investors by exploiting newbies’ confusion between bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, which forked off the original cryptocurrency in August 2017.

The potential class-action lawsuit is being organized by Twitter user @MoneyTrigz, who is the co-owner of Coindaily.co.

The lawsuit is being discussed in a Telegram chatroom called “Bitcoin.com lawsuit/victims,” which anyone can join. The chatroom already has more than 444 members, but it’s unclear how many of them will join the lawsuit.

Ver (also known as “Bitcoin Jesus”) was an early investor in bitcoin startups. He previously backed the original Bitcoin, but has since become an outspoken advocate of its derivative, Bitcoin Cash.
Critics: Ver Is Committing ‘Consumer Fraud’

According to Wallet Investor, Ver is deliberately misusing the “bitcoin” name on his website Bitcoin.com — a hub that sells bitcoin and bitcoin cash — to fool gullible investors into buying the wrong bitcoin.

“Considering the site is named Bitcoin.com and is also a hub for selling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Cloud mining contracts, this could potentially deceive novice investors and newcomers into buying the wrong Bitcoin.”

....

In the lawsuit chatroom on Telegram, the consensus of cryptocurrency evangelists is that Ver is an unethical “scumbag” who deserves to be sued into oblivion.

One person wrote, “He can rot in hell for that. Will lose noobs’ money sending to wrong addresses. Hurting Bitcoin in the process.”

Another forum member wondered, “How is he allowed to get away with this?”

Still another person summed up the group’s collective sentiment, “I support this movement. Roger Ver is a scumbag.”


More info: https://btcmanager.com/bitcoin-jesus-roger-ver-may-be-sued-for-defrauding-bitcoin-investors/

What do you think about? If he is finally sued and fined and/or put in jail again, I am not going to cry.

The moment I read your title I asked myself - "Hey where do I sign in to this"

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against him or BCH, but the way he advertise BCH is disgusting. I am not sure if this will pull off but he can't mislead people about it. I know that some people even get confused while sending between exchanges and sometimes they even mix the 2 and send to the wrong address.

I've seen/read actual cases where new buyers got confused several times already. Basically, he's selling counterfeit Bitcoins!

I feel that these kind of lawsuits will never get off the ground, or are doomed for failure if they ever get started. When nobody owns the Bitcoin trademark and there are thousands of forks getting generated which use the Bitcoin brand, it would be tough to point fingers at Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash.

I have no idea whether a lawsuit could be won against him, but I would certainly welcome it :P
How does he have the audacity to call that trash Bitcoin fork the real Bitcoin. Imagine that newbies send their freshly bought Bitcoins to a BCH address by mistake.

Could definitely see some of those mistakes happen due to newbies getting confused by false statements like that.

Are we sure this isn't an April fools joke sent 27 days late?   This must the capstone to the Bitcoin Cash bashing thugs. Anyone claiming they were mislead about Bitcoin Cash is either lying or not prepared to be involved in the investment world.

It would absolutely be tough to point any fingers at Roger Ver. I can't believe these people are blaming Roger's champion of Bitcoin Cash because the hype didn't take. They have a better case of blaming Bitcoin for being a hard fork target. Hahaha.

With how he handled things, that really warrants a class action lawsuit, though I doubt they would really get into it. What he did from a consumer's perspective is fraudulent and you can't defend that no matter how you put it in the court. Nobody owns bitcoin nor bitcoin cash, sure, but misleading people to buy your 'product' (technically, Roger Ver is the face of bitcoin cash and he advertises the hell out of it) while they wanted to buy another product is fraud. I hope that they really are enthusiastic in getting this thing off so as to put Ver behind bars. A once smart man lowered to the ranks of a scum.

There was evidence for Roger Ver deliberately misleading people on his website "bitcoin.com".

https://i.imgur.com/Q639aTC.jpg

Image link: https://i.imgur.com/Q639aTC.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/Ragnarly/status/988535641070751744

There is data which might support a lawsuit, also things like this: https://twitter.com/moneytrigz/status/989263151622426624

From using bitpay which compares bitcoin transaction fees to bitcoin cash fees everytime a payment is made, it seems there is a coordinated and massive effort to convince people to embrace bitcoin cash over bitcoin core. I'm surprised this is a topic which isn't discussed more often as the bias in favor of bch appears to be very strong.

Also don't forget the numerous sock puppet accounts posting bitcoin cash propaganda on this forum. Other coins would also appear to have advertising bots.

I never knew about this. Interesting post.

Considering Ver gave up his US citizenship and passport, in which jurisdiction exactly would he be served court papers and effectively be sued and held to account? Ver lives in Saint Kitts and Nevis (a small island in the West Indies in the Caribbean ocean), he is a citizen there.

I find this quite positive actually, hopefully it can put some rest to the aggressive conflict between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
Roger Ver seems to want to appear as a saint, but he's making many shady decisions that will mislead new people..

The way BCH is displayed as bitcoin in bitcoin.con is definitely misleading.He should be ashamed to do this and deserves for a lawsuit to be filled against him.

The first thing that needs to be done is for a complaint to be made via the "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" at WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organisation)

They make binding rulings/judgments on domain name disputes. If the team behind bitcoin.org make a complaint and that complaint is upheld then the bitcoin.com domain will be transferred therefore ownership and all dns etc will not be in the control of Roger Ver.

Before the fork and creation of Bitcoin Cash there was no need to raise a dispute to try to seize control of bitcoin.com as ALL information was about Bitcoin but now it makes sense to do so because visitors browsing bitcoin.org should expect to get the same information as bitcoin.com and vice-versa. Keeping that format, all visitors browsing bitcoincash.org should get the same information as in bitcoincash.org.

The fact people are downloading Bitcoin Cash wallets when visiting bitcoin.com creates massive confusion so there is a case to take to the arbiter. No doubt Ver will use money he made from Bitcoin ironically to fight the case but hopefully Ver will lose or the arbiter will bypass Ver completely by instructing the domain registrar to hand over access to the owners of bitcoin.org

why do you sue him again dont get that, because he channeled potential profit and money earning cattle from bitcoin to bitcoincash owners?

Yup. That's a load of malicious shit that needs dealing with. Whatever your feelings are about BCH, that's flat out deception. Bitcoin.com is the second result for 'buy Bitcoin' for me.

Innocent newcomers should not be raped to appease one nutter's crusade.

how did he got the domain www.bitcoin.com

this gives him a lot of power

he is not on a crusade,

he is just lobbying

bitcoin.com and bitcoin cash is a big scam.After LN Bitcoin cash will become absolete
Bitcoin cash is cashing in bitcoin brand.Stayaway

with or without LN makes no matter, bitcoin cash is obsolete NOW and always. increasing the block size didn't make a difference. it just created an illusion of solving the scaling issue and that illusion seemed correct only because nobody was even using BCH and blocks only had a dozen transactions in them unlike bitcoin with ~2000 tx per block.

Hopefully this will at least give it more coverage in major news publications so the public can become more aware. Any legal experts know whether this lawsuit might have any legal standing in court?

I like the intention behind the lawsuit, to protect new users from the propaganda of misleading new users into believing bitcoin cash as bitcoin but i do not think that he is going to get into any trouble because he is not violating any laws here as he is not rejecting bitcoin but he advertise it as bitcoin core, the other problem is that he is not an US citizen as he renounced his citizen in 2014, i am not sure where this lawsuit will be filed. One positive aspect i see from this lawsuit is that it will give more media attention and awareness to new users so that they do not get deceived.

This lawsuit will go absolutely nowhere. It's similar to the lawsuit against cigarettes for "killing people". At the end of the day, it's your choice to believe him and anyone even remotely educated on cryptocurrency would understand the difference between BTC and BCH

Certainly can fool newbies that are new to bitcoin. :-\

Is Bitcoin.con a typo or a subtle note that the guy behind the project might be a con man? If it's the latter, then well played!

Most people entering the space for the first time would expect not to be deceived by one of the top ranking websites in one's search. That needs calling out and erasing.

people like Roger Ver need to be dealt with one way or another. they are like parasites that are here to only take advantage of every opportunity they find to fill their pockets with more money. they don't care about anything even the future of bitcoin despite what they pretend on the front.

Even if the lawsuit "goes nowhere" it will create enough media attention to inform crypto masses that visiting bitcoin.com is more about Bitcoin Cash not Bitcoin and that downloading a wallet from bitcoin.com means you are downloading a Bitcoin Cash wallet.

Everytime it comes to the btc/bcc it is getting quickly soo emotional. BCC is a hard fork means it uses most of bitcoins code base. What is the real bitcoin is just a philosophic or marketing question. People talk about logos and names, instead of discussing the core problem of the bitcoin chain - scaling. At least BCC made a move by increasing the block size. I remember some core devs talking about this solution, saying "its too dangerous cause we have no long-time prove to increase block size".. We should be thankful that BCC is now a prove that increasing the block size doesnt harm the network.

I would love for this to happen, let's watch him lose some money for a change.

It is more than just a philosophic or a marketing but it is the truth and fact. We all already do discuss the scaling problem, and the result is Segregated Witness and the Lightning Network. The segwit adoption shows the fact, the problem is improved but not yet able to solve fully the problem. Then the lightning network solution is coming up and being developed.


But it is useless as said by pooya87.

The outcome of this case at the maximum would only be to compel him to stop the use of the name "bitcoin" and change the name of his website to bitcoin cash since that is what he believes in, there is no point creating confusion over what does not worth  it. Just like when the Bitcoin cash version of Electrum was created and was named Electrum, it was forced to change name and that settles all of it.

I think effort should be focused on getting the message out by to those newbies to understand the difference and be able to make a choice intelligently. Roger is only making use of the resources he has to change get the support he needs, rather than committing resources and publicity to bring him down more should be done on enlightenments.

Well Roger Ver actions are not very tolerable and the move against him is just right. But there will be a hard time for this group to make Roger Ver pay for his actions since the name of his coin has also a bitcoin in the beginning. I just hope that community who sued Roger Ver will succeed since if they will fail then in the future people will go into bitcoin cash instead of bitcoin.

it has nothing to do with either philosophy nor marketing. the chain with the most support is always going to be bitcoin.
and the problem is not about BCH being the fork, there are lots of forks of bitcoin from stand alone altcoins like LTC to other forked coins like BTG, and 20 others. the problem is that they are misleading people into buying BCash and call that shitcoin as bitcoin.

no we are talking about a rejected scaling proposal that even after it was rejected some people like Roger Ver didn't accept defeat and went against the consensus mechanism and forked anyways.
the scaling is something that is being solved, it is not something that you solve one time. we have SegWit and 10 other things coming to bitcoin with addition of second layer solutions like Lightning network.

not at all. what BCH is proving is that if you don't use up block space you can have any size you want. you can have 100000000000000000000000000000000 MB blocks as long as only 0.01-0.05 MB of each is filled with transactions.

Maybe it would be better to make a distinction between those for and against Bitcoin Cash with those that are against Roger Ver using bitcoin.com to allude that it is about Bitcoin when it is about Bitcoin Cash

No need for people to post about the virtues and benefits (if there are any) of BCH when this thread is about amongst many things whether Ver is fooling people in to believing going to bitcoin.com will give them bitcoin wallets when it gives them the option to download Bitcoin Cash wallets

It has nothing in common with those kinds of lawsuits.
It's like you go and buy a menthol cigarette and they gave you a herbal one.
He is tricking people that bitcoin cash is bitcoin, this is a problem of wrong labeling and misleading your customers.


BCH has not proved anything. (BCC is Bitconnect, and we all know how that ended).
It doesn't ham their network because they only receive ~17k transactions per day, so actually although they have bigger possible blocks their average block size is 64.807 KB.

Let's see how they will deal with 8MB blocks, but fortunately for us, there are not enough morons in this world to use BCH.

No idea on how the sue progress does but there's only one thing that I'm sure of and we are the same OP, I'm not also going to cry.

Yes it's not about the specs, features or coin.
It's about Roger Ver trying to fool people (I almost want to use the word scam)

Do you think there should be a fundraising BTC address where people can donate towards legal action against Ver forcing him to surrender the bitcoin.com domain?

Damn, if he gave up his US citizenship than I think it would be very hard to file a lawsuit against him as it all depends now if where he is living now has extradition treaty with the US. Which given the name of the island you mentioned seems very unlikely. I think he knew before hand that there would come a time like this.

Extradition is something not being discussed here, not crime has been proven but there is nothing stopping Ver being sued regardless of where he resides.

The key has to be to get the bitcoin.com domain off him and for that to happen the "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" has to be raised at the WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organisation). They can award domain name ownership to whichever party they deem should have it.

About potential lawsuits, any legal team in any city in the US can serve notice to Ver or anyone else regardless of where he/they live.

Lies has no long legs and it'll not last long, I'm bit surprised that it to long and now I hope he stops making such statements. I have seen a idiot crying to all members on a different forum Bch is real bitcoins. There have been so many who have fallen for this. Bitcoins is dancing all the way to top and I'm very happy for the community.

He is an emotional junkie, i have seen him crying well before when talking about bitcoin and how it has changed the world and will make the world a better place and now he is having that same emotion with bitcoin cash.  ;D The first thing before you invest be it any other invest or into a decentralized market is to learn about the type of investment you are going to make and to verify multiple sources before coming to a decision, since there is no copyright for the word bitcoin, i do not think anyone could win this lawsuit.

The truth will always prevail,i dont want to talk about this greedy man but instead i pity those newbie investors who wrongfully invested to bitcoin cash,This arsehole should be put in jain as soon as possible because he isnt doing the right thing isntead he is opposing the bitcoin's vision because he is going to benefit from having his cash in the cryptocurrency market.

He can only be put in jail if a crime has been committed and clearly none has.

I also have no time for Ver and what he stands for but legally the best chance of stopping the damage he is doing to Bitcoin is by forcing him to hand over the bitcoin.com domain to bitcoin.org team

so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.

Stay away from Bitcoin.com because it acts like Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin which is Roger Ver's dream. He says Bitcoin Cash (in fact we are not sure if it's BCash, BCH or BCC) is the real Bitcoin and that's totally wrong. Some users on Twitter call BCash as Shitcoin Cash... Bcash is indeed an altcoin but it's definitely not Bitcoin. Bitcoin which created by Satoshi Nakamoto is the real Bitcoin, not the one created by a businessman for more profit.

Bitcoin has made him so rich and he turns his back on it like a true Judas.

He is going to prison again? Do you know why he went to the prison in the first place?
Even if he is going to get sued, he is a fucking millionaire, he'll find his way out of it. Unless he is faced by a damn good lawyer who doesn't give a shit about money, so yeah he is going to get out of the supposed lawsuit even before it begins.

What is the latest on this? Is there any news or movement on any papers being served on Ver?

NO ONE should own bitcoin
the bitcoin brand is decentralised. no one has ownership

meaning core do not either

bitcoin core is not 'the only' bitcoin

the community decide what they personally hold in their pocket is cash or core, and only in common terms of talking to others in the same
currency do they abreviate it. but it does not mean the other side cant use the same common abreviation terms aswell

its best explained like this

dollars
no country owns dollars.
there is canadian dollars
there is australian dollars
there is american dollars

an american can for the simplicity of common conversation say that what they have in their pockets are dollars.
bit the reality is they have american dollars in their pocket
but in no way does it mean an american can claim that australia/canada dont have/use dollars

a canadian can for the simplicity of common conversation say that what they have in their pockets are dollars.
bit the reality is they have canadian dollars in their pocket
but in no way does it mean a canadian can claim that american/australian dont have/use dollars

an australian can for the simplicity of common conversation say that what they have in their pockets are dollars.
bit the reality is they have australian dollars in their pocket
but in no way does it mean an australian can claim that america/canada dont have/use dollars

back to describing bitcoin events:
..
unlike clams which was a unilateral fork... bitcoin core and bitcoin cash done a bilateral split.. not unilateral
its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash

but a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash

it was a bilateral split not a unilateral split..

core DO NOT OWN brand bitcoin............ no one does!!!

th conversation is

european: "i want dollars"
exchange: "is that american, canadian or australian your interested in"

fiat holder: "i want bitcoin"
exchange: "is that core or cash your interested in"

.. and remember this vital point
the BScartel (blockstream & bloq funders) were the ones orchestrating the bilateral split.
namely gmaxwell employing samson mow to USAF propaganda a fake NON-consensus election.. and bloq to implement a fake opponent to core.

so it was the same BSCartel that created bitcoin cash and core fork.. ver did not even instigate it.
so wheres the finger pointing at jgarziq, gavin, and gmaxwell for making bitcoin cash

as for the "victims"
if they wanted to buy bitcoin and only paid ~$800 (under $1k a coin) then they are not a victim

much like fiat
european: "i want dollar.."
exchange: "ok thats 0.61euros per dollar.." hands over 1australian dollar
european: wow thats cheap, but its not a US dollar
exchange. no, you never requested U.S. and you paid the correct amount for a australian dollar
european: ill sue you for not giving me a U.S dollar at the AU rate
exchange: "good luck trying"
vs
european: "i want dollar.."
exchange: "ok thats 0.81euros per dollar.." hands over 1australian dollar
european: whats this crap, its not a US dollar. i paid the price of a U.S dollar
european: ill sue you for not giving me a U.S dollar and giving me a AU dollar but not at the AU rate
exchange: "oh crap i dun goofed"

or more simply
a: "iwant an apple"
b: "thats 50cents" .. hands (a) a fruit apple
a: "i wanted a phone im gonna sue"
b: "for 50cents.. not gonna happen you get what you paid for.. but your a good comedian, goodluck with the day job"
vs
a: "iwant an apple"
b: "thats $500" .. hands (a) a fruit apple
a: "$500 for fruit. i wanted a phone, im gonna sue"
b: "oh crap i dun goofed"

i wonder how many victims paid more than $7k for 1 bitcoin cash... i would say there were none.. so they paid for what they got

I can see that lawsuit having some merit. We will have to see how it does.

Without a strong case and without funding being made available there will not be any action taken. Ver has hundreds of millions of US$ to fight off any legal action.

But what if Roger Ver wins the lawsuit, would that give him a precedent to counter sue and use the win as a legal advantage to force the exchanges to use the "BTC" ticker for Bitcoin Cash?

Plus would the win, if he wins, mean that "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" are both "BTC" and both have the right to use the ticker?
 

How can he win? There is nothing in the Bitcoin <BTC> Whitepaper that refer to Bitcoin as Bitcoin Core, so that in itself is misrepresentation. He is using www.Reddit.com/r/BTC as a platform to promote Bitcoin Cash <a fork from Bitcoin> and that is your next misrepresentation.

The guy is a scumbag and a snake oil salesman and he needs his day in court. <He has been there before, so it will not be something new to him>

Let him use his money for something constructive and not for sabotaging Bitcoin <BTC>

ever since they failed to gain any traction in the market and because people rejected their crap and everyone considers it as an altcoin, they started to undermine bitcoin by calling it a different name "bitcoin core" as if they wanted to pretend bitcoin is the altcoin and their shitcoin is the bitcoin. recently he went as far as using BTC for bitcoin cash and if we let him he is going to use a new ticker for bitcoin to further mislead users.
there has already been reports of newbies buying BCH by mistake because the second search result (bitcoin.com) is calling bitcoin cash, bitcoin and uses BTC as its short form. and that in fact is fraud because he is selling the wrong thing. it is like buying an iPhone but receiving a Nokia instead.

This person needs to close his project and do something else. Plagiarism of the original product harms the whole community. New people who come to the market confuse the true bitcoin with this shit Ver

A lot of animosity towards Ver here in this thread and the forum in general, I suppose it is understandable but not something that should be promoted. As for Bitcoin Cash I never considered it anywhere near Bitcoin and always thought of it as an altcoin. There is only one Bitcoin and whales including Ver cannot influence it one bit.

In some sense this is a type of scamming and definetely if it is true he should pay the consequences. Bitcoin cash wil l never ever replace bitcoin, he is an intelligent man i do not know why he can not get it. In the first place we do not need his bitcoin cash, bitcoin is fine as it is.

Roger Ver will win the lawsuit and I will tell you why.

When you click on Buy Bitcoins on his site, it takes you to an EXCHANGE.
Once on the exchange the person picks the coin they want to buy.

It is on the exchange the actual purchase of coins take place not Roger Ver 's website.

If a person did not bother to read the symbol of the coin they were buying, that is literally that person's fault and no one else.
Plus there was nothing stopping them from immediately selling one or the other and then buying the one they wanted.

As far as the ticker goes, I doubt he could care less.  But his counter suit for deflation and lawyer fees will just go to his pocket so he can buy more bitcoin cash.

Odds are these people raising money to file a supposed lawsuit are probably scammers taking advantages of (mainline bitcore supporters) need to want to hate Roger Ver because he switched to supporting BCH.
They will probably just pocket the donations and make up some lame excuse why the lawsuit did not happen, but they will keep the bitcoins donated by the clueless.
Easy Money.

Please visit my thread here about Ver's BCash campaign in twitter:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3369820.msg35308628#msg35308628

Be sure to report the account in the basis of impersonation or anything else possibly related. We can take it down if we make enough force. It was already taken down before and recovered. If we take it down enough times they will not be able to recover it. Im tired of seeing noobs lossing money on this altcoin because they think they are buying Bitcoin. Some people I know already asked me why their bitcoins were only worth $1000 while mine are worth $9000. This is simply nuts.

When will you stop this bullshit?


What actually happened:

_________________Bitcoin
            \_________Bcash


End of history. Which means, Roger Ver is promoting an altcoin as if it was Bitcoin, not cool. I have people asking me, "hey cellard, why is my Bitcoin worth $1000, and your Bitcoin is worth $9500". This is obviously nuts and helping no one. Stop the nonsense, BCash is an altcoin, you can circle jerk around this fact all day, you can call segwit an altcoin, at the end of the day, facts remain.

PS: I dont use segwit, so please don't tell me about how it is unsafe and whatnot.

In the unlikely event Ver wins, he has no basis to take ownership of bitcoin.com domain or BTC ticker.

I was a bitcoin enthusiast and had kept bitcoins in a ledger where it forked and gave me my "freebies" BCH. I was a hater of Roger until I realized that BCH is healthy, it keeps the balance between sheep and the real bitcoin supporters. I don't give a fuck to those who were fooled by Roger or being mislead by bitcoin.com; They awesomely deserved it - I always tell my peers that if they want to get into bitcoins they should do a lot of reading first, the sheep will always buy what is trending without even understanding it's use or what is it all about.

And hey you know what? these so called "mislead newbies" are the ones who had sold their bitcoins in January that's why the price went down rapidly. So hey now you better ask yourself if is it really worth to sue Roger Ver.

I used to hate Roger Ver, you may read all my posts in November or December of last year... but it's better to think for yourselves rather than being emotional between the rivalry of these two coins. You may HATE Roger Ver but I don't think filing a lawsuit against him is justice; Like everyone of us, he wants to make money - and if you will only open your mind, he has opened an opportunity for me and you to become rich as long as you know how to ride the waves... buy BCH while it is sleeping, then sell it during pumps. I learned it the hard way. BCH is an awesome pump and dump coin... you better deal with it!

I do not like or hate Roger Ver, he is a nothing and a nobody to me. I just do not like or appreciate the reasons for creating the fork resulting in Bitcoin Cash and using bitcoin.com to push Bitcoin Cash

hahaha so many people got fraud here. where do they sign up?

Anyone can win a class action lawsuit with a good lawyer.

At any rate, I ask "what if" he wins. Then would that be a precedent that Bitcoin Cash "can also be Bitcoin" like the "Dollar" can also be the Australian Dollar or the Canadian Dollar, not just the US Dollar.

Then can Roger Ver take it further by threatening to sue the exchanges to pressure them to use the "BTC" ticker for Bitcoin Cash?

It would be a great achievement if he were forced to give up the domain, just highly unlikely. The creator of the original Bitcoin would probably not show up in Court and claim the domain.

I think you have a good point also i have an acount to that website too and i can say that there are some feastures that looks like familiar in realy bitcoin, and if you are a newbie or noob that no one guides you there you may think that there bitcoin cash and bitcoin BTC is the same.

This is a good thing, if someone is manipulating crypto investors, he should be properly dealt with. I hope his punishments sets an example for other fraudsters and cheaters involved with crypto projects.

The original creators do not need to show up in court, anyone can raise a compaint using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It is the WIPO that decides everything else, no need for people to attend a hearing. As for Satoshi (a person or group of coders) making representation is not necessary, the people behind the bitcooin.org domain are the ones who should try to get control of the bitcoin.com domain.

I am also waiting for this mass adoption of bitcoin cash to happen. This is to see if increasing the block size helped in the scaling and to see if it really works. So I'm okay with the advertisements his doing but not his misleadings. 

He's tweaked it back to Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core now by the looks of things, the cheeky fella.

I would love to know how many complaints his site has received from people who were duped. Or perhaps they bin them immediately because they believe they've saved their customers from baby killers.



A flat out lie.

Seems like a lot of the mess can be sorted out simply if Ver was make it CLEAR that whatever is on display at bitcoin.com is ALL about Bitcoin Cash

What Ver is doing is creating a cloud of confusion at bitcoin.com which minimally states the smallest information about the fork. Seasoned crypto users will know what is going on and how to avoid sending Bitcoin funds to Bitcoin Cash and vice-versa but novices will not be able to distinguish between the two.

Ver is using bitcoin.com to promote Bitcoin Cash and that is plain wrong for someone to do that who does not believe in the future of Bitcoin.

Indeed, users should obviously do due diligence before making any investments, but there is a problem: it doesn't simply end with a lesson to be learn for newbies, it will have an impact on your Bitcoin holdings.

When a ton of newbies get tricked into buying BCash thinking they are buying Bitcoin through Roger Ver's sources of massive traffic, the price pumps, generating an incentive for Bitcoin miners to go mine BCash while the pump lasts. As a result the Bitcoin price may go down as the hashrate moves from Bitcoin to BCash to profit from the pump, and im not willing to tolerate this bullshit for any longer. I don't want these idiots to be juggling to Bitcoin's hashrate around whenever Ver pumps BCash. The twitter and Bitcoin.com sites need to be obliterated.

The honourable thing for Ver would be to surrender and transfer the bitcoin.com domain to the team behind bitcoin.org

In my post 6 or 7 levels above this, I expressed that I understand what you are trying to say and I agree with it to a point. But that is not the problem. The problem is Roger Ver and the confusion he is creating by confusing the people that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin.

Look at his site and you can see what I mean, https://www.bitcoin.com/

What if a newbie buys Bitcoin Cash and then believing it to be Bitcoin? What if Bitcoin Cash crashes and Bitcoin climbs to $100,000 with the newbie thinking he struck gold?

Do you agree with Roger Ver's way of representing Bitcoin Cash in his site? Do you believe it's right?

Its so unfortunate that such established figures use their influence and knowledge to defraud innocent investors who's only intention is to make something out of their investments. Such people should be held responsible for their activities. Its unfortunate hat such things happen. The newbies should however be encouraged to do more research on the coins they invest in before making investment decisions. This way they will avoid not only being scammed but also making wrong investment moves.

it is not about the price. the newbie may buy bitcoin cash and it actually goes to $1 billion billion and bitcoin dies and drops to zero, and it still wouldn't change  what bitcoin.com is doing. they are attempting fraud.

people are looking to buy bitcoin, they go to bitcoin.com and buy what they call bitcoin but receive something else. this is fraud.
imagine you go to Amazon and purchase what they are calling Core i7 CPU but when you receive the shipment and open up the box inside is a Core i3 CPU. if you are a newbie you will install this CPU and always wonder why your computer is not processing as fast.

then I think a newbie needs to read more about the different of bitcoin cash and bitcoin and they need to understand that bitcoin is bitcoin and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash, and it's not the same. and if they still believe that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin and bitcoin cash is crashed like you said, then they will regret it for what they believing.

like I said before, bitcoin is bitcoin, nothing can compare with bitcoin and every coin even with the coin that called bitcoin A or bitcoin B or else, it will different than bitcoin. bitcoin still bitcoin and it will remain as bitcoin forever.

I am happy that he is going to face legal action for manipulating new investors. These kind of people do a lot of harm to crypto community as they affect the trust of people.

I hope this forces Ver to reflect back on his actions and look at how people perceive it. Say what you want about what is signed into law and all, but this IS misleading. It is not fair to new people, especially the ones who might have bought fake bitcoin a week ago when the fake mooned and has predictably dumped now.

Ver is a Judas to BTC and BCH. He needs to keep his emotions in line if he wants BTC or BCH to go anywhere and stop being so goddamn deceptive.

And if this is considered "legal" by the courts, I think a lot of people will sell some fake coin and call it bitcoin to screw newbies. Despite how everything is defined legally, anyone can clearly see this is fraudulent
 

Yes, they plan to adapt Bitcoin cash and promotion.
They promise to newbie that the price will be 10K in the end of the year .
I think this is not right.

This was bound to happen, in similar posts about him on this forum, some people suggested that. When you are doing fraud at such big scale, it is just matter of time someone influential becomes a victim.

Ver should probably sell ALL his Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash then move in to other crypto or non crpto related fields.

People will respect him much more if he did that.

That's not really needed. It's not a matter of who controls bitcoin.com, but the information being misleading or not. Roger Ver can keep his website, if he corrects the fact that Bitcoin is Bitcoin (BTC) and BCash is BCash (or Bitcoin Cash), that's BCH. It's as simple as that. If he continues tricking people into buying an altcoin advertised as Bitcoin, then class action lawsuits will follow, and the site will be better off closed, rather than continuing his ridiculous propaganda scheme.

Same goes for the @Bitcoin twitter handle. It should simply be closed.

Who is operating the @bitcoin twitter handle?

Newbies have to educate themselves, true. But that does not mean what the trickster Roger Ver is doing is right.

We should tell everyone in the forum about the truth on Roger Ver at every opportunity.


They can also call it "Bitcoin Core" if they want to as long as it refers to "Bitcoin".

People should realize Bitcoin has become a First name to ~17 coins, so asking the last part of the name is crucial to buying the right coin.

List of Coins with the name Bitcoin  :P
Bitcoin 21
Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Core
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X   
Bitcoin Z


Scam Lawsuit got canceled.
https://twitter.com/moneytrigz?lang=en
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcSbXprXUAAIJpz.jpg

*I looked at Bitcoin.com before the scam lawsuit and just now, Looks exactly the same! * :)
*MoneyTrigz seems like a confused soul, you donators might want to check and make sure he does not keep your donations.*

The problem is not the use of the word "Bitcoin". Anyone can use the name. The problem is Roger Ver telling everyone who are new to Bitcoin and don't know anything what is going on that "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin".

What if a person buys BCH with the expectation to hold BTC?

Worst of all is when these newbies hits the exchange, they are already confused and they see a Bitcoin that are 7 times cheaper than BTC and they think it is a bargain price to own bitcoins. Who would not buy "Bitcoin", when you see that it is 7 times cheaper? They will not know the difference between the genuine product <BTC> and the cheap knockoff <Bitcoin Cash>.

I hope there are enough people supporting this, because this is highly unethical and this should be stopped, before a lot of people lose money on this fake coin. <Bitcoin Cash>  

Newbies might also send their Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin addresses, losing their coins altogether before they can trade them. This really is Roger Ver being a scheming individual that he is, and trying to scam his way to what he wants regardless of the cost.

Only one word is needed to describe this topic,

PETTY

Maybe next time teach those newbies how to READ!

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/styles/large/public/images/iStock_000006626560XSmall.jpg?itok=vkLReFo6

Good Luck & Good Day to All of You!  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55476dCgSsw

FTFY
again, you still seem to think that bitcoin core network is bitcoin

using the analogy
europeans buying au dollars might send their AU dollars to a dollar account, losing their funds altogether
.. see how it dosnt make conversational sense

you need to make it conversationally clear when talking about cross border currencies
europeans buying au dollars might send their AU dollars to a U.S dollar account, losing their funds altogether
FTFY

as said in many propaganda topics trying to make it seem core deserve to own "bitcoin".. people need to be clear that "bitcoin" is not owned by one team. if anyone continues to promote one team own "bitcoin" then they are just trying to centralise "bitcoin"

if you really cared about bitcoin decentralisation. you and the other propagandists would.. if you really cared you would be also trying to attack bitcoin.org for trying to claim core own "bitcoin".

but its funny that i have yet to see anyone attack theymos for promoting core as just "bitcoin" and its funny they dont attack Jgarzic(bloq) for making bitcoin cash.

It seems you are so happy that the lawsuit got cancelled, good for you and for Roger Ver but the majority of the crypto community hoped he would get taken to court. A court case would have highlighted the issues and that would have been the real victory even if the judge awarded the case in favour of Ver.

About your list of coins using the name Bitcoin in them, when you go to their websites (those that have them) they do not confuse people in to thinking their Bitcoin derivative is the 'original/real' Bitcoin and those websites do not use their bitcoinderivative.com domain to confuse users by downloading Bitcoin Cash wallets :)

By your logic if users went to bitcoincash.org and saw the whole website about Bitcoin Cash and moved to download a wallet, they should not find it a problem if they downloaded say a wallet belonging to:

Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Core
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X   
Bitcoin Z

If you go to bitcoincash.org you expect to find a wallet download link for Bitcoin Cash. If you go to bitcoinatom.com you expect to find a wallet download link for Bitcoin Atom. If you go to bitcoindiamond.com you expect to find a wallet download link for Bitcoin Diamond.

If you go to bitcoin.com you expect to find a wallet download link for "Bitcoin"

Ver should probably sell ALL his Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash then move in to other crypto or non crypto related fields.

People will respect him much more if he did that.

I also agree with the fact that Roger Believe played like a child in intrigas around the bitcoin and with Bitcoin Cash advertising. There is evidence that he is introducing newcomers to delusions and for this he must answer according to the laws.

All this is a well thought out marketing bitcoin cash. He made a coin that is very similar to bitcoin (even the name) that can plague new investors. I think this is one of the marketing methods. You can condemn this man and admire. :)

You will not find people many that admire Ver, he has not even sold his own Bitcoins and put all his investment in Bitcoin Cash.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2124500.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2124500.0)

Such fraudsters should be discovered to be penalized because this is considered a fraudulent act of money and exploitation of others. I think there are many other cases, but we do not know who it is, in the future, more people will be cheated.

At the end of the day, You don't Own the Name Bitcoin otherwise none of the other coins could have used it.

So blame Satoshi for not Copyrighting the name.

As far as the bitcoin.com goes Ver beat you to it, make your own site and compete if you can.

Whatever you so called expect is irrelevant, whoever owns the site can design it.

As far as respect goes , we both know the Bitcoin Core Factions will ALWAYS HATE Roger Ver, because he did not follow the company line like a good little boy.

Roger Ver is Rich, he got that way by following what he believed was the best ideas, which for a time was the old Bitcoin and you all luv him then.

Well Things changed, he moved on and you should too. Follow the coin you believe in and to hell with the other one.

No Worries , Time will decide the coin that deserves to survive and thrive, not this petty bickering (It has Zero Influence in the long run).

At the end of the day when people visit dash.org and click the download wallet link, they expect to download Dash Wallet not a Litecoin Wallet.

No need for anyone to copyright anything. If there were 100 websites to pop up all with the name bitcoincash within them and they all claimed to be the official or real Bitcoin Cash and all had a download wallet link which downloaded Bitcoin Atom wallets then I think Ver would have a problem with it. That is the issue at root here.

Do not get me wrong, if there is money that I can make from Bitcoin Cash I will make it just I would any other coin. I am not a Bitcoin fanatic, I do not dislike Bitcoin Cash. I disagree with the reasons provided by two very large Bitcoin whales (Ver being one, Zhuoer being the other) behind forking Bitcoin to make Bitcoin Cash. Nobody else wanted it and nobody would care about it but they both had thousands of Bitcoin between them so created the fork.

This lawsuit was a wildgoose chase, destined to fail. I cant believe there were people dumb enough thinking anything good will come out of it. Roger wins again. The sooner people realize how decentralisation works the better

Did you actually bother to download the wallet before you make blanket statements.
Because I just looked at the wallet download and it states

And before anyone tries to lie, it said the exact same thing according to the wayback machine on Jan 23rd, 2018
https://web.archive.org/web/20180123072152/https://wallet.bitcoin.com/

So it always stated it supported both Cash & Core and the buy orders always took you offsite to an exchange where you had to register with the exchange and choose which coin you wanted.

Those so called lawsuits guys are some of the biggest damn idiots , I have ever seen.  Everything was clearly spelled out CASH or CORE.

yes it seems roger ver try hard to make the name of bitcoin cash into bitcoin so i can see the core of the desire roger ver is trying to replace bitcoin position to bitcoin cash in my opinion it is very horrible because it makes new players misguided about the difference of bitcoin and bitcoin cash.

Guy ,  the wallet down load supports Cash & Core, did you even bother to look at his site before making up lies.
Waybackmachine confirmed it say the same back in Jan.

Or were you too lazy to even read the post directly above yours.  :P

bitcoin.com is owned by Ver and he is using that domain to deliberately NOT clarify the position between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash thus creating confusion for newbies and some experienced users.

Exactly how, he lists Cash & Core?

Show me 1 Experienced User that claims he was too stupid to know the difference between Cash & Core.
Because I have a hard time believing these people are as stupid as you claim.

I think more likely ,
you have some that just really hate Ver, which means they know the difference, and a few others that just thought they would get a payday from a class action suit, so they lied.

Why you want to claim these people are complete morons is beyond me.

Well the Lawsuit been dropped because it was scam, and any lawyer could tell you it was a losing case.
So who among the supporters of the failed lawsuit, wants to come out of the stupid closet and admit they are a moron,
so we know to bubble wrap them so they don't hurt themselves in future endeavors.   ;)

(Here's Your Sign)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjelRDKHUk

To remain civil is one of the things that make this forum great. Unfortunately your mannerisms and etiquettes are similar to that of Roger Ver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

Funny how you can't answer a simple question.

Enjoy your mindless hate mongering. :D

(Here's Your Sign)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjelRDKHUk

It would have been nice if a case like this will go in favour of the people who filed the case in order to serve as deterrent to any one or persons who may want to use same method to cheat. There are so many scams associated with bitcoin fork, so any potential investor must be very careful.

There are fake versions of Bitcoin, Litecoin and Monero on the market. If this gets a lawsuit, those should as well.

they dont call themselves fake versions, actually they are just people doing a "me too" cryptocurrency, similar like those companies that imitate kellogs and also create breakfeast fries under a different logo, there was no god telling everyone that bitcoin and sathshi nakamoto is now the worlds cryptocurrency.

bitcoin was the group that dared to make it, as everyone else was scared (illegal no license) or didnt believed doing one was worth it, even nakamoto doubted the success.

to clarify things

if a coin is 99% reused code, but restarts at block zero with a few alterations to average block time and total supply. these are known as shitcoins and should not contain the word "bitcoin" at all as they have no tx history belonging to the chain satoshi himself used (no satoshi to hal tx for instance)

if a coin does contain some historic data that belongs to satoshis genesis block and tx of known bitcoin users. then it could use the "bitcoin" brand
however if they forked without a "bitcoin" event its a unilateral fork. so it could also make its own name (clams for instance)

now the thing with bitcoin core and bitcoin cash specifically is that both bitcoin core and bitcoin cash had a promoted bilateral SPLIT event. yep they both split and both went in different directions to the old chain. so they should use the "bitcoin" name

but remember no dev team should own the brand. yep that includes the bitcoin core team too.

for instance. the "dollar" comparison
originating from british colonies. when countries split from british empire currency they used was "dollar".
very technically. if i was to be anal. satoshi's invention 2009-2013 "bitcoin" would have been the "pound", yea very anal
and then when core took over 2013, core became the "dollar" and thus should not have been called "bitcoin"(pound).. but something else...
.. yes there was discussion to rename it core coin. but in the end they stuck with "bitcoin" because forks and switching names was not a thing then

but thats just going real anal so lets ignore the satoshi-qt to bitcoin core switch(2009-2013)

so lets just start things from the "dollar" perspective that had british colony backstory
so lets just start things from the "bitcoin" perspective of 2013+ that had satoshi genesis and certain amount of satoshi's tx data(2009-2013)

anyway. because certain coins did derive from and includes data of the 2013+ chain so should use the "bitcoin". but just like dollar. its important to inform people if its bitcoin core or bitcoin cash.(U.S or A.U) and to stop treating just one as the one and only "bitcoin" and stop trying to say the other is fraud, fake, non existant.

this means bitcoin.org should not pretend core is the only bitcoin. nor should bitcoin.org pretend bitcoin cash does not exist

yes in local closed door common conversation can people abbreviate bitcoin core or bitcoin cash to "bitcoin" when trading with other like minded community that use the same network. but should never declare to the whole world that only one network team OWN the brand.

EG australians in australia can just say dollar. but when talking openly to the world it must be clarified that they are talking about A.U dollar
EG amerians in america can just say dollar. but when talking openly to the world it must be clarified that they are talking about U.S dollar

EG core in core specifc areas can just say bitcoin for abbreviated conversation sake. but when talking openly in open non specific forums must clarify that they are talking about bitcoin core
EG cash in cash specific areas can just say bitcoin for abbreviated conversation sake. but when talking openly in non specific forums must clarify that they are talking about bitcoin cash

other coins which just decided without any "bitcoin" event. to start running a node on a separate network is not a bilatral split.and thus have less prominance to declare they are part of the "bitcoin" family.

again this whole thing could have been avoided IF he core team and their partner bloq did not do a bilateral split. because the reality is that core is not the sole owner of "bitcoin" no matter how much people want to pretend it is. no matter how many lawsuits they want to file core should not have sole ownership of "bitcoin"

when it comes to technology it doesnt matter what was the original bitcoin, do people today still care what the original car is? what the original phone is? what the original first sword or axe is? hell jeah they dont even care what the original paper money bill is, and all its complex technology steps. they dont even give value to it.

they simply dont,

do people use still use netscape navigator because its the original first browser?

no they dont,

it wont matter in the end, that bitcoin is the original first cryptocurrency that dared to challenge the banking cartels.

for me and many others bitcoin is freedom from overregulated and abusive broken banking system, but thats it. bitcoin cant deliver more than that its not designed for more.

the japanese that in masses accept bitcoin should have the best understanding why they shouldn't. ressource efficiency is important for peace and security in east asia, bitcoin was a good start, but it cant be the longterm future.

there is a huge problem comming in the future if there will be more and more cryptocurrencies:
a vast part of the population will think: why am i money earning cattle while others just make it out of nothing.....

It is such a shame that he had to deceive unsuspecting newbies into buying the wrong bitcoin. People like him make genuine newbie investors "scared" to join the cryptocurrency market. This should sound a stern warn to every investor of bitcoin to be extra careful in choosing where to buy bitcoin. It is easier to find authentic marketplace/exchanges for bitcoin. Sometimes greed makes people overlook glaring flaws. Learn the right way, however tedious it may be.

When you go to HSBC.com to open an account and order a Visa card you do not expect to find out later that you actually opened an account with Morgan Stanley and will receive a Mastercard instead

When you go to bookmylondonholiday.com for family holiday at the Hilton in London you do not expect to find out later that you actually booked a holiday living in a tent in the desert in war-torn South Sudan

When people go to bitcoin.com they expect to learn about Bitcoin and download a Bitcoin wallet

When people go to bitcoincash.org they expect to learn about Bitcoin Cash and download a Bitcoin Cash wallet

Right now: When people go to bitcoin.com they are learning about Bitcoin Cash and downloading Bitcoin Cash wallets. Not enough clarity is given to differentiate between the two. It is confusing for newbies and others.

The lawsuit was supposed to be about Ver using the bitcoin.com to create confusion and forcing him to stop it and along the way maybe some people that lost money might have got compensated :)

This is Roger Ver, the person that united with a couple of whales and created the fork resulting in Bitcoin Cash because they could not wrestle control of Bitcoin. Need I say more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

this whole thing about a "lawsuit" is silly to begin with but what you say is even sillier because you are ignoring the big difference here! you would have been correct if Charlie Lee started calling LTC as bitcoin but he is not and he never had. but Roger Ver is continuing to call BCH as bitcoin.

 yes with how he handled things, that really warrants a class action lawsuit, though I doubt they would really get into it. What he did from a consumer's perspective is fraudulent and you can't defend that no matter how you put it in the court. Nobody owns bitcoin nor bitcoin cash, sure, but misleading people to buy your 'product' (technically, Roger Ver is the face of bitcoin cash and he advertises the hell out of it) while they wanted to buy another product is fraud. I hope that they really are enthusiastic in getting this thing off so as to put Ver behind bars. A once smart man lowered to the ranks of a scum.

He most certainly seemed once upon a time a smart man who had ethics and morals. According to some websites he gave up his US citizenship and moved to St. Kitts & Nevis maybe before he became a Bitcoin millionaire. All this supposedly because he did not agree with various principles of the rule of law in his USA.

How he morphed in to what many people see as anti-bitcoin and bitcoin-hating is a question beyond the fact he could not and never will wrestle control of bitcoin.org and Satoshi's vision of bitcoin. Ver trying to sell Bitcoin Cash as "the real bitcoin as Satoshi has visualised" is about as true as the "Hey Diddle Diddle" nursery rhyme where the cow jumped over moon.

I'm bit disappointed that he's getting away by misleading people, so many of them have now a coin that is not what they wanted. He's caused ill reputation to the entire crypto world and yet he gets away with it. I'm bit surprised that none of the people who were sold or coarse to buy btc cash instead of btc are not filling a case. Maybe fill they'll be prosecuted or for what ever reason this is a sad news. Read more details from the link : https://coinpedia.org/news/pro-bitcoin-cancels-lawsuit-bitcoindotcom/

dont you see the hypocrisy..
dot org is about core and dot com is about cash

again take a step back from defending and implying core own "bitcoin" and you might see the hypocrisy

I feel feel the same way, it could potentially make the situation even worse if the case gets more media attention. Negative attention is still attention, we have seen this many times before.

There is no hypocrisy at all.

bitcoin.org was there years before bitcoincash.org came along

By your own logic when people visit bitcoincash.org they should learn only about bitcoin cash and have no mention of bitcoin OR if it does mention bitcoin to confuse people in to conflating bitcoin and bitcoin cash then surely bitcoincash.org should also state lots of information about bitcoincash being one and the same as these:

Bitcoin 21
Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X  
Bitcoin Z

Since it is bitcoincash.org that came off the back of a fork and is confusing people the onus is on bitcoin cash to stop trying to fool people in to thinking bitcoin cash is bitcoin

you are really stuck in the mindset that core own bitcoin..
lol you got things round the wrong way

and by not making the argument that core too should clarify things. you are being hypocritical.

bitcoincash.com can advertise just bitcoin cash
bitcoincore.com can advertise just bitcoin core..

but bitcoin.org  should not just advertise just core or act like core is the only bitcoin. because thats as hypocritical as the argument you try to make about bitcoin.com

notice bitcoin.com bitcoin.org .. are not specific.
notice bitcoincore.com  bitcoincash.com are specific

again fiat analogy
dollar.org should not just advertise american dollar
dollar.com should not just advertise australian dollar
however
usdollar.org can advertise just american dollar
audollar.com can advertise just australian dollar

do i really need to explain things more simply.. i thought ELI-5 was simple enough..

if those owning bitcoin.org are only advertising core and treating bitcoin core as the sole and only bitcoin network. then they are being hypocritical when then trying to argue about other websites

so what do you propose? should we sit around silently while scammers have fun and fill their pockets by ripping people off?
he is correct that bitcoin is not a trademark and is not owned by anyone but also that means we are all responsible for bitcoin if we are using it. every single one of us. and when we see someone abusing the "name" and the power they have (money and control of key domain names) we need to do something about it.

Excellent post. I agree with you something needs to be done. If the lawsuit organisers had raised enough funds then they would have started legal action but they raised just a few thousand US$. The community staying silent and sitting idle is considered by many to be complicit in the whole thing.

If you say BCH is a liar, then can I say BTC is a liar? It's also encrypted, probably just in a different place.

If usdollar.org was asking customers to use their VISA/Mastercard/Paypal to send to them in order to receive US Dollar bills through the snail-mail post but instead customers received Australian Dollars then THAT is a problem even if the owner of the usdollar.org website states that his dollar version is the real dollar in the vision George Washington had hoped the currency would be.

What Ver is doing on bitcoin.com is not that different

We've been through this.  Chains aren't named after dev teams (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3453380.msg36298439#msg36298439).  BTC is not the "core chain", so stop trying to claim otherwise.  People aren't going to erroneously start calling it "Bitcoin Core" just because the bitcoin.com website has engaged in dishonest marketing practices.  "Bitcoin Core" is a dev team, a repository and a client.  It is not a chain.  Altcoins can call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever", but "Bitcoin" will continue to be whichever one has the largest economic majority and most accumulated proof of work.  In case you hadn't noticed, BCH does not fit that criteria.  That means it isn't Bitcoin.  It's a different entity.  Something apart.  

The bitcoin.org website is under no obligation to advertise forked chains if they don't wish to.  Likewise, the bitcoin.com website is under no obligation to advertise the BTC chain, but, due to their transgressions, they now need to make it clear that their chain is something entirely separate and incompatible.

The bitcoinunlimited.info (https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download) website is an acceptable example.  They maintain both a BTC and BCH version of their client and the download page clearly distinguishes between the two, even though they ardently express their opinion that the BCH chain is a "better bitcoin".  That's fine by me.  Any newbies who install the wrong one clearly weren't paying attention.  

Very nicely put, great post DooMAD. I have never called "Bitcoin" anything other than Bitcoin, I have never called it Bitcoin Core.

The idea that Bitcoin Cash is the "real" bitcoin is something touted about by Ver hoping it will catch on but simply has not. Even if it were possible for BCH to exceed Bitcoin it will always be known as Bitcoin Cash (the fork that some angry and upset whales created because they could not own or control the path for Bitcoin) and as for Bitcoin, well it will be known as Bitcoin.

you can trash all your "reasoning" down the toilet

there is something called "freedom of oppinion"

Ver simply says Bitcoincash is the legitimate bitcoin not bitcoin core, this way he pushes to sell his premine.

Ver uses a simple marketing slogan, that is empty and untrue but did bitcoin do that? they also called bitcoin decentral, but its not decentral. just for pushing for marketing.

you can't do anything about that, you would have to sue him basically everywhere in the world. and he will constantly defend himself with "freedom of oppinion"

states and judges dont have an interest actually to be fair on this trial since its about marketing money, not some product.

regards

btc is maintained by the core team
and if you want to play the population game then youll see why i am comparing it to america in the fiat analogies.. oh look america has the higher population of a country that uses the dollar brand.
but the brand "dollar" is not owned by one country!!

but the brand "bitcoin" is not owned by one team!!

so every argument you can say about australia can also be said about america
so every argument you can say about cash can also be said about core

BTC=USD
BCH=AUD

bitcoin core = U.S dollar
bitcoin cash = A.U dollar

core=america
cash=australia

bitcoin=dollar

yes in a decentralised world core would not own BTC. but the thing is even you think that cores rules and cores protocol and cores bips and cores roadmap that made up the fork that is known as BTC should be the only currency called "bitcoin".
you keep on repeating the scentiment that the network maintained by core is bitcoin and anything else is an attack / alt.

you have to take 2 steps back and realise that
you may not even realise you are doing it, but you are...
you are defending core as the sole maintainer of btc(usd) and wanting the btc(usd) currency to be the only currency that uses bitcoiin(dollar)

again take off the core(america) defence hat. stop pretending that its about attacking the opposition. and think about bitcoin(dollar).. not core(america) not cash(australia). but only think about bitcoin(dollar). not btc(USD) not bch(AUD)..  just open your mind and think about the ownership of bitcoin(dollar)

then and only then will you see the hypocrisy of trying to defend one side(country) as the sole brand owner

btc(usd) and bch(aud) both equally split in different directions. so niether have sole claim of "bitcoin" so if you really truly and honestly want to say core(america) are not "the bitcoin" then you should also be lobbying to get bitcoin.org(dollar.america) to stop promoting btc(USD) and core(america) as the only bitcoin(dollar)

sincerely.. take 3 steps back from your loyalty. have a proper strong cup of coffee and have a real hard deep think about it. and i mean really think about it without defending core(america)
because it really seems all this drama is about is giving "bitcoin" brand to the core(america) team

Thank you for your comment about trashing reasoning down the toilet and all your other logic, it all makes sense now :)

you cant compare state currencies, with private cryptocurrencies, this is a complete falacity.

state currencies are supposed to be highly regulated they are supposed to benefit the communal wellbeing not enrich individuals like private marketed cryptocurrencies do.

states then mutually define each currencies territory of usage. they are like instruments and tools of governance, cryptocurrencies arent that (some are a bit that but most arent)

regards

yes you are right i think roger ver want to take over the name of bitcoin and put the name of bitcoin cash into bitcoin, to be honest it could be detrimental for new players, and i look like roger ver trying very hard to be able to replace bitcoin to bitcoin cash.

It is very important to take him to court and penalized to ward off others who are just in the business of defrauding people. If newbies are always having fraud issues, then it'll eventually affect the general adoption of bitcoin.

thanks

in this thread i exposed roger vers behavior as systematic to this industry, which will suffer for quite a long time and it will gain a lot of hatred form the population because of it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3494514.20

you dont think as far as i do,

but second world war and holocaust  mid 20th century was highly about financial system.

we might see something similar again.

al nonproject coins will be forced to constantly fight for attention and surpress the other empty encription systems(coins)

this will drive people mad sooner or later, and the industry as a whole will get seriously hated.

the banking system as its now evolved its features for certain reasons.

they will continue to exist. as they did over centuries.

I am not sure a lawsuit is the best way forward but Ver really should think about ethics and morals and he should use bitcoin.com domain in a clearer manner

he doesnt care about ethics he wants communal currency for which people are continously selling their time for,

and he interprets his personal oppinion in a way that he can market in a way that suits him best.

FTFY

the real funny part is most of the sheep dont even realise.. the bilateral split was actually instigated by the core/blockstream/bloq guys that are all funded by the same power house DCG.co
cores roadmap only had 35%.. if it was not for samson mow(blockstream USAF) and jgarzic(bloq bitcoinABC) .. both funded by DCG.co.. to do the bilateral split. thr would not have been a split.

and the funnier part is no one is attacking the blog or blockstream guy for causing it all.

all the sheep seem to be doing is regurgitatiing the chewed up grass fed to them from reddit fields to attack cores opposition simply to give core more centralised power. and yet the sheep cant even see it. they too busy chewing the grass to see the length of the field they are stood in

you are all soo stuck into wanting core to be your monarchy. but then pretend having a monarchy makes you freemen.. (facepalm)

Wrong.  I'm saying consensus decides what is and isn't Bitcoin.  Individual dev teams don't even enter into the equation.  

The network with the greatest economic majority and accumulated proof of work is Bitcoin and anything else is an altcoin (but are free to call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever" if they like).  

I've always argued emphatically against the ridiculous notion that forks are somehow an "attack" on Bitcoin, much to the consternation of the fanboys (see here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102455.msg11734614#msg11734614), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158066.msg12197958#msg12197958) and most significantly here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2109675.msg21154668#msg21154668)).  You should know this because you were right there doing it with me, heh.  We agreed on that.  But now you've gone off on your own ridiculous tangent saying that everyone has to stop calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin" just because some people forked away.  Literally never going to happen.  Give it up.  

the bilateral split was not consensus.
if blockstream/bloq did not do the bilateral split. then core would still be at 35%

thats the whole point..

it was not a consensus challenge
it was a contentious bilateral FORK where both sides went separate ways

again you are still pretending that core are the original and sole holder of "bitcoin" brand by saying what you are saying

You are right, we should definitely give it a try. Maybe I was a little pessimistic, but I still think that it will be hard case considering the trademark not being owned and the opposite side having a lot of money. They could easily hire some professional people to the defend themselves, while Bitcoin is depends upon volunteers.

It's not about Core you belligerent tit.  How many more times do I have to say it?  And yes, both sides did go their separate ways, but one of those sides was much bigger.  If BCH had attracted a majority hashrate and a majority economy, I'd be here right now making the argument that BCH is Bitcoin.  But I can't make that argument because they didn't attract a majority hashrate and a majority economy.  Ergo, they are an altcoin and BTC is Bitcoin.  It really is that simple.  The numbers weren't on their side, so they don't get to be Bitcoin.  They're something else and they need to get comfortable with that.  So do you, it seems.

You can claim you think BCH is better than Bitcoin.  You can assert that BCH is closer to Satoshi's vision.  You can lavish whatever praise you want on BCH and their chosen direction.  All of that is fine.  
But it isn't Bitcoin.  End of.

Latest news says that Roger Ver (https://ambcrypto.com/roger-vers-bitcoin-com-safe-lawsuit/) is now safe from lawsuit. Money Trigz, created a telegram group only to raise funds to sue Roger Ver but unable to gather enough funds to file a lawsuit.
Money Trigz says (https://ambcrypto.com/roger-vers-bitcoin-com-safe-lawsuit/)

From the first time BCH went out I already doubted it. Didn't even participate into getting that BCH airdrop that they are giving. It is all greed on the inside and not worthy for any human being support.
He used it very well just so he could get this price now. Just as I thought. Why name it with almost the same name as bitcoin. This is the purpose and it is now in the surface unlike before.

But I doubt anyone will win against him. There are still supports him and think of him as Jesus just because of the free money from the airdrop. Strength in numbers will be the key.

btc moved away from the single empire just as much as bch moved away from the single empire.
their is now no single empire. no one owns the empire or the branding.
not cores codebase of segwit and the roadmap that makes up BTC
not cashs codebase that makes up Bch

stop pretending cores protocol cores codebase, cores rules, cores features that make up btc own "bitcoin"
the bilateral split seen to that.

put it this way
if there was not a august 2017 bilateral split. and instead a consensus vote of a SINGLE network upgrade. then that single empire would retain the brand and all the opposing nodes would continue to run on the single network as a single nation

but the civil war/bilateral split. showed they both surrendered to walk in different directions. they both equally lost the battle of being a single network being "the bitcoin"

you want to prtend your not defending core by saying "btc" owns "bitcoin" solely and fully..
anyway i could take it one step further and we could argue all day about why should core even own the term BTC.

the network of CORE rules has no rights of ownership to the brand.. if you disagree and think the network of core rules should own the brand then you are just saying core own the network. because they are the maintainers and rule setters of that network.

if you still cannot see the loyalist spech you are making that cores rules should own "bitcoin" then you are too close to kissing cores ass..
take a few steps back..
if you cant see it still.. take a few more steps back

again you cant just say america gets to own brand dolar due to america having larger population.. thats the weakest defence of all and belongs as a punch line on a stand up comedy night..
it would be the case in a concensus situation.. but a consensus situation did not occur. so is meaningless

the reason its funny. because after a bilateral split.. you are saying if lets say it became extremely profitable to mine bitcoin xyz(random made up) and suddenly that random fork over powered core in hash rate.. would you then claim bitcoin xyz(random made up) is now the sole and only bitcoin

or would you still say bitcoin core(btc) was the real and only bitcoin

there is no such thing as consensus here, only interest groups.

completely meaningless to establish and enforce a standard

this whole issue will be a huge embarassement for the industry in front of the judges

it seems roger ver is trying very hard to try to substitute bitcoin cash into bitcoin so try to buy some assets and a website called bitcoin and used to inform bitcoin cash. it's sad if new users make a mistake when buying.

you guys can't free your mind from the brand "bitcoin" dont you?

well you will have to one day. no way around that.

all arguments about bitcoin cash can be made about bitcoin core
all arguments about bitcoin.com can be made about bitcoin.org

the reality is NEITHER are "the one and only sole bitcoin" the bilateral split seen to that

but it makes the situation alot clearer if you can be smart enough to take an unbiased step back (300 steps back for some) and then translate the crypto buzzwords into the dollar buzzwords. to then see it in a ELI-5 plain english average joe understanding

i still cant beleive that after atleast 10 topics of atleast half a dozen pages per topic that people ignore the bilateral split and instead do all they can to defend core as "the one and only bitcoin" maintainers.

to those that want to scream there is only one bitcoin and its the one that contains the code rules and bips and roadmap maintained by core.. just o one thing
just proclaim this
"decentralisation is dead long live distrubution" and stop pretending that core can own the brand yet prtend its all still decentralised

so just proclaim "decentralisation is dead.. long live distribution" and move on living in your monarchy and you kissing a kings ass and liv in your centralist world.

ok i help everyone believing why listen: very carefully


SOME PEOPLE (among many are smart ones on purpose) DON'T CARE FOR THE TRUTH; THEY DONT CARE WHICH TECH IS BETTER; THEY SIMPLY, and on full purpose "PROPAGATE" THE COIN THAT THEY ARE INVESTED IN; THAT BRINGS THEM THE MOST PROFITS, THEY IGNORE THINGS DELIBERATELY (like roger ver) WHEN ITS IN THEIR INTEREST TO IGNORE THINGS DELIBERATELY

only IT tech freaks and fair competitionalist, and stuborn "truthseekers" live still in this illusory bubble and cant see this

bitcoin and crypto isnt just a money machine its also a machine fueling unresolvable tribalism!!!!!!! and interest conflicts that can't be peacefully mutually AND REASONABLY resolved

it doesnt even matter what coins they buy they push and propagate the coin that is in their interest.

regards

I'm not sure if they are going to win. Bitcoin.com Has been misleading users with calling BCH the Bitcoin. As far as I know they have already made some changes to their website. This whole battle between BTC and BCH gets more and more ridiculous. Bcash supporters are desperate to do everything in order to achieve the flippening which in my opinion won't happen. Bitcoin community is strong despite many quarrels about scaling.

both parties will lose, the ultimate winners will be the bankster Cartel that controlls the communal fiats, they will secretly seeking to expose and publicate this conflict. and the unending following ones.

i made a topic about this issue -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3457359.msg35985900#msg35985900

alex jones also exposed this conflict to damage cryptocurrencies.

He should be sued for a shed load of bitcoin cash and see if he still tries to shill it. The same would happen if i created a new phone called iphonne that was identical to the iphone, and redirected all the apple drones to the iphonne site. This is wrong and ver should be penalised for tricking newbies

https://tools.bitcoin.com/paper-wallet/

More cheekiness here. All they have to do is add the Cash word, and even that's not really good enough. It's easy enough for us not to be taken in. Different matter when you're a noob.

Consensus clearly shows the community call Bitcoin (XBT/BTC) and it calls Bcash or Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The majority of the community clearly feel the BCH fork was designed to primarily boost the coffers and egos of the whales behind the project. Bitcoin Core is related to a team of devs, the core structure but the coin itself is Bitcoin (not Bitcoin Core)

"Bitcoin" is simply "Bitcoin" and the following are altcoins, they are NOT "Bitcoin" until or unless it has the greatest economic majority and accumulated proof of work as DooMAD stated earlier:

Bitcoin 21
Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond   
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X   
Bitcoin Z

One of the points ( some say promoting or selling or propoganda) that Ver cited was that there were 3 or 4 'different' teams of devs working on Bitcoin Cash and that there was a democratic process involved as for the future direction, whereas with Bitcoin he claimed there was a single group controlling everything. Hmmm, it seems the 3 or 4 groups of Bitcoin Cash devs (if they exist) do actually control what path to plot for their Bitcoin Cash fork.

Thank you for pointing it out, that is so bad. I wonder why they created such confusion?

those that would want to buy bitcoin cash would by bitcoin cash anyway,

those that wanted to buy bitocoin would then buy bitcoin cash,

this way bitcoincash gets more demand and price is higher,

making roger richer since he is selling his premine

but roger underestimates the long term effects of all this,
his earned us dollar might completely become worthless if there will be a crypto us dollar,
and or the entire/most of us economy becomes ico token based.

regards

When participating in bitcoin trading, you have to be careful. Choose reputable websites to avoid unfortunate mistakes. Recently, a community movement has grown to more than 600 members in just two days to pursue legal action against Bitcoin.com and CEO Roger Ver, for intentionally misleading "new users" to buy. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) instead of Bitcoin (BTC).

horrible roger ver trying to make new players confused and trying very hard to try to replace bitcoin with fake bitcoin hopefully it will not take a toll. should roger ver get a criminal for having changed the name of bitcoin (BTC) without thinking.

But you seem to think that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, which is not. It forked away from the main chain when it changed the consensus rules creating an altcoin.


But guess what, the rest of the world outside Bitcoin Cash's community recognizes what you call "Bitcoin Core" as Bitcoin.

Do you really expect someone to buy BCH would think that he is holding BTC?


Yes, when I say "Bitcoin", I mean the network you call "Bitcoin Core". I will keep calling it Bitcoin, deal with it. But you can call it whatever you want.


I did not say anything about owning. It is what we call it. It is not our fault when you call Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin hilarity ensues.


I am a propagandist? I am explaining my own point of view. Sorry if we cannot agree in some things, but we need to co-exist. You can have your big blocks no problem.


Attack is a strong word, let's use discourse. In the end of all this we will learn to live together.

I hope. Hahaha.

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin.  Allah is the real God; Jesus is a phony.  To adherents on both sides, the other side is just fucking outrageous and needs to die.  

I do believe that Roger Ver made Bitcoin cash to line up his pocket and the pockets of many many other business cartels. I remember when a big pump happened on a Korean exchange and it really led to a lot of FUD regarding Bitcoin and he was the head of that FUD. They really played a dirty game against bitcoin and although I do not have anything against other altcoins, on the contrary I collect and trade them, I do not like the underhanded way Roger Ver tried to go against Bitcoin for his own greed and for some other greedy business people to make bank.  >:(

even funnier part is because i dont like cores centralisation you think the opposers to centralisation should be pigeon holed into another team..
that there is the mindset of someone who deep down thinks centralisation is the only way things function.
'if your not team X you must be team Y'

you have become so indocrinated that your even using their words "big blockers", like you have been handed a script.

you are still stuck in the 2 sided battle mindset that you cant see the big picture

i explained it many times..
bloq who made cash is paid by the same investors as blockstream who make core



its a massive kardashian drama distraction to cause people who hate core(kim fanclub) to be pushed into one of the other sisters fanclub.. simply to get core(kims) fans to not see the opposers, allowing core(kim) to do what she likes, while trying to get the opposers indocrinated into being deceived back into centralisation by making them favour another of the same family(DCG) member

its like sheep herding. where the farmer(dcg) has a field. he sends his sheep dogs(blockstream/bloq) to scare some sheep into a neighbouring field. the sheep think they are freeing themselves by running through the open gate into another field. but they dont realise the farmer owns that field too

just look at the mirror
adam back | craig wright (both scamming to say they invented "bitcoin")
gmaxwell | Jgarzic (both saying they made the main nodes of the network)
theymos | ver (both saying they own and moderate the main information portals)

people who beleive in real decentralisation should be saying
NO TEAM owns "bitcoin". the bilateral split seen to that
both sides can use "bitcoin" but must clarify if its the bilateral fork made by cores rules or by cash's rules
bitcoin.org also needs to be less biased about core if you think that bitcoin.com needs to be less biased about cash.

if you disagree then you really are stuck in the core monarchy defense camp
it makes it real obvious that most already want core centralisation. because they refuse to pretend decentralisation exists, because if they wer decentralists they would attack jgarzic
jgarzic has not been attacked FOR MAKING cash. because the core fanboys know he is one of their own monarchs

i tried to keep the whole british manarchy/commonwealth/empire comparison short by only using the modern analogy of "dollar" just to keep it ELI-5 but it seems too many are too stuck in a centralist mindset to see it.
so to americans. who think they all speak english, just like canada and australia. you can pretend you speak english and that english is your language you own. but its not. you speak american. its pot8o not pot@o.

so to australians. who think they all speak english, just like canada and america. you can pretend you speak english and that english is your language you own. but its not. you speak australiann. its good day not ga'day.

you must clarify that you are american when dealing in international communications and clarify that your currency is american dollar as oppose to australian dollar.and that you can use the term "dollar" but do not own "dollar" brand.  

but im guessing most will just continue reading the scripts of reddit(cores church/bible) and preach the word of core religion
so just if you cannot get out of the religion. atleast be honest and preach
"decentralisation is dead, long live distribution"

have a nice enclosed life and enjoy fiat2.0 of banker managed hubs, if your not gonna bother seeing the big picture to fight for real decentralisation

Thank you for your meaningful contribution again. You still do not see that Ver only wants your money, don't you? He definitely helped Bitcoin to become a 'thing' but now he seems to want money for it in exchange, even if it's harming Bitcoin.

The proposed lawsuit against Ver has stopped because of lack of funding. It would have been interesting to see what the outcome would have been in a court of law.

then fund it.

not exactly ver wants not money he wants the peoples "time"

which is the currency that "time" and "work"  is currently sacrificed for the most like "us dollar"

but how is bitcoin or any other ico different here?

and others

we have all money but ver wants special types of money

According to many people Ver is still trying to destroy Bitcoin. According to many people Ver tried but failed to destroy Bitcoin so now he is trying to make as much money and cause as much disruption as possible.

What centralization? Core is only one implementation of Bitcoin. You can choose to run a different node if you want, https://coin.dance/nodes

You cannot blame it on the developers if the community wants to run the Bitcoin Core software.


That is another topic I do not know about and good for another thread. We are here to talk about Roger Ver manipulating newbies into believing that BCH = BTC.


That is what the Roger Ver fan club is saying and spreading. It is unproven and unsubstantiated.


I do not know why you are including that in the discussion. We are talking about Roger Ver's fraudulent behavior by making people think BCH = BTC.


Adam Back never claimed that he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Craig Wright did. That makes Craig Wright a scammer.


Gregory Maxwell did not try to work with Jihan Wu, Barry Silbert and the NYA to hard fork to S2X. The "scaling debate" was a red herring. It was a political move to take over development and save Bitmain's covert AsicBoost capabilities in their miners.


But Roger Ver's portal is confusing the public that BCH = BTC.


I believe you can use the term "Bitcoin Cash" for as long as you like. Did you see me call it "Bcash"? I never used it once. I want to be diplomatic when I talk about it.


Do not attack me and my character. Let us stick to the debate.


That is not the problem. Roger Ver's fraudulent acts are. He keeps saying Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin but it is not, because when the community say and think of Bitcoin they are referring to what you call "Bitcoin Core".

Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core. Sorry but that's how everyone sees it. Except the deniers in the Bitcoin Cash community. But calling Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core" is a mistake because it is really only one implementation of the real Bitcoin.

Plus good luck to you franky1. I enjoy our discussions.

Your views are shared by many people. Many people consider Bitcoin Cash as nothing more than a dirty game against Bitcoin which will not last the course. Ver lost whatever respect he had within the crypto-community with his anti-Bitcoin stance which by default was going to line his pockets even more than they already were.

we should not fight with each over. The enemy only glad about this.  And also they ruin the independent/decentralized idea.  The community should decide what yo choose and what not.

A handful of whales decided to create Bitcoin Cash because of what many see as reasons of greed and jealousy against their failure to control Bitcoin.

It seems to me that no one will prove anything. those people who are going to invest in bitcoin or even crypto currencies should carefully study everything and understand everything even a little, and not listen to some pseudo-experts.

If he wont go to jail, he might become a billionaire reality TV star like Donald Trump or Mark Cuban. Millions of people who have no idea about technicalities will be charmed by the charisma of Roger Ver

No one knows but at the same time, everyone decides. Everything will depend on us.

Ver has "zero" charisma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

He's such a loser.
Really hope they can hurt him in court.

A loser from which its own coin solely thrives on his cartel's wealth input.

If that capital wasn't there, and the coin would be a what-an-investor-wants-to-pay-for-it coin, it would end up like BTG. I'm glad that Roger is doing this, because every silly action he comes up with, is yet again a sign that he has malicious intent, and isn't capable of running a decentralized incentive. BCash is RogerCash. In other words, investors know that what Roger wants to happen with his silly coin, that happens.

People quite often blame Bitcoin for being slow with everything and its endless debates, but they don't understand that these endless debates are a sign that one party can't entirely force its own will on Bitcoin. With BCash you operate at mercy of Roger's mood shifts, no one wants that.

Great post, so refrained and elegant yet you highlighted the issues with Bitcoin Cash and its inherent reliance on Ver (taking nothing away from Wu and Zhuoer in this process too)

i agree CW is a scammer.
but adam back was saying he was part of bitcoins creation too.. yet he wrote no code in 2008-2009 to have created it.

so Gmax didnt try getting the network to bilateral split? is that what your saying
so gmax didnt employ samson mow to UASF

oh and by the way.. ver and Wu didnt cause the bilateral split.. but hey i understand your too indocrinated by all the reddit propaganda
again BLOQ and BLOCKSTREAM (core team) instigated the bilateral split.
here is gmax literally begging the core opposition to bilateral split, but the opposition wanted a proper consensus. which greg hated as it lwould have left core stuck at 35% if the bilateral split did not occur.. hense why he insisted the only option was BLOQ as a silent partnr to force a bilateral split



actually roger ver is not claiming bch is btc
roger is claiming cash is "bitcoin"
what you said is like saying RV claims AUD is USD (makes no rational sense)

theymos is claiming core is the only "bitcoin".. check out bitcoin.org.
again the hypocrisy of arguing about team B applies to team A

but hey. instead of talking about "bitcoin" decentralisation you seem to only want to defend core team members

you need to learn both teams are paid by barry silbert. and it is just kardashian drama to get people to argue about if they love Kylie or khloe. pretending its all a fight of 2 surnames and which surname desrves the kardashian brand. all so that they can claim ownership and prevent the other 7billion people from using the brand because they want the name trademarked into the family...
dont you get it no one should own the name.. not team a or b.. but those funding both teams want the sheep fighting about both teams they own to make the community choose one team as the centralist. and thus the funders win either way.

BIG PICTURE THINKING REQUIRED. not core defense small minds
no one should own "bitcoin"

not ver.. not theymos
no one one team should say they are the only node software for the networks not bloq not core
no one scammer manager should pretend they were involved at day one making bitcoin. not C.wright not A.back

but hey.. seems youll defend core till its fiat2.0 and just let it centralise until its time for you to run back to fiat1.0 with your profits. as thats what most core fanboys only care about. making fiat profits. not caring one bit about bitcoins decentralisation

actually the core fanboys are desparetly trying to point fingres at mouthpiece ver(a theymos mirror-counterpart) as if bitcoin cash is relient on ver. much like sayng bitcoin core is relient on theymos. all to istract the truth that bitcoin cash exists due to bloq

read the 10 pages of this topic and see how many core fans attack jgarzic.. you wont find any. because core fanboys love jgarzic. and deep down they know that its all one big masqurade to point fingers at people that never coded a node, as the person to blame for everything. so that a team that code a node can centralise a network

There is no "Core", there is no "Bitcoin Core". Bitcoin "Core" is a name given to Bitcoin by Ver and Bitcoin Cash promoters, whales and enthusiasts who tried and failed to wrestle control of Bitcoin. They are more like the fanboys and mouthpieces you refer to.

There is simply "Bitcoin" and there are low level Bitcoin derivatives such as these:

Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X  
Bitcoin Z

Just to make it clear, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Everything else is a fork or derivative of Bitcoin

Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Dark is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Diamond is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Fast is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin God is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Green is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Interest is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Planet is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Plus is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Private is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Scrypt is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin X is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Z is not Bitcoin

Roger Ver deliberately changed the position of bitcoin to bitcoin cash and it was terrible because it could make new players misunderstand about the difference between bitcoin and bitcoin cash. 8)

But Adam never said he is Satoshi Nakamoto. What I know he did is wanting to get some credit for inventing where Bitcoin's Proof of Work is based on. Hashcash.

Adam Back made Hashcash and he wants to get credit for making Bitcoin possible. I know it might be reaching for some people but give some credit where credit is due.

We cannot say the same for the scammer Craig "Faketoshi" Wright.


The "split" you are saying is not a split. It was a move to pressure the miners to activate Segwit. There was no "split". Bitcoin post-Segwit is still compatible pre-Segwit.

It was Bitcoin Cash that did a hard fork from the main chain because it changed the consesus rules.


Why don't we ask him on what he really meant by that. No offense but we in Bitcoin have a saying, "don't trust, verify". ;)


No what I am saying is when Roger Ver says "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", hilarity follows. Accept it, when people say Bitcoin they mean the real Bitcoin, not BCH. Bitcoin Cash is the altcoin.


Maybe you should first look at the bitcoin.com website. Do you agree with how Roger Ver is fraudulently trying to confuse the users, especially new users?

Do you support it?


Yes Bitcoin's decentralization, look at the different software implementations, https://coin.dance/nodes

Anyone can make their own implementation.


Please stop with this. If this is only "drama" then why do you support Bitcoin Cash? I know I like the Core developers because I believe they are the best developers in blockchain, and I also believe that the best should be the stewards of the network.


Roger has been calling his altcoin "Bitcoin Cash" and saying it is the real "Bitcoin", but do not look at me if the community disagrees and laughs at him.

When people say Bitcoin they mean the real Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency you call "Bitcoin Core".


https://coin.dance/nodes

Run a node you want. Plus Adam Back never said he was Satoshi Nakamoto.

Adam made Hashcash, his name is and Hascash were given credit and cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper.


It is decentralized you can run your own software impelentation if you want, https://coin.dance/nodes

yes, this is not how it should be, pretending that bch is bitcoin. I understand the advantages of bch, yet he's trying to protect the decomcracy and decentralization of cryptocurrencies while doing exactly the opposite, trying to hijack bitcoin..

Before you start repeating your "dollar argument" for the hundredth time, you have what you want.  You've got your Bitcoin decentralisation.  No one is saying you can't have your BCH version of Bitcoin.  The problem people have is when there isn't a clear enough distinction made between the BTC and BCH versions.  Stop twisting the narrative to claim we don't want you to have your BCH version.  You've got it.  We can't take it away from you.  You're free to call it Bitcoin Cash.  But the BTC and BCH networks are not compatible and the bitcoin.com website was doing a piss-poor job of explaining that.  Many here believe it was intentional and clearly dishonest.  

And if you truly wanted decentralisation, why are you not arguing for bitcoin.com to list all the other multitude of bitcoin forks?  I don't see any mention on their website of Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Private, etc.  



The bitcoin.org website is under no obligation to market your preferred chain.  They choose to only publicise one consensus protocol.  That's within their right to do.  
The bitcoin.com website chooses to publicise two, which is within their right to do.  All we ask is that they do it responsibly so that new users are not disenfranchised or left out of pocket.



Which is confusing to newbies.  He's well within his rights to claim that the BCH chain is better, but he needs to state clearly that it's not compatible with the BTC chain.  Some of the visitors to the bitcoin.com website were looking for BTC and they're leaving with the wrong coin.  The fault of that lies primarily with the bitcoin.com website.  There's no defending it.  

Plus, they clearly know it was wrong because they've now updated their website to change it.

Emphasised, as that point probably shouldn't be lost in the discussion because it's quite important.  Yes, bitcoin.com now looks radically different and somewhat clearer as to which chain is which.  So we can probably stop arguing about it now.  I'm sure we won't, though.    ::)

Although, even on the new version they've made, I do wish they'd stop calling it "Bitcoin Core", because they're not the sole developer.  BIP91, for example, was not a product of Core's repo.  It was merged in after another client (that wasn't Core) adopted it first.  Core are not the owner and don't make all the decisions.  You can't (honestly) argue they do because we can see empirically with BIP91 that they don't.  Also, that's not a "fanboy" argument, because it's an argument that seriously annoys certain fanboys (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2061934.msg20658238#msg20658238) who do mistakenly believe Core make all the decisions.

franky1 thinks one can hard fork Bitcoin and call it Bitcoin, somehow fails to understand that it doesn't work that way.

You can start your own Bitcoin client and compete against Core, anyone can do so. If you convince enough people that your software is better than Core, then you would have more relevance than Core.. it's as simple as that.

Of course your client must comply with what a Bitcoin valid block is (this includes segwit transactions, which again, you can just ignore if you don't like them) otherwise you are dealing with al altcoin (BCash et al).

How can they be called scammers when they never took a single cent from anyone, Craig came forward and lied that he created something without showing any public proof but that does not mean that he scammed any cent and he along with crazy Roger and eat dick Mcfee is the most trolled person in the crypto market. :D

ohm is it also possible to create another cryptocurrency but not call it bitcoin cash or bitcoin gold but call it bitcoin as well?

so it is an identical clone?

and then also market it as the true bitcoin?

Roger Ver is a Judas to BTC and BCH. He needs to keep his emotions in line if he wants BTC or BCH to go anywhere and stop being so goddamn deceptive.  :)

Simply put, yes that is the view of many from the cryptoworld. Add to that the notion many people think it was a deliberate ploy to disrupt Bitcoin then it is clear to understand why Ver, Wu and Zhouer do not have many "fanboys" as it was put in an earlier post.

I asked franky1 if he agrees with Roger Ver's "style" of "promoting" bitcoin.com and I have not yet received a direct answer. I believe he knows he cannot go against Roger because doing it would question his beliefs for Bitcoin Cash.

He can still support Bitcoin Cash and condemn Roger Ver's fraudulent behavior at the same time. He already did call Craig Wright a scammer.

I would also want to know if farnky1 approves of Roger's association with Craig.


They can call it whatever they want. It is also within their rights. But we already know that when everyone says Bitcoin, it refers to the cryptocurrency franky1 calls "Bitcoin Core".

@JollyGood

The Original bitcoin was left behind in a fork, whether you like it or not their is no simple bitcoin only anymore.
Their was No Unified Migration to a single code. The Community like the code Fractured!

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin Core are both forks from the original chain with the same mining algorithm, you can never say one of them is the only bitcoin unless the other dies.
And until one of those forks die, and the communities unify behind a single code upgrade, they are all ALTCOINS.  :)

Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Core
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X  
Bitcoin Z

I think at this time the website has started to remove and replace the bitcoin with the right code BTC = Bitcoin not bitcoin = BCH, hopefully rogerver not fool the new players for changing the name of bitcoin in the website.

If you say BCH is a liar, then can I say BTC is a liar? It's also encrypted, probably just in a different place.

Very true.

This is not a mistake or a difference of opinion on part of Ver, Zhouer and Wu, no. It seems Ver is trying to hijack but thankfully failed in hijacking Bitcoin using bitcoin.com domain.

Just to make it clear, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Everything else is a fork or derivative of Bitcoin

Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Dark is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Diamond is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Fast is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin God is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Green is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Interest is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Planet is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Plus is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Private is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Scrypt is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin X is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Z is not Bitcoin

Fix that for you.  :)

Maybe we should just rename all of them to remove bitcoin and stop people from getting confused.
That was the solution BCore Supporters wanted for BCASH, lets do it to all of them  including BCORE, make life easier for everyone.  :D
BAtom
BCore
BCash
BDark
BDiamond
BFast
BGod
BGold
BGreen
BInterest
BPlanet
BPlus
BPrivate
BScrypt
BX
BZ

craig wright.. adams mirror..     kardashian families khloe to kardashians kyle... is saying the same thing. that craig wright helped bring bitcoin possible

they are all part of the same family..
again check out who funded both blockstram(core) and bloq(cash)
dcg.co/portfolio/#b

its all a big drama event to get everyone to love the kardashian family(dcg portfolio group) so that its all centralised.
craig wright never wrote a line of code in 2008-2010 for satoshis invention.. neither did adam back
theymos is vers mirror
.org is .com mirror
bloq is blockstream mirror
btcc is antpool mirror
wu is samson mow mirror

but if you just stop defending one or the other teams and stop thinking the only choice is team A or team B and just say neither.. you begin to se where the problems began about centralisation (2013)

in 2013
hearne and gavin "prtended" to run away from core to make it apear that there was still a free choice of core/xt/classic all happily using the same network protocol and using consensus of a single network to show a fake resemblance of free choice to upgrade to cores roadmap or another roadmap

the agenda was to REKT out xt/classic using social drama so core can win centralisation. (the big picture even gavin and hearn were in it to achieve the core roadmap)

take a look at hearne. he went to R3 to work on hyperledger(bankers project).
take a look at gavin he went to bloq to work on hyperledger
take a look at blockstream who went to work on hyper ledger

then you will see why segwit is so important and why the segwit address identifier and LN is crucial to those paid devs. its to become the bankers network for hyperledger.
they dont want bitcoin core network to be a payment network. they want LN (bankers network of bank branches(hubs) to be the payment network)

it is DISTRIBUTED.. there is a difference
the other nodes have to fully comply to CORES policies and rules, or get ban-hammered out of the network
this is why there have been no orphans(caused by consensus competition) on cores network since last summer
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks
because anyone that tries to send a block that differs gets rejected in 2 seconds and thrown out the network
the only time there is any discrepency is due to block timing of what block a pool seen first to build apon. (not due to consensus rule competition)


yes you can call a node by a different name. writ it in a different language but if you intend to make the codebase propose a differnt rule set and want to form a consensus that opposes core.. you will see the REKT campaign begin.

the only way to desire to change the rules or add a feature to cores network is first via their moderatd IRC
then their moderated mailing list
then their moderated BIP list

core hates consensus. thats why any node wanting consensus gets handed a bilateral split or REKT unless the non cor roadmap node does its own unilateral fork. purely to keepcores roadmap ontrack as the sole/only route forward

Nice one Zin-Zang but the in the interview (link provided) the interviewer called "it" Bcash and this was the reply Roger Ver gave.

Ver is obsessed with calling his fork "Bitcoin" when it really is "Bitcoin Cash" which is forked from Bitcoin. Simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

Surely there has to be another way to move forward to eliminate the confusion for the newbies sake at least?

Still backwards.  It's not the Core dev team enforcing that process.  It's the users who enforce it by running the code.  The fact that most of the nodes are running a Core client strongly indicates users like the way you can't change the rules without going through the moderated IRC/mailing list/BIP process.  If a majority of network participants didn't like it working that way, it wouldn't.

If another developer created a client that a majority of users preferred, there's nothing to prevent a change in the rules.  The other developer wouldn't have to follow Core's processes if they had adequate support from the users.  But that's yet to happen.  Because of the users.  Not because of Core's processes.  It seems you're the one who doesn't like consensus when you don't agree with it. 

Dev teams push code.  Users enforce it.  All that's happening here is that the vast preponderance of users disagree with you and they aren't going to let you rename their network.

it seems roger ver is trying very hard to try to substitute bitcoin cash into bitcoin so try to buy some assets and a website called bitcoin and used to inform bitcoin cash. it's sad if new users make a mistake when buying.

I am really happy to hear this, it will set a good example for people cheating on the name of crypto. We need more strict actions such people fooling new investors.

His citizenship is irrelevant, if a judgment in the U.S. is issued against him and it gets domesticated within the legal system of Japan. Moreover, the lawsuit could be filed in Japan. Having a class-action lawsuit filed against you is not a game. It would be expensive for both sides.

It is my understanding that the planned lawsuit was canceled, however.

I disagree. It would be expensive for both sides, and Ver would have to spend a fortune defending himself. Given that he has profited from the confusion, he could be liable. It is my understanding that he quickly changed his conduct and the lawsuit was canceled.

That he changed some of his behavior tells you what you need to know.

core had 35% opposition had 65%
yet the 35% still think that core is the prime network

it was a bilateral split that insured the 65% became invisible so that although there were less pools and nodes to count.. the pools making blocks that core seen as visibile instantly became 100%

try reading bip9 bip 148 do some research on bilateral split. and you will see that real true fair consensus was not used. but vote rigging was

you have not really checked out how things have changed since 2013 have you.

did yu know that due to FIBRE the only blocks being pushed out of the ring of mining pools is blocks that strictly follow cores rules. all other blocks get rejected in under 2 seconds. if a pool attempted to make blocks that differ. and keep doing it. they get banned from the network until they comply, thus Fibre forces the pools to follow the rules of core or nver get a block to be part of the chain and thus they are mining without ever getting a reward that matures to be spendable on the chain.

other developers who make nodes. if they did nake their own github and their own bip list and promote a upgrade that differs from cores roadmap. first needs to follow cores rules to just be allowed and seen by the networ and can only flag their desire. but has to flag using a bip9 process that core have to acknowledge. then it has to get enough nodes and enough pools to also run that same codebase to out power core..

well guess what. bitcoin ABC(cash) got 65% core got 35% and core simply done a bilateral split on the whole process.. and people still think core is "the network". so by core removing the 65% opposition. it automatically got cores BIP9 to see the remaining nodes co-operating and being seen by other core nodes equalled over 95% although there was in reality far more nodes/opposing pools that were simply invisible to bip9

core having 35% (letss say 7 pools out of 20(cant be arsed to count the pools with less than 1% block mining network hash power))
now imagine samson mow (UASF/blockstream) and bloq deciding to make a second choice to drama the sheep into another field.  and made it so pools that didnt flag for segwit moved over too



thus on that day if pools were not scared and continued to refuse to join the 7 core loyalist pools they would get their blocks rejected.

so when the rejects occured and fibre simply ban hammered the pools off the core network of those not UASFing.. all that was left mining the core network were segwit supporting pools. and on that day far less than 20 pools were mining (for example 7 pools out of 7 pools=100%)
..all the core support nodes got to see was blocks made by segwit supporting pools. thus although the pool count dropped, the percentage support jumped to 100% hense why segwit got locked in and activated only a few weeks after august..
it is real funny people think after months of 35% community consensus. it jumped to 100% in a couple weeks. and people still think that it meant evryone loved it.. no the majoirty were just made invisible so that only one fanclub could be seen

yes core done a rigged election
the users had no consensus election. all the users seen was 35%-100% jump.  
its really worth you actually reading some code and looking at some stats. ahd how things like bips, and fibre work. it will completely shock you how things have changed since 2013

That is all a bunch of subjective bullshit from you. But you are free to think of it that way. Thank God Almighty that almost none would think of it the same as you.


This of it however you want. But Core does not centralize development. They only happen to be the best group of developers with great ideas like Segwit and we cannot blame the community if they run their software.


Sorry franky1, but you are the only one who believes that. Roger Ver has lost. No one from the Bitcoin community is willing to follow him except a few people with their own agendas.

Plus a forecast. As a desperate move, Roger Ver will start arguing for the BTC ticker as rightfully for Bitcoin Cash because "Satoshi". Then hilarity ensues once again. Hahaha.

This was bound to happen, in similar posts about him on this forum, some people suggested that. When you are doing fraud at such big scale, it is just matter of time someone influential becomes a victim.

poor windfury. core defense cap wearer of 2018
ive shown code. ive shown links to websites showing where the funding of both sides comes from.
and yet.. windfury you only reply with "think what you want"
wow.. so much evidence you provided to counter..


so anyway
funding.. im sure you didnt click the link so here is a image for you to gloss over and pretend doesnt exist
https://i.imgur.com/loIct6P.png

bitcoin core - bitcoin core
bips - luke JR moderated - blockstream paid("founder and consultant") - funds from DCG
mailing list - rusty russel moderated - blockstream paid("founder and consultant") - funds from DCG
fibre - matt corralo - blockstream paid("founder and consultant") - funds from DCG
segwit - p wuille - blockstream paid - funds from DCG

bitcoin cash - bitcoinABC
jgarzic - bloq paid - funds from DCG
gavin A - bloq paid - funds from DCG
ver - blockchain.info paid - funds from DCG

as for the hyperledger
well lets take coindesk (media site owned by dCG.co)
https://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/
yes. read the disclaimer too
"CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group"

anyway lets allow you to have a few hints about fibres workings.. as a way of ensuring no opposing blocks get around the network

quotes from fibre


ill give you a hint. core complient pools create and validate core blockdata banning opposing blocks. send valid blocks to fibre that distribute it out super fast to other core nodes.


plus i do laugh when u went and asked if segwit was backward compatible and they told you
"Segwit transactions are not validated by legacy nodes because legacy nodes CANNOT correctly validate them."
they also told you a segwit node translates the data to make it a anyonecanspend

ive been mentioning about the anyone can spend incompatibility since early 2016 even before segwit got a maiinnet candidate release. so 2 years on and it still makes me laugh

again. if you cant copy the blockchain (copy and paste file folders) like for like. and it requires translation.. and that translation does not result in a tx that is validatable if the network needed to downgrade.. then its not compatible with downgraded clients.

lets put it simple.
a french person writes a book. in french. your old and unbale to learn french. french people tell you its ok the book is english compatible. ... just make a special request and we will make a bespoke copy of the book in english that is 4 times short and doesnt have any of the juicy details in it.
you accept the bespoke book. now. you try to hand that book onto someone else that is french. they reject it because it doesnt have the juicy details..
or
its like compressing and converting data from an sd card to floppy disk. and the the old pc user seeing it holds data but cant validate it so just assumes the person he got it from validated it.. thus no self validation..
and then finds he cant just hand the floppy disk on to someone with a sd card reader because they dont accept floppy disks and will reject it

segwit it not backward compatible... its not allowing an old(legacy) node to be part of the relay of full data. (i shown you before the image of the "doenstream filters" where by the old legacy client is not a part of the upstream p2p network(bitcoin core network). you cannot simply pass on the bespoke data to a segwit client, as the segwit client wont see it as a anyone can spend(invisable) they would see it as a segwit tx with no witness.
and if your not able to validate transactions then you are not part of the p2p validation network.


P.S
you are so deep into loving core that you really believe anyone not loving core must love ver.. (you are really stuck in the kylie vs khloe drama mindset of only 2 choices) you cannot see true decentralisation of no team ownership because all you keep thinking is if they dont love A they must love B... SHAME ON YOU

Well the truth is Ver did say that his fork was closer to what Satoshi would have wanted his end product Bitcoin to look like. So basically the community believes he tried to destroy Bitcoin because Satoshi would have wanted it?

The day Ver and Wu give up on Bitcoin Cash the price will plummet.

I think you miss the point, Ver & Wu are never going to give up on Bitcoin Cash,
Ver thrown his reputation behind it , the only way to clear up the slander , is to prove he was right and Bitcoin Cash Crushes Bitcoin Core.
You guys have really left him no choice with your constant insults of the man.

Wu knows that the mining rewards drop in 2020 by half and makes the miners more dependent on transaction fees.
Wu has no intention of running an LN Hub and becoming a minion of the Banking cartels, he is putting his money where his mouth is,
and everyone seems to forget he can subsidize Bitcoin Cash with a fraction of his Bitcoin Core earning forever and none of you can stop him.
Everytime you buy a bitcoin core coin, that Wu created, you are directly funding Bitcoin Cash Continued Existence.  

Bitcoin Cash can survive if Bitcoin Core dies as the miners are planning to switch and death spiral bitcoin core sometime after 2020,
in the meantime they get free funding to consolidate more Bitcoin Cash Coins in their accounts before the flippening.  

That is their plan, and Bitcoin Core supporters really has no way to stop them ,
unless they change algorithms immediately, but that could also hasten the flippening once the miners feel threatened.   :)

There Can Be Only One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J3VeogFUOs 

Why the smiley face at the end of your post? Why are you celebrating and having a crypto-cyber-orgasm when pushing the idea that nobody can stop Wu and Ver?

Nobody wants to stop Wu or Ver, I certainly do not hate either of them and at the same time have no interest in them... let them get on with it at their hearts content but to use the bitcoin.com domain with a completely diffrent format to bitcoincash.org is very confusing for newbies if they are one and the same (ie bitcoin cash). Hopefuly bitcoin.com domain will stop its confusing message and be diverting visitors to bitcoincash.org instead.

I do agree that with Bitcoins being mined using Bitmain technology it is funding the Bitcoins for Wu to swap in to Bitcoin cash. Until or unless that cycle stops things will not change. Maybe miners need to take note and stop using Bitmain products. (Note I did not add a smiley face to show I was having crypto-cyber-orgasm after making my point)

Thanks for your post though. When you are calm and polite you make valid points.

Because I enjoy a good fight, and I am not full of hate toward ver & wu especially since their real foes are the banking cartels.

It really makes very little difference to me which side wins.  :)

At one stage those might have briefly been the figures, but BIP91 had over 95% of miners supporting it.  Plus, as always, it's not just about the miners, but also about the economic majority.  Please tell me how you think BCH has an economic claim to that supposed 65% you keep referring to.   I could do with a good laugh. 

The funny thing is, the guy has benefited so much from Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Community and now he just turns away from us and claims Bitcoin is something different than it has been for almost 10 years.

I think he should be held accountable. The damage he has already caused and is still doing is unacceptable.

briefly??
core were stuck at the 35% from december 2016 until august 1st 2017.. (over 8 months)
it only BRIEFLY jumped to 100% once the bilateral split occured UASF and split events were occuring on august 1st+. then for 2 weeks wait period to lock in. and then a further week or so to activate.. thus was only 95%+ for 3 weeks.. and only at that level due to the split
. not due to community desire or economic majority, due to full mining pools support.. but purely due to selective vote counting of only supporters to get 100% and banning the opposition from voting
so please if your going to make a reply. atleast back it up with some damn facts (review the code)(look at charts)
oh and before you ven scream propaganda.. here is a chart from your king(sipa)p.wuiile himself.
notice the orange blur of 20-40% between 01/01/17 and 01/08/17 (8 months). then on august first mega jump to 100% (the blue purple and orange all merge and jump)

come on.. think about it 100% vote happening all of a sudden on august 1st.. thats impossible election result unless they are throwing the count
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-small-ever.png
https://i.imgur.com/AqDoPge.png


secondly... your missing the whole point..
NO ONE
NO ONE
not core not cash not one has economic claim to brand bitcoin

are you that ignorant of the meaning of decentralisation.

like the dollar if anyone says they want dollar... it must be asked
is that U.S dollar(USD) or A.U dollar(AUD).. like what happens in the fiat world to avoid confusion

if anyone says they want bitcoin... it must be asked
is that bitcoin core(BTC) or bitcoin cash(BCH).. like what should happen in the crypto world to avoid confusion

Its so unfortunate that such established figures use their influence and knowledge to defraud innocent investors who's only intention is to make something out of their investments. Such people should be held responsible for their activities. Its unfortunate hat such things happen. The newbies should however be encouraged to do more research on the coins they invest in before making investment decisions. This way they will avoid not only being scammed but also making wrong investment moves.

You have a nice outlook on life. I hope you have lots of Bitcoins and other crypto which one day will make you so wealthy that whales including Ver will look like a paupers in front of you :)

So we're changing the definition of decentralisation to mean that completely incompatible networks get to decide what other chains call themselves?  And everyone's cool with that?  Awesome.   ::)

Get a clue.

You've got your decentralisation because you already can say BTC or BCH, but we are not calling the BTC chain "Bitcoin Core" just because you think it should be called that.  You are completely broken in the head if you think otherwise.  You keep calling it that if you want.  The economic majority will continue to prove they can claim the Bitcoin brand because it will continue to be known as Bitcoin.  Make whatever impotent and irrelevant arguments you want.  It's not changing.

You are pissing into the wind.

@DooMAD

It seems that Ver is obsessed with calling his BCash creation "Bitcoin". He knows very well the true power behind the crypto name and brand with historical emphasis is with Bitcoin and not with "Bitcoin Cash".

Those in the know are happy to make money out of BCash in the same way as they could from any altcoin, no problem about that but the idea a couple of angry disgruntled whales get together and try to use the Bitcoin name saying Satoshi would have wanted Bcash instead of Bitcoin to associated as his closest vision of crypto is just ridiculous.

I agree with you and think by far most of the community agree that Bitcoin is Bitcoin (not "Bitcoin Core"). And Bitcoin Cash is either Bcash or Bitcoin Cash or BCH and is just an altcoin.

Another reason for bitcoin's price to decline. Not only that possible investors are lost, but the image it may give to people with a little knowledge about bitcoin can spread like a wildfire.

More reason for countries to ban and not support cryptocurrencies.

I like Bcash precisely because it pisses Ver off so much. I mean I am all for letting the markets decide, but if Ver is a true libertarian, he should not feel so insecure about people calling his preferred coin a particular name. The markets will decide if a meme sticks or not.

Poor franky1, staunch Roger Ver supporter. His fraudulent tendencies are very clear as night and day but you keep on defending him. Why?

I wish to see you discuss about Bitcoin Cash's development and the pros and cons of bigger blocks to convince us to use it.

Plus I never gave you a "think what you want attitude". I tried to stick to the facts, but your replies are tinfoil hat conspiracies trying to pull everyone down to Roger Ver and Craig Wright's level.

At any rate I enjoy the discussion. I like listening on your side of the story and I believe everyone should too. But stick to the facts, not the subjective consiracy stories.

the thing is. you keep thinking im defending ver..
page after page all i have said is BOTH sides of the same family of centralists are doing kardashian drama.

but you keep on thinking that if someone is not a kim fan they must be a kylie fan..
i am a fan of neither khloe(P.wuille (core)) or kim(jgazic (cash))
and
certainly not a fan of kanye west(ver).. nor kylie jenner(theymos) - both ego drama queens with no talent
and
im not a fan of robert kardashian(barry silbert)

its all one big drama event you pull two sides of the same rope.
but all you can see is there is only a single rope to pull and only one side should win.
you dont see that its a rigged game and both players are both sponsored by the same team
trying to get everyone in on the game so that either way robert kardashian(barry silbert) get the brand name

i personally see it as a no one should trademark "kardashian" so that even little lady down the road can be a kardashian or a teenager at school can be a kardashian. without lawsuits and licences being required.

it seems like you dont want to take the core defence hat off to wear a decentralisaed no on owns brand bitcoin hat.



i guess you missed the links to the funding
i guess you skipped over the links to the bilateral split data. even when it was links provided by your kings
i guess you missed the code provided by your own kings

What you say is true pushups44 but Ver seems to think because he is a whale because he was an early investor in Bitcoin start-ups he has an automatic right to direct the way Bitcoin develops. He was behind Bitcoin Cash because he could not have any influence over Bitcoin. No whale has an automatic right to dictate the direction of future development.

As for names and memes are concerned some most members of the community that dislike Bitcoin being called Bitcore Core by the Bitcoin Cash fanclub, they are calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash just because Ver REALLY dislikes it
;D

 how he handled things, that really warrants a class action lawsuit, though I doubt they would really get into it.
 What he did from a consumer's perspective is fraudulent and you can't defend that no matter how you put it in the court.
 Nobody owns bitcoin nor bitcoin cash, sure, but misleading people to buy your 'product' (technically, Roger Ver is the face of bitcoin cash and he advertises the hell out of it) while they wanted to buy another product is fraud. I hope that they really are enthusiastic in getting this thing off so as to put Ver behind bars. A once smart man lowered to the ranks of a scum.

this is bad news for Bitcoin users, and should be law as fair as it is.

hopefully the authorities will understand this.

and can solve this problem cleanly.

Roger Ver deliberately misled people on his website "bitcoin.com". Marking BCH as bitcoin is not a mistake for a professional website. It will mislead novice and hurt new investors' enthusiasm for encryption.

fake bitcoin? how bitcoin can be faked?
if indeed he harms the crowd I strongly agree if he is prosecuted because it will reduce further investors and destroy the ICO project due to the absence of investors who believe

Some people suggest it and when you commit a large-scale fraud or just a matter of time an influential person becomes his victim. 8)

lol, it's an unappealing action even rogerver always gives a comparison between BCH and BTC, so who's right? that he also wants you to throw your BTC for BCH so he holds more of your BTC

Roger Ver is not a "true libertarian", he is not a libertarian at all. He is an avid businessman who wants a lot of money and fame.

I doubt if this particular case or the publicity around it could impact Bitcoin's price so much. While the general public and newbies might give these stories some weight, I don't think the price gets impacted.

Because you are. You are biased and arguing for his statement that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which is a stupid argument to start with.

If you have that kind of argument, then I say that Bitcoin Clashic is the real Bitcoin Cash, http://bitcoinclashic.org/

I assume you also support Roger Ver's fraudulent tendencies? What can you say about his support for Craig Wright as the real Satoshi Nakamoto?


Make the thread and let us discuss it on its own.

i told you before craig is a scammer.

do you not actually read. seems not instead you turn into a reddit sheep to repeat core support statements along with thier well known buzzwords.
i have repeatedly said this. at first i thought that you wre new, and just niave to the state of the community. but your over use of knwn buzzwords and you constant band camp drama concentration is not making m think you are indocrinated into core

so lets make it clear. i said:

NO ONE...
NO ONE..
NO ONE
should own the brand

this whole pointing the finger at ver is just drama to get sheep to vote core as king.
(point your finger at khloe so kim can be queen kardashian)
yes i detest core. but that does not meam anyone that detests core should be automatically shoved into another camp/fanclub.

you really do need to learn about decentralisation and independance because its becoming obvious all you can see is camps that people need to be put in. meaning its starting to become obvious that any discussion on decentralisation/independance will be lost on you

as for the turning into a sheep to read out a core script. well when i see you use the core invented buzzwords "bigblockers" and you only attack ver/wu but you have refused to add jgarzic(who actually made bitcoin cash)  into your attack. its obvious your repeating something you read on reddit and had no independant thought or research

i bet you didnt even know about jgarzics involvement because the core reddit scripts never mentioned it.

anyway when you use well known buzzwords, it reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStpvviPgxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

it even gets worse when your repeating the same statement years after that script began, its like your stuck a few years behind
let me guess you were dying to find an oppertunity to say core are "conservative" as a reason you defend core.. yea yea yea we all heard that script its not unique or original

so you might want to take a few days to reset yourself. take a few steps back and stop just repeating the reddit mindset

have a good few days off restting yourself. i hope one day shep wake up and start having an original thought, as its becoming too obvious that core seem to be forming a centralist group

But what about Roger Ver? Do you support his fraudulent ways of manipulating and confusing the public when he claims that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin"?

Then we go to the "sheep counterargument" again because Bitcoin Cash cannot compete with Bitcoin technically and economically. If I am a sheep then more than 90% of the community sre sheeps.


No one said anyone owns the brand. It is Roger Ver who keeps claiming that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" and it confuses some of the people, especially the newbies because in truth Bitcoin is the cryptocurrency the big blockers call "Bitcoin Core". To make it short, "Bitcoin is Bitcoin".

Bitcoin Cash is Bcash, an altcoin.


Stop. You cannot bring the Core developers to their level. Core is composed of the best minds in the whole cryptocurrency community. If your proposals are not good enough for them, then they will not be included in their repository. But you are free to start your own Bitcoin implementation or start your own hard fork like what Bitcoin Cash has done.

Well I have some good news for you, no one does!  The name belongs to the largest body of users.  You're going to find it difficult to convince them it doesn't.

Look at what happened with the Ethereum hardfork that everyone has almost forgotten about now.  ETH and ETC.  ETC argued profusely that their vision was closer to the intended original version.  But when someone says "Ethereum", you know they mean "ETH" because that's what most users call it.  If you want ETC you need to say "Ethereum Classic".  As such, I'll repeat again, the economic majority will continue to prove they can claim the Bitcoin brand because it will continue to be known as Bitcoin.  That's just how it's going to be.  No butchering the meaning of "decentralisation" will change that.

You still get decentralisation.  Each version of Ethereum gets to exist and have Ethereum in their name.  Users have total freedom of choice over which one they want to use.  But ETC have to settle for the fact that they need to clarify they're "Classic", and not compatible with what most people mean by "Ethereum".  Why is that so bad to you?  Just accept the reality of it and move on with your life.

I'm going to cross-paste my last post in another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834043.msg37195648#msg37195648) for context, to demonstrate my neutral stance on hardforks and to illustrate where I suspect our paths diverge.  Have a read.  

Am I right to assume we agree up until that last paragraph?


Because it sounds like that's what you're advocating.  BCH are the smaller group, yet you seem supportive of the notion that they have the right to rename "Bitcoin" to "Bitcoin Core", despite the wishes of the majority, whilst simultaneously stating that BCH is Bitcoin?  And you wonder why we aren't willing to just go along with that like it's somehow okay?  Are you even hearing yourself?

I would agree with what has been mentioned abobe, that the raising attention to this accident can negatively affect the market but at the same time any attention is good because you are getting to be talked about.

Plus franky1 wants to confuse the readers by saying "Core centralization", strongly suggesting that the Core developers have control over the network. If they did then why did it take for a long time, and a need for a UASF to activate Segwit?

I thank god for coming across an information like this in this forum, this is one of the reason I like this forum. It is not only newbies that will be confuse even old people in cryptoworld will be confuse too. Bitcoin is written is bitcoin core while bitcoincash is written as bitcoin. That site did to be shut down if he is not ready to make necessary correction.

This lawsuit was a wildgoose chase, destined to fail. I cant believe there were people dumb enough thinking anything good will come out of it. Roger wins again. The sooner people realize how decentralisation works the better

franky1 where are you? I believe we should stop the drama and start talking about Bitcoin Cash's vision and technical roadmap. The hard fork to 32mb maximum block size is too much in my opinion, but maybe increasing the data carrier size to 220 bytes might encourage a Counter Party Cash smart contract platform to be built on top.

I also like the return of the disabled OPcodes.

I hope your community throws Roger Ver out. If the project is great then that will speak for itself. You do not need Roger Ver.

 Characters like Roger Ver deserve the worst punishment there possibly can be, Cheating innocent souls into making wrong decisions by a figure like Ron is a very unfortunate and a disgrace, just shows how greedy people can get in this business, the newbies oo need t be enlightened, there are all kinds of information available online about this coins, it will be in order if you took your time as a newbie to look into these coins an make informed investment choices,

 This is a desparet move that is not expected from a respectable figure like Ron, deceiving new investors is not something that should betaken lightly, why does he do that if he is certain of the qyality of the coin he is representing, a serious action should be taken on such people

What he does from the consumer's point of view is deception and you can not keep it, no matter how you put it in court. No one has bitcoin or bitcoin in cash, of course, but it misleads people to buy your 'product' (technically, Roger Ver is the face of bitcoin money and he advertises that hell) while they want to buy another product is a fraud. I hope they are really enthusiastic to let go of this thing to make Ver behind the bars.

I would agree with you that the thing that roger ver has in mind is the idea of turning the bitcoin into the bitcoin cash and, to tell the truth, this is something very significant for those who have just entered the market.

All I know and I think about is that this ver roger is a man who is hungry for a power, which wants to rival, and also plans to destroy the popularity of Bitcoin, but unfortunately because of his excessive and negative behavior, finally made his name and reputation to be falling apart at this time.
And it is appropriate for a person like this ver roger to receive punishment for the wrong he has done today.

Here are some proofs that Bitcoin Cash does not need Roger Ver and that he is hurting the cryptocurrency and its community more than helping it.

It is time for Roger Ver to stop his manipulation through propaganda and start concentrating on marketing the technical characteristics of Bitcoin Cash and why he believes its roadmap is better.

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdUXZYbV0AAkTSV.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdUXhUIU8AEGVFT.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdUXngIUwAYpKU9.jpg

Almost 20 days of you guys hating on Roger Ver.

What have you accomplished?

Lawsuit failed.

Now Pleading with Franky & Bitcoin Cash supporters trying to convince them to also talk smack about Roger Ver. (Guaranteed fail)

Roger Ver just keeps ignoring you and promoting his coin.

Maybe you should learn from that, start ignoring him and promote your coin and its features instead.  :)

Your call , but useless hate is a pure time waster.

 

good to know that

We've made it clear to any new and impressionable users that BTC and BCH are separate things and users always need to make sure they know what they're getting.  Which is more than bitcoin.com achieved until loads of people started complaining and forced them to completely redesign their website to make that clearer.

For the record, I'm not "hating on" Ver.  I think he's welcome to pursue his vision, provided he's not misleading inexperienced users along the way and leaving them out of pocket because they didn't get what they thought they were getting.  The various Bitcoin Cash dev teams are free to develop however they like.  

However, no one here is sitting idly by while someone who claims they aren't holding funds on the BTC chain tries to rename it to "Bitcoin Core" without consent from the users.  Not happening.

Roger Ver deliberately changed the position of bitcoin to bitcoin cash and it was terrible because it could make new players misunderstand about the difference between bitcoin and bitcoin cash

I do not hate him. But his fraudulent tendencies should be stopped.


I believe it showed everyone that he should not be trusted by the community, especially newbies.


That does not mean he is not trying to manipulate everyone.


I did not plead. I told franky1, and I am telling you now. Bitcoin Cash does not need Roger Ver. He is hurting the coin more than he is helping it.


No, he is not promoting. He is lying to everyone by saying that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin". The truth is Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin.


Attacks on Roger Ver will not stop until he himself stops attacking Bitcoin.

  

That's kinda awful tragedy. That roger ver kinda being consumed by greed and commit some fraud to newcomer that hardly know anything about crpytocurrencies. People like Roger Ver need to be putted in jail for a long time. So, he could reflect on what he already did to the newbies.

theymos does the same thing about bitcoin core.

check out the days of bitcoin Xt, bitcoin classic, bitcoin unlimited. these were software that did not want to be altcoins but wanted to be on the old mainnet and continue on the old mainnet. but just not want to sheep follow core.. and theymos REKT, censored and abused them, by saying that they were not bitcoin and only core was bitcoin.

theymos and ver are 2 sides of the same coin (excuse the pun)
so while attacking ver, atleast drop the hypocrisy and attack theymos aswell.. if not then simply accept bitcoin core is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash and neither get to own just "bitcoin" brand

the internet can handle 32mb
users nodes can handle 32mb (its not raspberry pi v1 days of 2009. nor is it basic ADSL of 2009 either) people are living in the fibre/5g era of duelcore multigigbyte ram with terrabyte hard drives

(just for laughs: 1995: floppy disk "no do not release digital camera's there is no way a piece of portable plastic can hold a 2mb image" we should remain with kodak film and get people to not print their own photo's but lock their photo's into a walmart photo printing service hub, where they decide which photos should be printed )

anyway
32mb every ~10mins is 200mb an hour.

netflix/livestream/youtube use more than that.
yep millions of people livestream(liveupload) their gameplay while also using bandwidth for the game play. so if your against 32mb.. go complain to
google that google+ videocalls wont work
vimeo that livestream wont work
apple that facetime wont work
amazon that twitch.tv wont work
microsoft that skype wont work
google that youtube uploads wont work

... oh wait they do work...... shocker

oh.. to add to that although a block may have a 32mb limit. that does not mean pools ar forced to make 32mb blocks.
take the old bitcoin legacy mainnet of 2009-2013
1mb block consensus rule - under0.25mb mining policy
then upto 2013: 1mb block consensus rule - 0.5mb mining policy
then upto 2015: 1mb block consensus rule - 0.75mb mining policy

meaning a consensus HARD 1mb limit was in place with also a stepped increment soft policy limit growing at 0.25mb evry couple years.

if you ar going to rebut about the validation time and that laughable rebuttable of linear quatratics..
a smart contract(ln channel for instance) is usually a 2in 2 out tx.. it does not need a tx to have the ability of 20,000 sigops
so the solution is to limit the signops per tx so that no one can even make a delay causing validation event by abusing max sigops


anyway
my community?
damn dude you really are stuck in the band camp wars.
i am not pidgeon holed in any band camp. nver have been. again just because i detest core does not mean i must belong to some other team.. take a few steps back and move away from the core cabin. and you will see a wider world. gt out of the echo chamber you are stuck in, its not healthy for you

..
as for utilising new OPcodes.. great. more functionality.. but only if that functionality does not open trojan horse back doors for abuse.
EG
one opcode proposal is to have a TX just sign an input thus allow
(il explain the utopia false pretense first)
the ability to alter how much a tx fee is needed without needing to re-sign a tx
(now for the reality)
alter the values of output without needing to re-sign. and thus if there were 2 outputs
in
bc1qLNfactory 0.2btc
out
bc1qFranky 0.1btc
bc1qwindfu 0.0995btc
(fee:0.0005)

could be altered to
in
bc1qLNfactory 0.2btc
out
bc1qFranky 0.199btc
bc1qwindfu 0.0005btc
(fee:0.0005)
https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/sighash-none
many users of smart contracts do not have technical scope to check if a tx is a sighash-none before signing. yep do not expect LN users to request a clartext rawtx version of the contract before signing. which means the system can be abused by counterparts that create such so that they can then alter the output and broadcast a tx where they get most value back to them.

this is why i detest LN because there is loop holes of moving value around after signing and without a blockchain auditing it while in channel. most users are stuck with autopilot and trusting theeir counterparty. even when the counterparty can compile their own LN node to produce such nasty tx types

my hate of the LN is also that it does not scale to a reliable system of random payments to random people for a billion people.
also the features of locking in funds, requiring co-signing and then having delayed maturity and revokes. and other bugs, trojans and backdoors just turns it into somthing worse than fiat2.0

It's an inappropriate act for him to refer to Bitcoin CAsh as the new bitcoin and misleading thousands of newbies who might later lose their coins due to mistakes of sending to wrong addresses when confusion sets in.

But were those implementations of Bitcoin good enough? I also believe a block size increase for political reasons is wrong. The risk is too great.

Plus they looked like they were also attempts to fork the network away from the Core developers.


Is that your defense for Roger Ver? Because you believe Theymos is wrong then you think Roger Ver should also do wrong?

Why do you make assumptions all people associated with crypto hate Roger Ver? It is possible to say that people who dislike what he tried to do against Bitcoin IS NOT hating Ver.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

Aside from misleading newbies. This guy can be charged for "domain squatting". Roger bought bitcoin.com ,including the bitcoin reddit and twitter @bitcoin to promote his own coin called Bitcoin Cash. He is a troll guy!

This is my tinfoil hat theory on Roger Ver's "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" trolling. He wants to be sued in court so he that he could argue his case. Whether he wins or he loses he gets the attention and gets the opportunity to shill Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin. But if he wins then I believe that gives him the right to pressure the exchanges to use the "BTC" ticker for Bitcoin Cash.

He is another reason for people to mistrust crypto currencies. His shoddy way of devaluing the Bitcoin market with his Bitcoin cash stupidity is putting many new people off from entering this market. I hope his ass gets sued and he learns a big lesson not to bite the hand that fed him and not to behave like some cheap trash traitor. I think people like this deserve a good thrashing and we all need to say our piece on social media to make him very unpopular at least.

Many feel that Ver is biting the hand that fed him. Another is Wu that people see as someone who is biting the hand that fed him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

I think I have seen some threads about someone here posting about his friend buying bitcoin cash thinking that he bought bitcoin from bitcoin.com but later find out it is not bitcoin. Firstly I think as a newbie you need to understand what are cryptocurrencies but it is painful that many of them jump into buying because they hear about it and they see that bitcoin.com is selling cheaply without doing research what price BTC is being sold. an Intelligent person should know Bitcoin will not be offer at that particular price bitcoin.com is selling. you want to buy bitcoin cheaply and you got served rightly.

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Roger Ver spent a whole bunch of his own money and a shit ton of effort to SAVE the true Bitcoin from assholes at Blockstream.  And he did save Bitcoin.  In the end, he will come to be known as 'Bitcoin Jesus'.  He did resurrect Bitcoin after Blockstream killed it.  God bless him.

Newbies do not deserve to get scammed or confused regardless of their lack of research. The fault and blame lay solely with Ver because of the confusion caused by the bitcoin.com domain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

it seems that roger ver is trying to make people think that bitcoin is bitcoin cash so change it like that but in my opinion it is not good and it reflects the ugliness of bitcoin cash, and I see the current website is fixing bitcoin (BTC) is no longer bitcoin cash.

so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.

1. xt, clasic, unlimited were not power grabbing. their code did not involve a bilateral split. they were not taking any power away from core because back then. there was a blief that core had no power to take (but funny how you beleive core have power after all your pretense tha core have no power)

2. xt, classic, unlimited just wanted to upgrade the network where all node "brands" could continue to run on the SAME network. but as you now can actually admit. cores power veto'd consensus against a network upgrade via consensus against xt, unlimited, classic. and. so the ntwork didnt upgrade via consensus.
even so. gmaxwell actually begged them to bilateral split. and those other nodes refused. they wanted a network upgrade not a altcoin creation. there was no political reason about power grabbing. it was more so trying to get more functionality out of the network but (inhindsight) requires core to de-power themslves(backdown/compromise) and to play ball with the rest of the community so that everyone was on the same level playing field.

3. i am not defending ver. im just displaying that core are doing the same practice, because theymos and ver are twins of the same big family tree
bloq and blockstream are not opposition. blockstream codd segwit, bloq coded cash.. both are paid by barry silbert. and both get paid by sponsorship of barry silberts media subsiduary coindesk to go to conferences and play act out some rivalry drama.
the funny part is that most core defenders are not independant thinkers. because they are just repeating the ver narrative. but if they were smart independant thinkers they would be talking about jgarzic who actually made bitcoin cash

4. so with all your research(reddiit script reading) and asking script writers (carlton and achowe) do any of them even mention jgarzig. because in all the debates i keep hearing from the core defenders. its the same script, same buzzwords, sam mantra's.
and ys i say core defenders. not bitcoin defenders. because even they have to admit, they are not defending a NETWORK of open community of multiple node code bases. they are defending one team, and are against any other codebase that wishes to upgrade the NETWORK in a different way than core desires

The proposed lawsuit was based on raising enough funds to pay for legal fees but the proposers stopped the funding page and decided agianst any legal action because they only raised a few hundred US$ in Bitcoin donations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

in the appearance of the coin there is no such thing as bad intent or tarnished the coin's name.

but the advertising media Roger Ver is doing is very tarnished the name of Bitcoin.

it's clear Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are different but he said he can see his news on bitcoin.com, where there Bitcoin has a website because Bitcoint is his anonymous nature.

But they did want to take over as the "developers the community should follow". But we saw that it did not work because their arguments about scaling was not truly and argument at all. 1mb block sizes to regulate the network in terms of the blockchain's size, block propagation and transaction propagation should always be there for now.

But it is good that Bitcoin Cash is forking a 32mb block size to observe if all the Core developers' fears are true. I want Bitcoin Cash to be successful like Ethereum for this purpose.


I believe it is up to the community to choose which Bitcoin software they want to run as full validating nodes.


Ok. It is good to know that you also believe that Roger Ver is a scammer trying to defraud confuse and manipulate the community with his "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" propaganda. Thanks for the honesty.


Maybe I am to a fault listening too much of one side. But that side is what made more sense for me. But I will try to listen to all sides next time. The problem is the other side has too much propaganda. You know Roger Ver is always about the propaganda because he lacks the technical knowledge.

@Wind_FURY

Got to say you are a great debater. You analyse and dissect all questions before answering them elegantly and eloquently.

You (and everyone else here) has had so much pro-Ver and pro-Bitcoin Cash propoganda thrown at them that they could have drowned in the pool of confusion and misinformation but you are a model of how debating and responding should be. No doubt many newbies and some seasoned crypo enthusiasts will be relieved after reading your posts because they dismantle the claims behind Bitcoin Cash.

Thank you


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

It's worth emphasising that there is no one particluar developer the community should follow.  People will naturally run whichever client is most representative of the rules they think the network should be governed by.  No developer has any inalienable right to be the ones we "follow".  Since it is ultimately up to users, it shouldn't really be described as "taking over".  No one ever takes over the power users have.

In effect, we only follow them while they provide the best code.

For once, I'm inclined to agree with franky1.  XT, classic and unlimited were not "hostile takeovers".  They were merely proposals to change consensus.  Proposals which failed, but proposals nonetheless.  Where franky1 and I likely part ways is if, for example, XT had decided to fork away, but didn't have an economic majority or the most accumulated POW, but decided that they were the "real" Bitcoin.  That would be a hostile takeover, because they would then be trying to steal a name from a majority of users who disagreed with them.

Conversely, if XT had hypothetically forked and did have the economic support and accumulated POW to back it up, it would be the users then electing to change the consensus rules, so it wouldn't be a hostile takeover and could righty claim the mantle of Bitcoin.

As such, I'd argue that alternative clients can only be considered hostile after a fork has occurred.  Until then, they're just options for users to consider.

No I'm not. I try to post the other side of the argument but I also know that there are small mistakes in what I know and what I thought I knew.

The best outcome from this is everyone learns from each other.


Ok, I will ask around and search for the facts on what truly happened. But I believe it was more than a "scaling debate. It was a war.

no they did not want to take over.
they wanted to use consensus and hope the other teams ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD included nw features so that EVERYONE on the network was on the same level.

it has only been core that refuse to be on an even playing field.
core literally called themselves core because they want to be at the centre. they want to be the engine that drives the protocol. its why they chose the name
core wanted any other dev team that wanted different features to fork off
core and core partners then instigated a contentious bilateral split to then say.. opposers.. you to to the left by using bloqs new fork while core go to the right with blockstreams new fork

xt, classic, unlimited wanted to keep a united single network.. but wanted features on that single network that core devs didnt want as it would cause issues for the cor devs sponsors who wanted bitcoins blockchain to stagnate to drive desires for LN to rise.
LN will be a corporate network worth billions. hense why silbert set out to pay blockstream/bloq devs hundreds of millions upfront to pave th way for it.

but im still laughing at how your trying to sway the attention back towards it all being about ver. even though the bitcoin cash code is BLOQ written and barry silber funded.
why are you so afraid to even mention BLOQ/barry silbert/blockstream

i BELIEVED that too based on the 2009-2013 network..  as consensus was one of the great things about satoshi's features he added into bitcoin
my belief then dwindled in 2013 once the rebrand to CORE occured and power plays started happening and core started wanting control


it would have be easy to follow any client. IF it was not for cores REKT, "fork off" bilateral split campaigns that literally treat core opponents as "network attackers".
yes anyone can run a sheep client to cores protocol. but dare anyone to start their own version with their own OPEN and UNMODERATED bips proposal. that tried to defy cores closed and modered BIPS.. you would soon see that consensus would be avoided by core and new REKT, "fork off" and bilateral split campaigns occur again. even if core only had 35% vote in its favour before their fake election trigger day

That misleading label appears to have been removed now but the site remains extremely biased towards Bitcoin Core throughout and places Bitcoin Cash content under the same header as Bitcoin which would be very confusing for newcomers

Any media attention this gets should help clarify the difference

There are clearly some incredibly vocal supporters of Core.  Some of them do take things to extremes.  While it generally pervades the forum narrative that it's the supporters of alternative clients who supposedly act with "bad intentions", it's worth pointing out that some of the more militant, tribalist Core supporters have exhibited behaviour in the past that could be considered an attack on consensus.  Things like encouraging client spoofing to manipulate statistics of current support levels, impersonating Satoshi to discredit fork proposals and even DDoS attacks on alternative clients.  We've seen all of that and more.  And I'll continue to argue against that kind of behaviour when I see it.  I'm under no illusion here that it's an incredibly hostile environment for alternative clients to make any ingress.  

But chances are, at the very least, some people will continue to describe any alternative client proposing consensus changes an "attack" or a "power grab" and have yet another "REKT" social engineering campaign whenever the opportunity arises.  Even for those of us who don't believe that's a rational argument (and I certainly don't, because there isn't a central entity in Bitcoin to take power from), there's nothing you can do to prevent them saying that, as they're free to express their opinions.  All anyone can do is state why you might disagree and argue a compelling case to the contrary.  Granted, I don't seem to be having much success with that here, but still.  I'll say it again just in case:  alternative clients that propose changes in consensus rules are not attacks, power grabs, coups, hostile takeovers, etc and should not be relegated to the altcoins subforum until a fork has occurred and that chain is the minority fork.

However, while I'm sympathetic to your stance, I have to make it clear that while supporters are acting in this way, that should be no reflection on what any dev team themselves are doing.  All the developers are doing is producing the code they think is best.  If they want to do that via strictly moderated channels and procedures to produce what they believe is the strongest and most resilient code, that's entirely their prerogative.



It once again sounds like you're blaming one particular dev team for the way in which it's difficult to change consensus in Bitcoin.  Any dev team can have prerequisites and processes that need to be adhered to in order to submit new code.  Just because Core are quite strict and regimented about what can go into their repo, it doesn't mean they have any influence about what code goes into other clients.  Ultimately it's still the users who are effectively forcing it work in this way, because it's the users who are choosing to run the code that has gone through such a rigorous process and rejecting other clients which may arguably be less stringent.  But again, if they could do it without the social engineering REKT silliness, that would be an improvement.  People should make more of an effort to be neutral and impartial about these things and not just jump on a bandwagon because it's popular.  Ultimately, though, if the current methods are what the majority of users approve of, that's how it'll continue to be done.  So blame the users, not that one dev team.  

the so called consequenzes for roger ver didnt effect, there was no sueing of him,

so describing bitcoin cash as true butcoin, is completely free and legit to do.

soon it will also be free and legit to to completely create and propagate an alternative cryptoindex

in human history with money also came oppression or metalism/materialism

just information as money can proof difficult.

The hole Roger dug himself into was thinking he can decide what bitcoin is. That's not how it works.

So any of the following can claim to be the real "Bitcoin" without hesitation yet nobody would belive them. There is simply "Bitcoin" and there are low level Bitcoin derivatives such as these:

Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X  
Bitcoin Z

Just to make it clear, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Everything else is a fork or derivative of Bitcoin

Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Dark is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Diamond is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Fast is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin God is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Green is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Interest is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Planet is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Plus is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Private is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Scrypt is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin X is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Z is not Bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

maybe you should look into the handshaking preferences of Fibre and the DNS seeds.
do you know why core demanded other nodes to change their versionbits and their id.. ill leave you to investigate

also ask yourself with only 35% of the network running cores most up to dat version.. how did core start rejecting 65% of the rest
ill leave you to investigate

and yes trying to run a node by spoofing as a core client just to get acceptance, core treat as an attack. yet its core that have put up the barrier to stop other nodes just joining in


the thing is. reverse psychology your own statement
can theymos say that bitcoin core protocol is "bitcoin"

the truth is that theymos promoting core is the exact same argument as ver promoting cash.
to me its jsut far easier to avoid any debate, argument, misinterpretation and issues by saying when someone asks for bitcoin. you reply cash or core
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian

Apart from pro-Ver and pro-Bitcoin Cash propagators nobody calls "Bitcoin" by the name of "Bitcoin Core". There is no "Bitcoin Core", there is Bitcoin and then there are forks containing the name such as Bitcoin Atom, Bitcoin Gold, Bcash etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

thats the hyposcrisy though.. ver says there is no bitcoin cash there is only bitcoin
YOU say there is no bitcoin core there is only bitcoin

and who maintains what you call "bitcoin"..

hopefully you wont say that core maintains it
hopefully you wont say that core is the reference client
hopefully you wont say that core are literally the core/engine of the network

but if you think that core are the maiintainers then you like theymos are declaring that core is bitcoin... which is the same hypocrisy

describe what "bitcoin" is at a protocol level. EG what features and who coded those features. i bet you cant say its the random community of multiple different node client teams if you were brutally honest with yourself

Before any of the following were created there was Bitcoin (bitcoin.org):

Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X  
Bitcoin Z

No hypocrisy at all. Bitcoin Atom is derivative of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is a derivative of Bitcoin. There is no Bitcoin Core, there is just Bitcoin followed by all those forks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

you have no original thought you are just copy and pasting the same words. but fail to answer the questions

you do know what a bilateral split is.
and why its different to a unilateral split

you can try to deny the bilateral split. but thats just you. because the devs of both cash and core have publicly admitted a bilateral split occured

as of august both core and cash differ to the protocol rules, differ to the block structure, differ to the transaction types available, differ to the network typology of what was bitcoin 2009-2016

now try and answer with a post that does not contain any content that has been copy and pasted. go on try having an original thought and some research which you have then processed and can mention in your own words

No need to try to get all technical with me. In a nutshell, a minority of sheep being huddled along believe Bcash is Bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

lol
you are just repeating the reddit drama script. you cant even see the wider picture.
the bitcoin cash deception instigated by barry silbert paid individuals is all ust social drama of illsion and finger pointing to try getting the community to say dont let X have it because it should belong to Y

lete me explain this to you in terms you might understand

when you were born. your parents did not sign a birth certificate for you. so technically you had no parents and no one was a guardian/custodian of you. you had no surname. you could live in anyones house..

later on you decided to live in the core household that was being financed by the barry silber family. although you had visits with other houses many people started calling certain people your mum and dad

your parents later on didnt want you to be a free person with no one controlling you. you were a rebel and knew the people you called mum and dad couldnt do anything
your mum and dad will still share a bed, and both will still get the same income and live in the same house. but they decide to do some fake drama campaign by dividing the house

where your mummy and daddy decided one day to split up. so that the courts would be forced to decide on a parent to become your responsibility. and you would finally be registered to someone as your custodian/guardian

they knew that neither by default gets custody of you via an amicable divorse. they are both equal divisions of you. but then your still not registered to a single custodian. you would still be free with no surname

so everyone, neighbours, friends and others around hoped things can be amicable and doesnt cause chaos for you and that when people want to talk to your family. they simply ask mummies side or daddies side.

but instead. mummy and daddy secretly agreed before the divorse to play some drama and be hypocrits and play games to point fingers in one direction so atleast daddy gets custody of you.

so mummy decides to act nuts and shouts out that your her child and only hers. she even says that she gave birth to you and has a trust that was set up of a large sum of money that proves ownership of you.

daddy pretends that he wa always around and as you turned into a teen he took over bringing you up and so he deserves the responsibility...


mummy =cash
daddy= core
your future surname=barry-silbert
you=bitcoin

@franky1

There is only one Bitcoin and there is only one Bitcoin Cash. The two are separate entities.

Ver threw is toys out of the pram then spat out his dummy and created Bcash because he thought by virtue of him being a whale he could control Bitcoin. After all he seems himself better placed than theymos and others though many disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

who is roger ver?

you are so amusing
ver didnt even create cash

you are well and truly stuck reading the propaganda scripts and just copy/pasting junk

BLOQ made bitcoin cash
atleast do some research.

oh and research is not reading reddit.

anyway you love scripts so much and you make people laugh with all the trip-ups you make. im guessing your day job is a comedian
anyways. have a nice time on the comedy stage. but in no way will you ever star in a documentary.

just a social drama face used to provoke debate and distract people from the real critical things happening. he didnt code any node is just part of a finger pointing campaign to reverse psych people into wanting to hand core and thus barry silbert the control they want

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png

the market is not about honest or something else the market is about capitalism to fleece the sheep and everything is being done to achieve that.

you are new in btc world? be aware of scammer!

True. Describe what a scammer is though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

https://image.ibb.co/mFMi88/rv1_Copy.png

Okay, I think you've made your point.  We've all seen it now.  Take it down a notch, maybe?  

---

No single individual can redefine what Bitcoin is when there are countless users around the world who already know what it is.  You need those users to agree with your usage of the name, or it's inevitable you're going to face a backlash.  So it's not the exact same argument at all.  You have a tendency to blame the individual for circumstances that are borne of the actions of the many.  You can't blame theymos for the fact that the majority of users agree with him.  That's just how it is.  If the users didn't agree with theymos, he too would face a backlash for attempting to steal the name from the users.

There's a double standard involved here, too.  Could you imagine if bitcoin.org did promote both chains, but insisted on calling the BCH chain "bcash" on their site?  Just visualise the total meltdown Roger Ver would have then.  That would be poor form on the part of bitcoin.org, because that chain isn't called "bcash" and BCH users generally don't want it to be called that.  The same applies in reverse, so bitcoin.com shouldn't be calling the BTC chain "bitcoin core" against the wishes of BTC users because that's equally poor form.

There's nothing stopping you from calling it Bitcoin Core if that's how you want to distinguish it from Bitcoin Cash, but you're going to need to accept the fact that all the BTC users who have literally zero interest in buying or spending BCH don't need to make that distinction.  It's inevitable they're going to keep calling the two chains "Bitcoin" and "Bitcoin Cash".  And that's literally your best case scenario here, because if you piss the BTC users off by trying to change their chain's name without their consent, they're all going to start calling Bitcoin Cash "bcash" instead.  I haven't so far, but if you keep forcing this utter futility of yours, I just might start.  

You call it what you want, we're calling it Bitcoin.  End of.



Do you walk into your local British shops and ask "Is that the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian or British Pound?"

Of course you fucking don't.  You'd only ask about those pounds if you specifically wanted to use those particular currencies.  If we're not transacting in BCH, we don't need to make any distinction.  So give up with the bullshit already.  You call it what you want.  We'll call it what we want.  And I assure you we won't be calling it anything other than Bitcoin or BTC.

I do not really know Roger Ver, if he is the one who cheated the bitcoin novices. It is an evil act, it is inappropriate for him to be here better to give him a lesson that is worthy for a con man like him.

According to Wallet Investor, Ver intentionally abuses the name "bitcoin" on its website Bitcoin.com, which sells bitcoin and bitcoin cash to deceive trusting investors and provoke them to buy the "wrong" bitcoin. "Given that the site is called Bitcoin.com, and is also a place to sell bitcoin, bitcoin cash and cloud mining contracts, it can potentially mislead novice investors and beginners, forcing them to buy the wrong bitcoin."

Many believe there is intent on part of Ver, yes.

There are Over 17 coins with the name bitcoin in front.  

From what I saw, the website did not sell either bcore or bcash coins directly on the site, but link to exchanges, where you had to login and choose yourself.

So technically no one purchased a single coin on his site.

But please don't let reason interfere with the Roger Ver Hate Fest.

Next post, Roger Ver drowned puppies and lost your GI Joe Action Figure.  ;)

Is Roger Ver really the Cobra Commander?  :o
http://news.hisstank.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/02/Sideshow-Cobra-Commander-020_1391975230-150x150.jpg

I never heard of "Bitcoin Core" or "Bcore" before, I only heard of "Bitcoin".

I have heard of "Bcash" and "Bitcoin Cash" and that is a low level derivative forked from "Bitcoin"

Bcore is the Segwit/LN fork promoted by G.Maxwell & Blockstream, dropped the itcoin as the slang term is quicker to type.
Much the same as bcash is quicker to type.

With over 17 coins using the name bitcoin, adding the 2nd part assure no confusion, which is the whole point , to not confuse the newbies.

BTC=BCORE=Bitcoin Core
BCH=BCASH=Bitcoin Cash

There is only one "Bitcoin" and the others are forks of "Bitcoin". Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin Z. None of the "Bitcoin" forks are "Bitcoin", there is only one "Bitcoin"

Wow i never heard about this before. Good thing that i find this thread so i get a new information.
But that's terrible. How can he do that for his own good? I don't understand people like this. I've heard the debate about what's the original bitcoin, bitcoin or bitcoin cash, but i never know there's a complicated case like this.
I'm sorry for those who feel scammed, but i hope you all don't think bad about bitcoin, and i really agree, he should be sued. Don't let him escape or else the same thing might happen again in the future.

Misleading the new comers into believing that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin is tantamount to fraud since he would make pecuniary gains from it. It is good to frown at such act to serve as deterrent to any one who may want to engage in such act in future.

Sorry using bitcoin by itself is too vague , and may confuse newbies, if someone forgets to add the 2nd part.

I will stick with including the 2nd name BCore or BCash or BAtom or BGold or BZ.

If you want to confuse newbies by leaving off the 2nd part , your call.  :)

A group of crypto-currency enthusiasts is considering the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com owner Roger Vera. According to them, it deliberately misleads novice investors, using confusion among the newcomers between bitcoin and bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash), which in August 2017 appeared in the framework of Bitcoin's bitterness. A possible class action is organized by @MoneyTrigz, a Twitter user who is co-owner of Coindaily.co. The lawsuit is discussed in a Telegram chat called "Bitcoin.com - lawsuit / victims" (Bitcoin.com lawsuit / victims), to which any user can join. The chat already has more than 444 participants, but it is not clear how many of them plan to join the suit.

Such a sad state of affairs our crypto community is in because Roger Ver threw his toys out of the pram and created Bitcoin Cash knowing it could only have any real value if connected to his already owned bitcoin.com domain name

Dude , they canceled that weeks ago, shame no one here mentions it.

They could not raise enough money to pay a lawyer.  Kinda Lame really, that this topic outlived their pitiful attempt at a lawsuit.

Now this I have to agree with. Zin-Zang you are right, it is kind of lame that this thread outlived the pitiful attempt at taking Ver to court. Had they planned it better I am sure they would have made progress towards litigation (regardless of the outcome) but it was not to be.

In future if somebody makes a concerted effort to get a team together and put forward a plan to "try" to take Ver to court it might work out better as long as there is super-clarity about exactly who is the team behind the lawsuit action.

Maybe if somebody living in the US directly complained to their relevant agency about the confusion "bitcoin.com" is causing along with proof of their losses and how they incurred them then maybe there would not be a need for a lawsuit, maybe the relevant authorities will be happy to continue alone "if" they deem a crime has taken place.

It seems to me that no one will prove anything. those people who are going to invest in bitcoin or even crypto currencies should carefully study everything and understand everything even a little, and not listen to some pseudo-experts.

Yes I was wrong. They should play on a level playing field if they wanted for the community to run their software and be followed in developing the real Bitcoin.

But they can also do a hard fork and continue on in their road map.


Ok. Believe it however you like. Hahaha.


Bitcoins will stagnate because of smaller blocks you mean? That is not true. They were technical reasons, not the propaganda that big blockers wanted everyone to believe.

Mike Hearn also said Bitcoin will die by now if the Core developers maintained the 1mb block size, didn't he? Haha.


I am not afraid. I am avoiding to argue over your useless, fake, lies, big blocker propaganda and your tinfoil hat conspiracies.

Bitcoin is in good hands. The big blockers should be happy with their fork Bitcoin Cash.

People with weird characters like Roger don't deserve freedom, they should instead be locked in a cell, never to see the daylight ever,. Its unfortunate that a man in his position could stoop so low and make such decisions to misguide innocents into buying currency they had no intention of buying, The newbies are also however at fault, you just don't commit your money somewhere you have no proper idea of, that's why its encouraged that before you invest, do your research well

im not even talking about both chains at this point.. im highlighting the hypocrisy of "core" how those that point fingers to pretend bitcoin is decentralised and no team own it by saying somone needs to be sued.. yet when the debate is flipped.. they then defend how they want bitcoin to b centralised and owned by one team. and that include (the mega hypocritical and even worse part) letting one person say its just one team "core" that are the project

so to reword your question to clarify my point..
could you imagine if bitcoin.org DID promote core, btcd, knots, unlimited, xt, classic (all clients of the SAME chain) EQUALLY?
OMG mind blowing thought.
could you imagine if people stopped defending core and stopped attacking any node that is running on the same network as core..
OMG mind blowing thought again
just imagine it. no more directing people to think that core is the master, king, controller.

this is why i keep telling people if they really believed in bitcoin decentralisation.. first they must take off the core defense hat, to atleast give themselves purspective.


in america talking to americans, yea just call the dollar the dollar.
in england talking other brits, yea just call the pound the pound

but ovr the internet.. (sorry to open your mind to this) where the walls expand beyond the room your computer sits. where anyone can be anywhere in the world. when someone mentions dollar sometimes its prudant and easy to ask if they mean US dollar or australian dollar. especially if that person is asking for some

EG imagine i was australian and you were american. i say i will give you $20,000, but have you got a $ acepting bank account
soon enough we find out that i cant give you australian dollar because you have an american bank account.. so you lose

you should have clarifed it was a US bank.. or i should have asked if it was a US or AU.. . thats all im saying.
over the internet. you cant just assume. so its simpler to just ask which they are talking about because the brand should not be owned by anyone

..
but anyway. it seems the people i debate with are not bitcoin defenders.. but core defenders. and they cant see the hypocrisy of the difference. even whn highlighting the reverse psychology thats being played out

the point of calling it bitcoin core instead of bitcoin is this..
if i call it bitcoin core. core defenders pretend and try to say no its bitcoin because core dont own it... 2 seconds later defend that core do 

here you go again with the "big-blocker" buzzword,
it is like a certain time of the day where you sit back and down a gallon of the core reddit script koolaid?

firstly the COMMUNITY majority said 2mb
core said no..
core then propagandised the "gigabyte block" as "big blockers"

core then said 2mb was bad, for technical reasons.. but kept up the gigabyte block propaganda

.. and then. the laughing part
core backtracked the technical problems for 2mb and then said 4mb weight is fine.. all because they realised THEY needed 4mb for thieir segwit transaction types.. but still didnt want to give the community the 2mb for the legacy transaction types. even though technical details showed 2mb was not a problem anyway.

they decided to split the network to get rid of core opposers, so that core could go in one direction away from the rules of 2009-2016. and the rest go in another direction.. yep core diverted directions too.. thats why even core said its a bilateral split and not a unilateral split.

P.S
try not to wear the core defense cap. because by saying the protocol is safe in thier hands is you giving up your own hands(dcentralisation) and handing bitcoin to core.
and try not to get too addicted to the reddit script koolaid. it becomes too obvious when you start using certain buzzwords but lack the full picture of understanding.

 ;D  Say it straight forward

And I'm highlighting the hypocrisy that Ver thinks it's okay to rename Bitcoin when he doesn't like other people renaming Bitcoin Cash.  Selective quoting much?  You left that point out entirely and decided to make an entirely unrelated point.

The full quote was as follows:

Don't skirt the real issue here.  You don't get to tell other people what to call their chain.  I literally could not care less about how centralised you think Bitcoin is, or how much you think that one developer is in total control, or that you don't like the way in which bitcoin.org promote the BTC chain.  None of that means you get to tell anyone what their chain is called.  That's not how it works.

I don't own "Bitcoin Core" because that's a dev team.  If you try telling other people that I do own "Bitcoin Core", I'm going to tell you you're wrong.  Because you are.  I own some BTC and some BCH.  I can tell them apart because they each have their own unique names.  I can explain the difference to other people without changing those names.  I don't own a dev team, so stop telling me I do.

And back to the point you raised while selectively quoting, people only started talking about suing Ver when he started making people lose money by failing to make it clear what they were buying.  Now that they've changed the website, I'd only support suing him for those who have already lost money because of his actions.  There's no need to sue for future unless more people are ripped off because they were misled.  The situation should be resolved going forward, though.  Again, there's no need to keep arguing about this (aside from your moronic insistence that we need to rename Bitcoin because Ver mislead people through his own incompetence.  Keep arguing about that all you want, but you won't get anywhere), because they've now taken steps to remedy it.  Problem solved.  They've changed the website.  It's better now.  Drop it already, we aren't renaming shit.  You call it whatever you want.



Yeah, because that would definitely clear things up to people who haven't got the slightest clue how crypto works yet.   ::)

"Welcome to Bitcoin, here are over a dozen coins that are completely incompatible with each other, but we'll leave to your completely inexperienced guesswork to figure out which one you need".

I don't see anything going wrong there.  Nope.  Not a thing.   ::)

If certain websites have enough trouble making the distinction between just two coins, I don't think it's wise to risk the multitude of others.

On a more serious note, perhaps people should be taught that Core aren't a centralised authority that controls Bitcoin.  Maybe that message is getting lost along the way somewhere.  I don't have any arguments with that point.  You are correct that many people here on the forum seem to be under the mistaken impression that only one dev team are permitted to decide what the rules should be.  People who think that are wrong.  No ifs or buts about it.  Core submit code and if the users like it they run that code.  Other developers submit code, if users prefer that code, they'll run that instead.  That's the beauty of it.  However, no one is under any obligation to promote code they might not agree with.  Not least due to the fact it would make the learning curve much more steep for newcomers.



Yes.  And it was Ver who make a complete cock-up of that and made people think BCH was BTC.  He failed to make the distinction correctly, despite the fact that he's the one who needs to make it clear because he wants to discuss both chains.  He made people lose out because he made them think they were getting something they weren't.  His mistake, not ours.  But now, you're making the argument that, because of his mistake, we are somehow under some sort of obligation to rename our entire chain to "Bitcoin Core" even when we aren't talking about BCH?  Get a damn clue already.

I'm done with trying to be polite about this.  Fuck off.  And I mean right off.  That's not how it works.  You don't get to muddy the waters by confusing newbies and then tell us it's our job to fix it.  That's completely asinine.  It's not our job to stop other people on the internet doing stupid shit.  There are ways to make a distinction without trying to rename a chain that doesn't belong to you.  We have a distinction already, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, or BTC and BCH.  If I need to make it clear to someone what chain I'm talking about, those are the names I'll be using.

Again, I don't own "Bitcoin Core" because that's a dev team.  If you try telling other people that I do own "Bitcoin Core", I'm going to tell you you're wrong.  Because you are.  I own some BTC and some BCH.  I can tell them apart because they each have their own unique names.  I can explain the difference to other people without changing those names.  I don't own a dev team, so stop telling me I do.

Now, is there any more completely unrelated drivel about decentralisation and defence caps you'd like to throw in to try and deflect from the fact that your efforts are completely futile?  If you have to keep pissing into the wind, don't spray other people in the process.  That's what your actions here amount to and people don't appreciate it.  You're only encouraging more people to take shots at Ver for causing this whole mess.  Let it go already.

so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3419499.msg38627146#msg38627146 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3419499.msg38627146#msg38627146)

The lawsuit will not go ahead because of lack of funding

Well then... that settles that  ;D

That very strong-worded statement from DooMAD highlighted clear distinctions between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. He rightly pointed out to everyone that the onus is upon Ver to provide information to people visiting his website that his Bitcoin Cash is basically Bitcoin Cash. Simple.

There was a documentary on TV in my country about Bitcoin and the millionaire people and Ver R. was speaking for a few minutes. It was enough now we call this guy a "guignol" :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guignol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guignol): Guignol is the main character in a French puppet show which has come to bear his name  :o

Is big blocker a buzzword? Not it's not and it is not a Reddit script. It was something that came out from the Bitcoin community like a meme.

We should start teaching that to the newbies in the forum to maintain Bitcoin culture.


That again were trolled on Bitcoin Unlimited which the big blockers took very seriously. Everyone knows there will not be "gigabye blocks" because there will not be that many users in the big blockers' network.


The laughing part? There is no laughing part. The Core developers wanted a block size increase WITHOUT a hard fork which the big blockers were demanding. The Core developers wanted a soft fork and backwards compatibility with the legacy nodes to avoid the risks that came with a hard fork.

They did a VERY good job in Segwit.


This is Roger Ver's propaganda. Believe it for as long as you like.


I will never believe in anything what Roger Ver says because he is wrong. The Bitcoin Cash community would be better without him and his friend Craig Wright which Roger Ver recognizes as the real Satoshi.

Is Roger Ver good for the Bitcoin Cash community?

The irony is that those who have bought in the whole Bitcoin Cash thing might even ask or force him to stand aside while they take BCH down a suitable path. Ver might have been behind Bitcoin Cash but he most probably is too volatile an individual to be trusted is Ver good for the Bitcoin Cash community? Probably "No"

We should not fight with each over. But now you've gone off on your own ridiculous tangent saying that everyone has to stop calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin" just because some people forked away.  Literally never going to happen.  Give it up. 

it seems roger ver is trying very hard to try to substitute bitcoin cash into bitcoin so try to buy some assets and a website called bitcoin and used to inform bitcoin cash. it's sad if new users make a mistake when buying.

but they are not. core are centralised
let me guess. next you are going to say apple is decentralised because employees and interns have their own homes and own commputers..


core submit code. and BYPASS consensus. and put in a MANDATORY upgrade date of august 1st
others submit code, use consensus.. and core REKT, "fork off" scream, and bilateral split them away

show me any network upgrades that have occured on the blockchain since 2013 that have occurd not due to CORES process
show me just one

seems you have spent a bit of time over at reddit cand started catching the core defense bug..

seems out of the box thinking of bitcoin without you dfending core has now officially been lost. you have now ran down the core rabbit hole.

goodluck. but remember core are not immortal. so try not to wast too much time kissing their ass hailing them as kings. one day they will just stop coding and/or retire. but until then other nodes will continue to be REKT, screamed at with "fork off" or get bilaterally split away.. unless they act like sheep to cores roadmap

august 1st was a hard fork. wake up to reality. they even had to make a mandatory date and reject blocks.. you know this. so stop denying it. its actually got code and even block proof it occured. so you cant deny it or prove it did not occur.

seems you too have run down the core rabbit hole

any way.. while the core defenders keep up the distraction drama of core vs cash.. pointing fingers while barry silbert grabs the branding.

what people are not looking at is that while being told cash is the threat. which its not. other currencies are making a move for the top spot..
but hey. let the core devs and their fans point fingers away from the real big picture.

may all core fans enjoy your little cabin fever of an echo chamber

analogy of a core dev/fanboy
"everyone look at this annoying pimple on my right arm.. but dont look at the skin cancer on the left arm. and definetly dont notice the entire body"

What you say is true but it is so difficult for newbies to understand the misinformation when they visit the "bitcoin.com" website because that is promoting Bitcoin Cash and bewbies are buying Bitcoin Cash and downloading Bitcoin Cash but think they are downloading and buying "Bitcoin"

It seems to me that no one will prove anything. those people who are going to invest in bitcoin or even crypto currencies should carefully study everything and understand everything even a little, and not listen to some pseudo-experts.

I follow that guy on Twitter and he is just expressing his opinions on what is truly following what Nakamoto built,He can’t be sued for sharing his opinions to others.

Even though I am not fan at all of BCH, I don't personnally think what Roger's doing is fraud.

it seems roger ver is trying very hard to try to substitute bitcoin cash into bitcoin so try to buy some assets and a website called bitcoin and used to inform bitcoin cash. it's sad if new users make a mistake when buying.

Unfortunately, this won't be going anywhere. These people need to be fought with their own techniques, not in courts. Otherwise we're no better than Faketoshi and his blockchain patents. Anyways, the point is that we need to play their game. We need to a collective effort to show everyone (truthfully) why bitcoin cash is a scam and why the people behind it are frauds. Suing people over stuff like this kinda goes against the spirit of crypto.

you do know this whole propaganda thing of core vs cash is all just finger pointing social drama. both bloq who made cash network and blockstream who made segwit which is now the core network are both funded by the same group right.

you must also know by now that everything ver is doing theymos has done
everything adam back is doing craig wright has done

its all one big masquerade

cash is the pimple on the left arm
core is the cancer on the right arm

and deep pocket investors want people looking at the hands while they take the whole body in the middle

There is no "Bitcoin Core" but there is "Bitcoin Cash"

There is "Bitcoin" and "Bitcoin Cash"

I do not really know Roger Ver, if he is the one who cheated the bitcoin novices. It is an evil act, it is inappropriate for him to be here better to give him a lesson that is worthy for a con man like him.

Lately he (Ver) is massively promoting with tag "Bitcoin Cash is Real Bitcoin". For newbies this tag can be dengerous, a friend of mine is confuse when he want to buy bitcoin 2 weeks ago and bitcoin.com (Ver's website) is main cause of his confusion

Please elaborate & detail what exactly was his confusion,
the differences between Bcore(BTC) & Bcash(BCH) or on how to use the 3rd party exchange he had to visit to actually make a purchase of either coin?

Has google been blocked from your friend's country so he was unable to find an answer before clicking buy?
or
Was your Friend just too lazy to make a few clicks of research to know what he was buying?

I have nothing against Bitcoin Cash, but the way Roger Ver is promoting it is really bad. He is misleading people into thinking BCH is Bitcoin and BTC is Bitcoin Core. Many Newbies would be confused ... especially if they go to Bitcoin dot com, the website of Roger Ver.

I know what? Stop trying to put thoughts in my head, I do not have my tinfoil hat on. Hahahaha.


No Roger Ver is the person saying "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin". I have a suggestion for you. Start calling Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin and pray very hard that it will come true. Maybe that will make you happy.


Bitcoin Cash is the threat? What a laugh! Hahaha.


Echo chamber of truth, not Roger Ver's lies. Bitcoin Cash has a chance to be a good cryptocurrency if Roger Ver was not there to ruin its reputation.


Are you frustrated that you have failed to convince the forum in believing Roger Ver's lies?

Roger Ver is destroying Bitcoin Cash's reputation. You do not need a lying fraudster like him.

I guess not too lazy but just fooled by some modern day clicking when trying to research about Bitcoin and going to bitcoin.com only to discover later bitcoin.com does not promote bitcoin

A bit like going to any convenience store and paying for a can of Orange Fanta. No matter where you buy it from it is the same product. However when you go to say one store in particular for the first time "Orange Fanta Store" and buy the Orange Fanta product that looks the same and is labelled the same IS NOT the same. After paying for it you open and taste it to discover it is Coca Cola. You argue your case but the sales attendant replies "this is the real Fanta in the version of what the original recipe maker would have wanted it to taste like".  Then there was a customer in the queue that overheard the conversation and came forward advising the customer he should not have been fooled by the near identical packaging and labelling and should have done more research even though going to orangefanta.com advised him to go to his nearest Orange Fanta Store.

The fact that newbies are suffering does not seem to as unintentional as it appears. No. It seems newbies losing money is considered collateral by some in a way to keep alive the confusion. Bitcoin Atom is not "Bitcoin" and does not claim to be. No other fork claims to be "Bitcoin" but Ver and his Bcash want to fool people.

besides that, I think Roger Ver is trying to make people panic and confuse about what should they choose because people still like bitcoin than bitcoin cash although bitcoin cash is trying to reach the highest price too. but I am sure that the real bitcoin is bitcoin and it will survive in any of negative news that wants to destroy bitcoin reputations. I am sure that in the end, bitcoin will still lead in the crypto world and people still use bitcoin as their main cryptocurrency and their main investment.

Hes newbie, and you now Ver is massively advertised BCH and he fooled by tag "Bitcoin Cash is real Bitcoin".

This lawsuit was a wildgoose chase, destined to fail. I cant believe there were people dumb enough thinking anything good will come out of it. Roger wins again. The sooner people realize how decentralisation works the better

Do not listen to his tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. He is trying to take the attention away from Roger Ver's fraudulent behavior. You are the biggest Roger Ver supporter and you spread his propaganda like it was the truth.

You keep posting that there is a conspiracy but are really trying to convince everyone that Bitcoin should be called "Bitcoin Core".

But there is already a cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Core. It's BTCC, https://thebitcoincore.org/

Plus you also told us that the "gigabyte block" was just propaganda made by the Core developers. Look at what this company is developing. 1 Terrabyte blocks for Bitcoin Cash. Hahaha.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdcRarOVQAALCd9?format=jpg

So "Bitcoin Core" is an altcoin, a fork of "Bitcoin": https://thebitcoincore.org/ (https://thebitcoincore.org/)
Their explorer is at: https://truevisionofsatoshi.com/ (https://truevisionofsatoshi.com/)

So here is another altcoin, another fork alongside Bitcoin Cash that says their project is based in the true vision of Satoshi...

"CoinGeek.com, the cryptocurrency media outlet and blockchain company, announced on Monday that it is funding of up to 3.6 million Euro to support Terab, an open source initiative that will solve a key technical issue to enable the Bitcoin Cash chain to massively scale to terabyte size blocks and 7 million transactions per second.

The Terab project will be managed by Lokad, the French quantitative supply chain technology provider, and will receive technical support from nChain, the blockchain research & development specialist.

One of the major criticisms of Segwit Bitcoin is the apparent inability to scale to the level of transactions that payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard can provide. For cryptocurrencies to be competitive in the global payments space, high volume transaction scaling is vital but, not, as many have suggested, impossible and Bitcoin Cash is now firmly on that road."

- CoinGeek statement

Joannes Vermorel, Lokad founder,  has recently advocated that terabyte-size blocks are viable – but only on the BCH chain. A single terabyte block (added every 10 minutes) can contain about 4 billion Bitcoin transactions, and provide capacity of 7 million transactions per second.  

He added that the scale of a network with 1 TB blocks would be immense, and enable BCH to power not just monetary transactions but machine-to-machine data transactions of many types.

https://hype.codes/coingeekcom-funds-eu36-mln-scale-bch-1-tb-blocks (https://hype.codes/coingeekcom-funds-eu36-mln-scale-bch-1-tb-blocks)

So Bitcoin Cash getting forked with 1TB blocks when Ver created Bitcoin Cash citing 8MB blocks as revolutionary so I guess that makes Bitcoin Core the real Bitcoin Cash (BTCC is the real BCH) because it is closer to the vision of Ver and his Bitcoin Cash than anything else out there ;D

Before you start repeating your "dollar argument" for the hundredth time, you have what you want.  You've got your Bitcoin decentralisation.  No one is saying you can't have your BCH version of Bitcoin.  The problem people have is when there isn't a clear enough distinction made between the BTC and BCH versions.  Stop twisting the narrative to claim we don't want you to have your BCH version.  You've got it.  We can't take it away from you.  You're free to call it Bitcoin Cash.  But the BTC and BCH networks are not compatible and the bitcoin.com website was doing a piss-poor job of explaining that.  Many here believe it was intentional and clearly dishonest. 

Well if it is really true then it is a good way of suing people when they abuses someone on defrauding bitcoin to the newbies. In this way some will not take courage anymore on doing a kind of activities like this. In short this could help minimize the people doing the likes of this activity. This is the start of bitcoin evolving to another stage of its advancing to new era of digital currency.

I do believe that Roger Ver made Bitcoin cash to line up his pocket and the pockets of many many other business cartels. I remember when a big pump happened on a Korean exchange and it really led to a lot of FUD regarding Bitcoin and he was the head of that FUD. They really played a dirty game against bitcoin and although I do not have anything against other altcoins, on the contrary I collect and trade them, I do not like the underhanded way Roger Ver tried to go against Bitcoin for his own greed and for some other greedy business people to make bank.

The accusations came down after it was noticed that the block explorer, a tool for visualizing data on Bitcoin.com (a news resource owned by Roger Vera), revealed that many consider the Bitcoin Cash protocol to be the original version of the blockage branched out as a result of the August fork in order to obtain bitcoin, and not vice versa.

I feel that these kind of lawsuits will never get off the ground, or are doomed for failure if they ever get started. When nobody owns the Bitcoin trademark and there are thousands of forks getting generated which use the Bitcoin brand, it would be tough to point fingers at Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin Cash was the only one fork that claimed to be "Bitcoin". None of the other forks claimed to be "Bitcoin"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI)

http://i66.tinypic.com/2co3aqp.png