I'm showing you videos that shows Roger doing exactly what he does.

If Roger's actions offend you, then you'll have to reconsider your devotion.

I also find it amusing that just because someone did "some good stuff" you think it absolves them of any future criticism. That statement is absurd.

Just for reference, in case people can't be bothered to scroll up:

Roger flipping the middle finger and ranting about being a "made millionaire" - https://youtu.be/OJT2CbfHTpo?t=2468 (Helpfully time-indexed.)

Roger stating he was "surprised" by BCash, when he previously stated "my project", showing he's a liar - https://youtu.be/AkbSrmsYJ9c?t=4635

This showed the true colors of Roger Ver, the same person who freaked out in a video interview and started ranting about being a "made millionaire" before the host was.

Reference: https://youtu.be/OJT2CbfHTpo?t=2468

By acting like a complete tool and tweeting that Andreas could've made more money, this demonstrates the sociopathic tendencies of Ver to rely on his wealth as "proof of superiority".

Andreas deserves every Satoshi he got, because unlike Ver, he provides informative and newcomer-relatable videos/books/talks that enrich the Bitcoin space.

I find it interesting in the same video Ver says "My project", yet in other interviews like the one with Richard Heart, he says "I was totally surprised by BCash". (Ref: https://youtu.be/AkbSrmsYJ9c?t=4635)

I find this to be indicative of a con-man and a liar that can't keep his story straight.

Whatever BCH is, its an attempt by Big Cartel Hashers to wrest control from open-source Bitcoin. Its BizCoin versus Bitcoin, and luckily for the whole planet - Bitcoin is winning.

Selling option premium is fucking retarded.

In an option, the price or "premium" depends on the underlying instrument. In this case, its the price of the underlying CME stock price.

If you sell a put, what you're really doing is saying "I want to lock in the difference between the put option price right now, and when it expires - which is near zero - IF my strike price isn't challenged."

So if you have sold a 155 PUT, and its price is 4.60, that is the profit you can expect - you are not rewarded if the price of CME's stock rises over 155, you want it to stay under 155 or lower.

The problem with this is, if the underlying stock rallies past 155, then you are on the hook for the losses. As the stock price increases, the option price increases dramatically as you go "in the money" on the strike price.

This is known as a "widowmaker" trade, because instead of BUYING option premium, you are SHORTING it, which trades a small profit with a potentially large risk-of-ruin.

Anyone recommending shorting option premium should have their head examined.

China can chortle Jihan's balls.

They'll change their tune when they see sovereign states going all-in on blockchain and Bitcoin.

But first, they have to navigate their own impending credit crunch, and prop up their economy so Xi's ambitions can be fulfilled when they have their grand 2020 celebration.

They have plenty of problems, Bitcoin is just a drop in that ocean.

 POST FORMAT: YYYY-MM-DD SITE - HEADLINE
June 30, 2013, 08:15:49 AM

Please use the title formatting described when posting new links here. Adapt if needed, use your own judgement. Please always include date and source.

Maybe someone can sticky this, I don't think people read the posting guidelines...

 POST FORMAT: YYYY-MM-DD SITE - HEADLINE
June 30, 2013, 08:15:49 AM
   
Please use the title formatting described when posting new links here. Adapt if needed, use your own judgement. Please always include date and source.

Maybe someone can sticky this, I don't think people read the posting guidelines...

Where to even start.

Ver is making a power grab, pure and simple.

This was never about "big blocks", its just used a convenient excuse when the Bitcoin network gets spammed with expensive dust (0.00000001) transactions from wallets ping-ponging to each other. There's been a few incidents of this, which all coincide with BCash sheannanigans.

If you support this shitty fork-coin, you are a complete rube.

There's a reason Satoshi designed things how they are, for reference - this post with a table about the costs of increased blocks:



But again, it isn't about how big the blocks are, but how Ver and Jihan Wu can aggregate their little fiefdom and wield power over others. Luckily, the developers that have been contributing to Bitcoin understand these risks and are working on features that will largely obviate any need for such tricks, but like all things it takes time -- not a hasty fork like BCash with hardly any testing.

There are new things in the pipe that will strengthen Bitcoin and immunize it against this kind of thing, but it still doesn't absolve Roger Ver and Jihan Wu from making a land-grab.

These guys are messing with every person who trusts Crypto-currencies to store their wealth.

That isn't smart, and their efforts will end up dooming them all.

Anything that fucks up Jihan Wu is fine by me.

I consider it Karmic payback for his bullshit-alt-coin hijinks with Roger Ver.

Anyone who trusts Mark Karpeles with their money deserves to lose it.

I say, go ahead. Make Gox 2.0 and suck in all the idiots who are too stupid to understand history.

Its a lesson worth learning.

A fool and their money are lucky to get together in the first place.

They experienced a "huge increase" because someone pumped the crap out of it on a single exchange with a limited order book.

From a pumped high of 2,799 now 999 (and dropping) a net change of 1,800 bucks or -64% (Bigger drop than anything that has ever happened in Bitcoin.)

The real crooks here are the ones that led newbies into this disaster of a fork, claiming there was a "rotation" from BTC to BCrash.

The only transfer of wealth that is happening is from the gullible to the greedy.

For the people seriously considering BCrash as an alternative -- don't be misled and uninformed.

There are many reasons why BTC will remain the gold standard and not BCrash.

BTC Advantages over BCrash:

    A deep pool of very talented set of developers who have deep knowledge in the critical technologies that underpin Bitcoin: cryptography, peer-to-peer communication, game theory, protocol development, and very importantly, security
   
   An unparalleled track record for releasing well-tested and secure code (the recent Parity-eth scandal shows just how bad even one small bug can be)
   
   Has an ethos that tries to minimize centralization pressures of all kinds, mining, client, and providers. This includes trying to ensure upgrades are backwards compatible. For people who use alternate implementations of Bitcoin other than Bitcoin Core, or who customize the client, this is critical. One small example: Greg Maxwell noted that users and alternate clients "may have their own lengthy patching and qualification process". When those aren't taken into account, "forced upgrades erode decentralization and privileges hosted wallets/apis/pools over running your own infrastructure"
   
    BTC has a censorship resistance ethos that is critical to ensuring that no one party controls the coin (one of the key attributes that makes Bitcoin special). Even the CEO of Xapo, who was a Segwit2X signer recently acknowledged he got a bit too eager with his support of a fork and that censorship resistance is critical.
   
   Has a large ecosystem working on scaling solutions. Some on-chain (like segwit, MAST), and others on the way that may also improve privacy such as Schnorr. Many competing groups are also working on second layer solutions like lightning or drivechains/sidechains. Just this week there was a new whitepaper on more ways to do funding of micropayment channels that might make lightning even better. There is an incredible amount of spectacular science and research going on here
   
   Has a deep, thriving ecosystem of developers, wallets, companies, and users committed to it's success and development
   
   A wide deployment of different clients, libraries, and supporting systems
   
   Makes it a bit harder to skip proof of work in a covert way with ASICBoost
   
   Significant performance improvements and rapid ongoing development and research
   
   Strong network effects
   
   BTC transaction volume, people actually using the coin is literally 25X times higher than BCH! The little volume in BCH is most likely speculative since virtually no one accepts it.

BCrash has:

    Heavy influence from one mining group that pushed for it and most likely funded it. This is the same mining group that held back segwit (a scaling upgrade, security improvement, and bugfix for malleability). This was done against the wishes of nearly every Bitcoin engineer (even former engineer Gavin Andresen supported Segwit)
   
    Only 1 full-time developer, Amaury Sechet (deadalnix). When someone asked him at a recent conference to list other people who work on it, his only response was "freetrader". That doesn't exactly inspire confidence since the entire foundation of Bitcoin is the code.
   
    Almost no track record yet for releases or security
   
    Potential scaling problems: If blocks started to actually fill up many users would not be able to run a full node because the costs of bandwidth and also storage would become problematic since bandwidth requirements increase at a much faster rate than the block size. This would make those users subject to people or large organizations who want to manipulate the coin since only large players and miners may be able to run full nodes as the costs rise.
   
    An ideology that favors putting the costs onto full nodes despite no compensation; economists call this "cost externalization" and can lead to a break-down of the incentives known as "tragedy of the commons"
   
    No track record on how disputes between developers are resolved or when something is production ready, no diverse set of developer testing
   
    A fledgling set of clients and apps, almost nothing compared to BTC
   
    A distribution schedule that means faster inflation and more coins, and also, a far lower period of time before new coin creation comes to a halt entirely. This combined with the idea of trying to keep transaction fees to a minimum means the future security and viability of the coin is much less certain than BTC
   
    A likely exploitation by miners of covert ASICBoost, skipping some proof of work but only for privileged miners covered by a patent
   
    Lack of acceptance in the marketplace. Some exchanges support it, but it lacks the critical mass of retailers and people that accept it (the network effects of existing BTC works against this coin)
   
    Low transaction volume (roughly 80 transactions per second compared to Bitcoin's 2150 per second.
   
    High likelihood of a price crash once some exchanges like Coinbase/GDAX free up coins and users can sell them

Wrong.

Technically I have BCH coins because I'm a long-term holder, so after the fork I have coins on both chains.

I'm never going to touch the BCH coins. There's no point - the appreciation of BTC is more than enough to make up for any potential gain, and the steps needed to "split" my coins and ensure that the BTC don't get 'effed up by other technical "gotchas" isn't worth my time or the risk.

So those coins will never enter the market - not because they are valuable, but because I don't believe in anything Roger Ver has to say, or his "team".

How someone can take the price of a zero-fee exchange in South Korea as representing the entire ecosystem is beyond me.

BCH is acting like a penny stock, pumped highs, flagging down to lows until the next wave of suckers are roped in. There's a reason you haven't heard from Roger Ver much, he's been busy doing roadshows, big presentations on a stage spreading his huckster lies about how his alt-coin is going to become Bitcoin. He's also using his money to prop up the market, just like he did when BCH was first traded and spiked, before flagging down and slumping to new lows.

This time won't be much different, given the low unit-price (notional value), its easy for Roger and a few allies to prop up his market and get a few gullible gamblers in on the deal.

It won't be enough. It never was a replacement to begin with, and with zero talent behind the actual code he won't have much traction with all the new features coming for Bitcoin. He could pull a Jeff Garzik and simply copy the Core code, but without the ability to understand what he's looking at, BCH won't be anything more than a alt-coin trying to (yet again) gun for the Bitcoin crown and fail like every other attempt.

There's no infrastructure, no one is clamoring for this coin outside his pumper-fests. There are no futures being listed by the worlds largest Futures exchange.

Its a tempest in a con-mans teacup, and he'll keep pushing until it falls apart -- then regroup and try another shit-token.

This is Roger's pattern - ignore all past failures, copy and repeat.

Some call this insanity. Roger calls it "innovation".

CAPSLOCK TITLES ARE LAZY AND STUPID

Also makes me not want to read your post, if you care.

Your capslock titles are ridiculous.

Or do you want the attention because your stories are so click-bait driven?

CAPSLOCK IS HOW YOU KNOW THE NEWS BEING POSTED IS DONE BY A COMPLETE NEWBIE

You can take your BankCoin and shove it up your arse.

Get out of here with this PR garbage.

Anyone drinking the S2X Koolaid needs to have their head examined.

Go ahead, load up on that shitcoin and see what happens - BCrash certainly has.

You forgot date formatting on your PR "article".

But given what you're pushing, its probably for the best.

YAS - Yet Another Shitcoin

Enjoy dumping it, that's all its good for.