Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper. Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes. Plus look, if Roger Ver controls @Bitcoin, someone else controls this, https://twitter.com/btc. Hahaha. Sure. You will find more details here: https://www.cryptocoinupdates.com/bitcoin-cash-is-the-real-bitcoin/lol Exactly. |
|
|
|
Thank you, by looking at the list of nodes at the source that you provide, it is clear that not all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - as falsely portrait in that last image you've previously posted. That is why I called it out for what it is, namely manipulation. Wrong. The image doesn't explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.", it just points out at how an huge amount of BCash nodes are centralized in the hands of few actors, which is useless centralization wise. You could have 1 million BCash nodes hosted by a few parties vs 5000 nodes hosted by widespread independent parties in Bitcoin, and all things else equal, the Bitcoin network is an objectively stronger network. The Segwit hack will never be part of Bitcoin. In addition, beyond successful phishing attempts and willing participation in outright scams - I didn't claim that it is even remotely possible to steal funds from Segwit addresses. In fact, applying the same standard that you're applying - there is a $540,602,054 bounty in Bitcoin Cash waiting for you here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/19hZx234vNtLazfx5J2bxHsiWEmeYE8a7kSegwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system.All of those independent development teams mean little considering that Blockstream owns/controls Bitcoin Core. Starting one's own node also mean very little given the structure of the Lightning network and the fact that it doesn't even remotely resemble what is supposed to be the Bitcoin system. Pertaining to the rest, we will also have to agree to disagree. Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times: https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver. Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to use Segwit (or Bitcoin Cash for that matter). This however doesn't mean that we will allow the Segwit hack and LN to get away with the ongoing deception. We will do everything in our power to place all facts on the table so that people can make an informed decision free of manipulation and censorship. Segwit for one is not what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned.
In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks.
Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato.
What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason. In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand. He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then). Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated. Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that. In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technolgoy that simply doesn't exist currently. Yes, it is easy to claim that I am wrong after the relevant image was removed. And no, I haven't said that the image explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co." It did however convey the idea that all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - while it is not the case. The best part: You had the audacity to use it as proof that Bitcoin Cash is not decentralized. If that is not manipulation, what is? Please don't answer. --------------------------------------------------- "Segwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system."Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper. In addition, if "BCash is too small for anyone to bother" as you claim, why do you bother? Again, you're wrong about Bitcoin Cash being centralized. It is the Segwit hack that is centralized via Blockstream. The bankster funded company that pushed for 'consensus' via censorship and manipulation. It is clear that you've taken a page out of their play book. --------------------------------------------------- "Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times:
https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003
The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver."As Paul Ramlac stated in response to that article: "I don’t see the link between GitHub contributions and control of a project. A corporate takeover happens through social games rather than code. If anything, you make a stronger case for a Blockstream takeover: with few coders on the team, one might assume other Blockstream members are hard at work on other fronts. For example, persuading the public, and by extent Bitcoin developers who are not part of Blockstream, of the legitimacy of Blockstream’s vision for Bitcoin" (Source: https://medium.com/@paulramlach_60688/i-dont-see-the-link-between-github-contributions-and-control-of-a-project-c897aa6a597). --------------------------------------------------- "What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason.
In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand.
He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then).
Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated.
Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that.
In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technolgoy that simply doesn't exist currently."Yes, it is not God's Word, but it is with reason called the Satoshi or Bitcoin whitepaper. There is zero support in it for Segwit and the Lightning network. No true supporters of a project will sit idle while impostors come in, change things from what is explicitly stated in the project's whitepaper and steal the name via manipulation and censorship. And why would Bitcoin "no longer be a decentralized project" if it was not for the Segwit hack? 1 TB hard drives come pretty much standard nowadays - and it is only the beginning of what is possible. Bitcoin transactions were cheap before the deliberate attempt to prevent the Bitcoin system from scaling. It is funny that Bitcoin Cash - that scales on the Bitcoin system - offers on-chain transactions that are faster and more than 2245% cheaper (when I checked yesterday) than what the Segwit hack has to offer. The technology exists, but the banksters and their buddies had to move consensus away through manipulation and censorship in order to gain control. Unlucky for them, Satoshi left room for consensus to move as well - so that those who wish to support the Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi, have the opportunity to do so. In short: We support the Bitcoin defined in the Satoshi whitepaper despite its shortcomings - real and perceived. And will stand against all attempts to bring something else in and call it Bitcoin (such as the Segwit hack). P.S. And in terms of name calling, given that you call us cashies, perhaps we should start calling you seggies and lighties for fun.  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not just a life saver but also a life changer. Before, I don't know anything about investment. I'm just a minimum wage earner and my salary is most of the time insufficient to my needs. My family is struggling financially. When Bitcoin was introduced to my life, everything changed. At first, I invested a very little portion of my salary to HYIP and gambling hoping that my life will change instantly as what those sites promised me but I was scammed multiple times. It was devastating so I decided to stop investing on Bitcoin. After a few months, I saw some posts on social media on how Bitcoin changed a person's life so I decided to give it another try but this time, I will make sure to invest in myself first and study more about cryptocurrency. I learned about this forum and from here, I learned more things about Bitcoin specially on trading and investments. Now, I cannot say that I'm completely financially free but I can say that I'm already earning more than enough for me and my family's needs.
Bitcoin gave me another hope about life. There are times when we are feeling wasted and wants to give up but before you give up, ask your self first if you already did your best. There are times that we will definiyely lose and people will ruin our dreams but that is not a reason to stop. Just like on my experience, I got scammed but after a few months, I gabe it another shot. If I gave up, I might still ne struggling financially.
Life will definitely throw you lemons. All we need to do is learn how to make it into lemonade. I'm very thankful to Bitcoin. To all investors out there, just invest on your self first and I assure you, you'll get profit from it!
From my perspective the original Bitcoin gave a lot of hope and sure, it has been both a life saver and life changer. However, what is now masquerading as Bitcoin doesn't leave much room for hope. High transaction fees, slow transaction speed and the attempted push into 3rd party side chains run by banksters leave little hope for humanity. It should after all be no secret that the ones responsible for the existence of this masquerading impostor - a product of the refusal to scale the Bitcoin system - intend to scale off-chain on the so called Lightning network. This while they openly advocate the impostor as a store of value instead of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Without much utility value left, especially given what competing tokens have to offer, it will eventually fall by the way side. |
|
|
|
|
And by the way, that's not the price of decentralization. It is the price of refusing to use the Bitcoin system for scaling.
|
|
|
|
"Where the fuck is the manipulation involved?" - Provide the source of the graphs and/or data so that we can go look at it ourselves and not only at a limited selection, especially in terms of the last image.
That data comes from the https://fork.lol/ website and the node list is from: https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=Bitcoin%20ABC:0.16.1"Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash" - The Segwit hack is not Bitcoin, but yes, a higher hash rate is normally associated with being safer. Except with Segwit's LN scaling solution - which is not based on the Bitcoin system, funds are lost as if it is nobody's business. Who needs security via a hash rate if funds can be lost that easily? In addition, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success - as many people still falsely believe it is Bitcoin. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH. Yes, segwit is part of Bitcoin now, like it or not. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to use it. You can develop a wallet that will ignore segwit transactions if you must. In any case, still waiting for anyone to steal funds from segwit addresses. Here's a $350,000,000 bounty waiting for you: https://blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0"Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash" - Again, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH. Confirmed transactions per day via the Segwit hack hit a high of roughly 500k transactions in December last year (2017-12-14), but have declined to the current 193975 (2018/04/21 - 02:00) - roughly a 60% decline in the number of confirmed transactions per day ( https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions). And while admittedly - the number of Bitcoin Cash transactions have seen a sharper decline, it is not bad when compared to Bitcoin's early days. Bitcoin Cash is still pretty much in the adoption stage. Again, you are confusing terms here. The situation will also not change, since anyone with enough money to matter knows BCash is an altcoin. No one is going to put big amounts of money into a centralized chinese knockoff version of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash - Unfortunately nodes only tell half of the picture, especially in terms of the way transactions are done via the Lightning network. In addition, you fail to mention that Blockstream pretty much control the direction of the Segwit hack. This while there are at least 6 independent development teams that determine the direction in which Bitcoin Cash go. Again, we're still in early days for BCH, unlike the Segwit hack that gets to piggyback for all the wrong reasons. No, there are many independent development teams working on the open source lightning protocol. Anyone is also free to start their own full client node and convince people to run these nodes instead of Core, as long as they comply with the nakamoto consensus rules from the original client, they are also Bitcoin. If for example Luke convinced everyone to run Bitcoin Knots instead of Core, then Knots would be the team with the strongest influence. No one is forcing anyone to run any of the nodes and mine these blocks. BCash ABC node doesn't comply with the nakamoto consensus rules, therefore is a de-facto altcoin. Just because your shitty big blocks idea doesn't get merged into Bitcoin and you get mad at it and go and create an altcoin out of forking Bitcoin with bigger blocks, you don't get to call it "the real Bitcoin". It doesn't work that way, for reasons you would understand if you actually thought about it. "The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on" - Applying your logic, then the Segwit hack should also be called an altcoin. Bitcoin Cash with an average transaction fee of $0.055 currently ( https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/), makes it 2245%+ cheaper than the current average transaction fee of $1.29 ( https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/) in terms of the Segwit hack. This is not even to mention transaction speed and the rest. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that those who promote BCH are scammers. Go figure! No, starting after 21th August '17, all Bitcoin blocks include segwit transactions, now you as an user, can use or not segwit transactions, no one is forcing anyone to use segwit, once again. I don't care about segwit adoption, since I only use Bitcoin as a store of value, so I value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less. Apparently most people in Bitcoin value this too above everything else, otherwise BCash, Litecoin and any other coin would be the leading coins. Thank you, by looking at the list of nodes at the source that you provide, it is clear that not all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - as falsely portrait in that last image you've previously posted. That is why I called it out for what it is, namely manipulation. "Yes, segwit is part of Bitcoin now, like it or not. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to use it. You can develop a wallet that will ignore segwit transactions if you must. In any case, still waiting for anyone to steal funds from segwit addresses. Here's a $350,000,000 bounty waiting for you: https://blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0"The Segwit hack will never be part of Bitcoin. In addition, beyond successful phishing attempts and willing participation in outright scams - I didn't claim that it is even remotely possible to steal funds from Segwit addresses. In fact, applying the same standard that you're applying - there is a $540,602,054 bounty in Bitcoin Cash waiting for you here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/19hZx234vNtLazfx5J2bxHsiWEmeYE8a7k"No, there are many independent development teams working on the open source lightning protocol. Anyone is also free to start their own full client node and convince people to run these nodes instead of Core, as long as they comply with the nakamoto consensus rules from the original client, they are also Bitcoin. If for example Luke convinced everyone to run Bitcoin Knots instead of Core, then Knots would be the team with the strongest influence. No one is forcing anyone to run any of the nodes and mine these blocks.
BCash ABC node doesn't comply with the nakamoto consensus rules, therefore is a de-facto altcoin. Just because your shitty big blocks idea doesn't get merged into Bitcoin and you get mad at it and go and create an altcoin out of forking Bitcoin with bigger blocks, you don't get to call it "the real Bitcoin". It doesn't work that way, for reasons you would understand if you actually thought about it." All of those independent development teams mean little considering that Blockstream owns/controls Bitcoin Core. Starting one's own node also mean very little given the structure of the Lightning network and the fact that it doesn't even remotely resemble what is supposed to be the Bitcoin system. Pertaining to the rest, we will also have to agree to disagree. No, starting after 21th August '17, all Bitcoin blocks include segwit transactions, now you as an user, can use or not segwit transactions, no one is forcing anyone to use segwit, once again. I don't care about segwit adoption, since I only use Bitcoin as a store of value, so I value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less. Apparently most people in Bitcoin value this too above everything else, otherwise BCash, Litecoin and any other coin would be the leading coins.Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to use Segwit (or Bitcoin Cash for that matter). This however doesn't mean that we will allow the Segwit hack and LN to get away with the ongoing deception. We will do everything in our power to place all facts on the table so that people can make an informed decision free of manipulation and censorship. Segwit for one is not what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned. In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks. Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato. |
|
|
|
The same way Roger Ver accedes anything else: He uses his wealth to buy Bitcoin related stuff to use it as propaganda for their altcoin, while also wasting money on the Bitcoin mempool by spamming it while selling their altcoin as "the solution". This, as we know, has been a waste of time:  Pushing this shitcoin down noobs throats as Bitcoin will not end well for these involved. haha Yes, that is giving a complete picture - no manipulation involved!  Where the fuck is the manipulation involved? That objective data shows 3 facts: Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on. - Provide the source of the graphs and/or data so that we can go look at it ourselves and not only at a limited selection, especially in terms of the last image. "Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash" - The Segwit hack is not Bitcoin, but yes, a higher hash rate is normally associated with being safer. Except with Segwit's LN scaling solution - which is not based on the Bitcoin system, funds are lost as if it is nobody's business. Who needs security via a hash rate if funds can be lost that easily? In addition, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success - as many people still falsely believe it is Bitcoin. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH. "Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash" - Again, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH. Confirmed transactions per day via the Segwit hack hit a high of roughly 500k transactions in December last year (2017-12-14), but have declined to the current 193975 (2018/04/21 - 02:00) - roughly a 60% decline in the number of confirmed transactions per day ( https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions). And while admittedly - the number of Bitcoin Cash transactions have seen a sharper decline, it is not bad when compared to Bitcoin's early days. Bitcoin Cash is still pretty much in the adoption stage. Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash - Unfortunately nodes only tell half of the picture, especially in terms of the way transactions are done via the Lightning network. In addition, you fail to mention that Blockstream pretty much control the direction of the Segwit hack. This while there are at least 6 independent development teams that determine the direction in which Bitcoin Cash go. Again, we're still in early days for BCH, unlike the Segwit hack that gets to piggyback for all the wrong reasons. "The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on" - Applying your logic, then the Segwit hack should also be called an altcoin. Bitcoin Cash with an average transaction fee of $0.055 currently ( https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/), makes it 2245%+ cheaper than the current average transaction fee of $1.29 ( https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/) in terms of the Segwit hack. This is not even to mention transaction speed and the rest. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that those who promote BCH are scammers. Go figure! |
|
|
|
It's sad in what thing has this all wen downhill. Of course that Roger loves profit that's why he initially went on the bitcoin roller coaster. I can congratulate him for making money and for seeing the opportunity before most of us. However what he is doing now to buy more BCH then lure people into buying and using it losses all credibility from me. He wants our money, yes your money! If we buy BCH and pump it's value Roger earns in the long run. This is sad that we are tearing bitcoin apart and for confusing newbies about it.
What is sad is that Blockstream was allowed to push through the Segwit hack via manipulation and censorship. Roger was a millionaire long before getting involved in Bitcoin. The reason he got involved in Bitcoin is because of the benefits Bitcoin offered to humanity as a whole. Bitcoin Cash is not an attempt by him to make more profits, but to support what was originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as defined in the Satoshi Whitepaper. This is why he gets emotional when talking about this stuff, making emotional comparisons to killing babies and what not. If Roger Ver was in it for profit alone, he would have kept all of his BTC and helped to push the price higher and higher. No, Bitcoin Cash is about something much bigger than merely profit. Profits are a bonus. If you see it as Roger wanting all of our money, then I feel very sorry for you. |
|
|
|
|
It is funny how an increase in transactions on the Segwit hack network is called spamming.
|
|
|
|
The same way Roger Ver accedes anything else: He uses his wealth to buy Bitcoin related stuff to use it as propaganda for their altcoin, while also wasting money on the Bitcoin mempool by spamming it while selling their altcoin as "the solution". This, as we know, has been a waste of time: Pushing this shitcoin down noobs throats as Bitcoin will not end well for these involved. haha Yes, that is giving a complete picture - no manipulation involved! |
|
|
|
-snip-
That's funny because I'm not defending Core at all. This is not about the brand at all. I'm just stating facts: - Bitcoin is distinct from Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin is worth ~$8,922.36 at the moment, while Bitcoin Cash is worth ~$1,213.26 at the moment. They also work differently. They are different from each other
- Let's stop focusing on the brand. Coin 2 marketers (intentionally?) post potentially misleading statements that may lead less-knowledgeable people to believe that it is one and the same with Coin 1, which is utterly incorrect and has nothing to do with centralization.
I don't care about the brand, and I have nothing against Bitcoin Cash as a project, but I don't think it's right to claim that one thing is another when that is not the case. The Segwit hack, that aims to scale via the Lightning network, have no right to the Bitcoin name. It should be called Lightning as it has nothing to do with the Bitcoin system. Segwit and the Lightning system will never house anything that can be rightfully called Bitcoin. The Segwit and Lightning deception need to be put to an end. No quantity of trolls, intellectually dishonest people, people who are too lazy to read, people who are too stupid and bought and paid for provocateurs will change these facts. I don't like Roger Ver, but he and those who support him are right when it comes to Bitcoin Cash. |
|
|
|
ok guys.. think of it this way
america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar
.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.
This right here, I don't really think it's a problem for Ver to have the twitter account bitcoin and try to promote his coin. This would silence his argument and fail to bring his side of the community to the table, which is unfair and unlike us I would assume. I'm not a fan of Ver either -- but is silencing him REALLY the best thing we can do. Let him speak, even if people don't support what he has to say. Exactly and they are desperately trying to silence him. Yet, complain about manipulation and censorship. This while they have used manipulation and censorship to push through the Segwit hack. |
|
|
|
ok guys.. think of it this way
america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar
.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.
This right here, I don't really think it's a problem for Ver to have the twitter account bitcoin and try to promote his coin. This would silence his argument and fail to bring his side of the community to the table, which is unfair and unlike us I would assume. I'm not a fan of Ver either -- but is silencing him REALLY the best thing we can do. Let him speak, even if people don't support what he has to say. Thank you for having the right attitude and state of mind, namely "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin.com makes a clear distinction for anyone that cares to read.
I know, which is why I said that mistakes could be chalked up to due diligence or lack thereof. You can't deny that it's misleading though, whether intentional or not: The Bitcoin Core (BTC) network is in trouble due to high fees and slow transaction times. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the upgrade that solves these problems.
Strictly speaking, Bitcoin Cash is a fork, not an upgrade. This is phrased in such a way which suggests that Bitcoin Cash is a direct successor of Bitcoin when this is not the case. There have been precedents of newbies thinking BCH is BTC thanks to these antics. Roger is doing nothing illegal. If he does, why don't they sue him and see where it ends up?
I did acknowledge that what he's doing is legal. Shady, but legal. - Please don't speak on my behalf as I don't agree that it is misleading. Go to Bitcoin.com and see for yourself what I mean. By claiming it is misleading, one either is too lazy to read or intellectually dishonest. "Strictly speaking, Bitcoin Cash is a fork, not an upgrade. This is phrased in such a way which suggests that Bitcoin Cash is a direct successor of Bitcoin when this is not the case. There have been precedents of newbies thinking BCH is BTC thanks to these antics" - Both Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and the Segwit hack are forks. BCH is marketed as the direct successor of Bitcoin, because it continues on the original path as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto. In addition, BCH is an upgrade as it for one don't prevent the scaling of the Bitcoin system. The Segwith hack and LN deception are beasts of a completely different nature than Bitcoin. It is dishonest to call it Bitcoin. Blockstream and Bitcoin Core are not using the Bitcoin system for scaling, but the Lightning network. They should call it Lightning, not Bitcoin. Blockstream for one are funded by bansters who deliberately prevented scaling of the Bitcoin system through censorship and manipulation. |
|
|
|
ok guys.. think of it this way
america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar
.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.
WRONG. reality: America has US dollar (USD) Australia has Australian dollar (A$ or AUD) and 1 AUD is worth 0.77 USD .... if someone gives you this:  Linkand tells you it is 5 USD then they are committing fraud. and that is exactly what's happening here. they are advertising something else and giving newbies BCH and telling them it is BTC. They are clearly differentiating between BCH and BTC on their website. So what's your point? |
|
|
|
i support this movement. BitcoinCash is starting to become a plague again and we need to stop it. unfortunately bitcoin is not centralized like BCH so there is nobody there to fight our battles for us but us. so we need to take action ourselves. Wait what? How did Roger gain access to the @Bitcoin twitter handle? Wasn't this twitter handle owned by a random person days/weeks ago?
we have no proof so maybe it is best not to accuse anyone. the important thing is that this twitter account is spreading lies and is misleading people into making wrong investments. it is something like identity theft! - Nonsense. If anything, it is Core's Segwit hack and LN deception that are centralized. There are more than one independent development team working to make Bitcoin Cash (BCH) better. "the important thing is that this twitter account is spreading lies and is misleading people into making wrong investments. it is something like identity theft!" - Absolute nonsense! If anything, it is the supporters of Core's Segwit hack who are misleading people and helping Core to commit identity theft. |
|
|
|
Selling Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin is fraudulent. Did your friend buy Bitcoin only to end up with Bitcoin Cash, or did he buy Bitcoin Cash thinking it was Bitcoin? The former is a crime that should be reported, while the latter could be chalked up to buyer's due diligence, or lack thereof, despite being a byproduct of legally and morally questionable marketing. The problem with the Twitter issue is that the term Bitcoin isn't trademarked. It can't be said that the account is pretending to be someone else if there's no one who could legitimately claim the handle. It's free-for-all, and it just so happened that a hostile party got to it first. That being said, I do hope something can be done about their marketing. They're free to claim that Bitcoin Cash is the closest thing to Satoshi's whitepaper all they want, and I would also have no qualms about them saying Bitcoin Cash should be Bitcoin. Saying Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, though, is not just outright misleading, but is also regrettably legal (as far as I know at least). Bitcoin.com makes a clear distinction for anyone that cares to read. Roger is doing nothing illegal. If he does, why don't they sue him and see where it ends up? |
|
|
|
Your friend will have to learn to read. The only impostor, impersonator and manipulator is the Segwit hack. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin - not the Segwit hack and the attempts to push us into 3rd party side chains run by banksters via LN. Recently even one of the founders of Bitcointalk admitted that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin at this stage. Calling us noobs won't change the reality of it all.
If you say that BCash is the real Bitcoin this means you help Roger and his gangs to earn much more money. Think that why he still keeps his Bitcoins if BCash is the real Bitcoin. Bitcoin (the one and the only real Bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto) is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen. BCash is not. That's the point! 1. All Bitcoin holders received Bitcoin Cash last year - and those who currently hold BCH all benefit from it. It is not only "Roger and his gangs." Yes, Roger has not sold and/or converted all of the Segwit hack tokens held by him. He is doing this for strategic and other reasons, which is the smart thing to do. 2. There are at least 6 independent development teams working to make Bitcoin Cash (BCH) better. This while many more independent developers are expected to come on board. E.g. Coingeek is funding a project that will see no less than 50 independent developers getting involved ( https://news.bitcoin.com/coingeek-funds-bch-blockchain-development-training-in-the-philippines/). The same cannot be said of the Segwit hack and LN deception, where Bitcoin Core pretty much calls the shots. Yet, you whine about Bitcoin Cash having a centralized authority. |
|
|
|
Roger Ver continues his social media manipulation campaign throught his bitcoin dot com website and Bitcoin twitter handle. In this case, my friend which is a noob, learned about Bitcoin in @Bitcoin, and he bought some, then he asked me why his Bitcoin was worth only $1190, while mine was worth $9000. I quickly realized what was up: He bought BCash, thanks to being confused by @Bitcoin. When he realized, he dumped it for Bitcoin. This is happening DAILY. Tons of noobs get confused by the BCash retoric. They want to control all social media to push BCash into noobs. The @Bitcoin handle was successfully canceled one due people reporting it. If we keep reporting it, they will have to close it. I would rather have it closed, than have some idiot using it for their agenda. I know no one owns the Bitcoin brand, but these scammers are actively using it to trick noobs into an altcoin, very sad. I wonder to what extent Twitter could be hit with a class action lawsuit by allowing this bullshit. For now, all we can do is report it. Just keep reporting it and they'll have to stop it. To report it, go here: https://twitter.com/bitcointhen click the 3 dots:  And im personally using this option:  since they are pretending to be Bitcoin when they are not. Get to work guys. Your friend will have to learn to read. The only impostor, impersonator and manipulator is the Segwit hack. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin - not the Segwit hack and the attempts to push us into 3rd party side chains run by banksters via LN. Recently even one of the founders of Bitcointalk admitted that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin at this stage. Calling us noobs won't change the reality of it all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
