Want 1M USD from Roger Ver? Prove him wrong

[MightyStorm]

Some interesting details of Ver's dispute with OKcoin.

I tend to believe him, what do you think?

[ticoti]

Okcoin smells really bad, I withdrawed my bitcoins from there when I read that in reddit

[futureofbitcoin]

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong, and there's no way roger ver would act this way if he thought he was wrong. There could be some sort of a misunderstanding or something deeper behind all this. In all likelihood, it's probably a 50/50, some right and some wrong on both sides.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity. But maybe bitcoin already has enough bad publicity. Maybe some people will claim that roger ver "owns" bitcoin now, since he has the domain.

[EternalWingsofGod]

Speaking of that topic bitcoin.com is the escrow since its redirecting to blockchain wallets I guess the 5 year agreement that Ver had is invalid it means that the domain is up for sale again.

[MightyStorm]

Okcoin smells really bad, I withdrawed my bitcoins from there when I read that in reddit

I don't have  any bitcoins stored there, but I told a friend to do the same thing you did.

[RawDog]

Okcoin smells really bad, I withdrawed my bitcoins from there when I read that in reddit

I don't have  any bitcoins stored there, but I told a friend to do the same thing you did.

OK Coin is fooking nuts!  Obviously they are skethchy as a shithouse on fire.  I'd get my coins out FAST!  Too fast isn't fast enough.  Don't you all remember seeing the writing on the wall at Gox - and then everyone left the money there.  Not this time.

[AGD]

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong, and there's no way roger ver would act this way if he thought he was wrong. There could be some sort of a misunderstanding or something deeper behind all this. In all likelihood, it's probably a 50/50, some right and some wrong on both sides.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity. But maybe bitcoin already has enough bad publicity. Maybe some people will claim that roger ver "owns" bitcoin now, since he has the domain.

When one side fakes a contract and the other site has a 100% mathematical proof, that it was indeed manipulated it is not 50/50, but 0/100.

[ausbit]

I don't think there is going to be much chance in proving 'The bitcoin Jesus' wrong on this one.
I actually read through all the emails and it makes for some interesting reading, some parts read like they were written by school children, lots of name calling ect.  

[futureofbitcoin]

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong, and there's no way roger ver would act this way if he thought he was wrong. There could be some sort of a misunderstanding or something deeper behind all this. In all likelihood, it's probably a 50/50, some right and some wrong on both sides.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity. But maybe bitcoin already has enough bad publicity. Maybe some people will claim that roger ver "owns" bitcoin now, since he has the domain.

When one side fakes a contract and the other site has a 100% mathematical proof, that it was indeed manipulated it is not 50/50, but 0/100.

I don't understand the encryption behind it, I can't tell how real that 100% proof is. Maybe you can. Either way, just because one party faked a contract, assuming they did, does not mean they are 100% in the wrong. You don't know anything else that went on before this.

[louise123]

Some interesting details of Ver's dispute with OKcoin.

I tend to believe him, what do you think?

Roger Ver: ‘I Will Offer a $1,000,000 Bounty to Anyone Who Can Prove I Signed that Contract’

Q1: Does Roger have $1M?

Q2: Is the bounty in BTC or fiat?
If in BTC please escrow the coins - if you have it.
If in fiat - why?

[futureofbitcoin]

Some interesting details of Ver's dispute with OKcoin.

I tend to believe him, what do you think?

Roger Ver: ‘I Will Offer a $1,000,000 Bounty to Anyone Who Can Prove I Signed that Contract’

Q1: Does Roger have $1M?

Q2: Is the bounty in BTC or fiat?
If in BTC please escrow the coins - if you have it.
If in fiat - why?

He probably does. But the point is that he thinks no one can do it. He isn't really planning on giving away 1 million usd...

[Light]

Q2: Is the bounty in BTC or fiat?
If in BTC please escrow the coins - if you have it.
If in fiat - why?

I would think that the bounty would be in BTC - doubt he would actually have 1M+ just lying around in his bank account (but you never know). These are really moot points though, if the contract is in fact a forgery anyone with some spare time (and a computer) or a solid understanding of mathematics could easily verify that the hashes and the message don't match up. And hence, the 1M is just more to prove a point that he's sure that the contract is indeed a forgery.

[AGD]

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong, and there's no way roger ver would act this way if he thought he was wrong. There could be some sort of a misunderstanding or something deeper behind all this. In all likelihood, it's probably a 50/50, some right and some wrong on both sides.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity. But maybe bitcoin already has enough bad publicity. Maybe some people will claim that roger ver "owns" bitcoin now, since he has the domain.

When one side fakes a contract and the other site has a 100% mathematical proof, that it was indeed manipulated it is not 50/50, but 0/100.

I don't understand the encryption behind it, I can't tell how real that 100% proof is. Maybe you can. Either way, just because one party faked a contract, assuming they did, does not mean they are 100% in the wrong. You don't know anything else that went on before this.

In my moral understanding it is wrong to fake a contract.
Roger is not adressing the 1 Mio. to the people that doesn't understand about digital signatures. If there would be anyone able to catch the price, he would've done it already. There are a lot of experts out there.
It is simple as that: The OKCoin guys thought, they would make millions with bitcoin.com in short term, but they had no concept and no experts to work on this. When they realized, that they were wrong, they quit paying. Obv. (not proven) because they are insolvent or they are short before an insolvency due to mismanagement.

[futureofbitcoin]

In my moral understanding it is wrong to fake a contract.
Roger is not adressing the 1 Mio. to the people that doesn't understand about digital signatures. If there would be anyone able to catch the price, he would've done it already. There are a lot of experts out there.
It is simple as that: The OKCoin guys thought, they would make millions with bitcoin.com in short term, but they had no concept and no experts to work on this. When they realized, that they were wrong, they quit paying. Obv. (not proven) because they are insolvent or they are short before an insolvency due to mismanagement.

If okcoin did indeed forge the contract, then yes, that action is wrong. That does not equate to Roger Ver being on the righteous side of things, and being "right". There may have been many other events prior and after where Roger Ver was completely in the wrong. We simply have no idea what went on, and to say OKcoin was wrong, Roger Ver is right is too early, and not something we can make a judgement on, IMO.

[AGD]

In my moral understanding it is wrong to fake a contract.
Roger is not adressing the 1 Mio. to the people that doesn't understand about digital signatures. If there would be anyone able to catch the price, he would've done it already. There are a lot of experts out there.
It is simple as that: The OKCoin guys thought, they would make millions with bitcoin.com in short term, but they had no concept and no experts to work on this. When they realized, that they were wrong, they quit paying. Obv. (not proven) because they are insolvent or they are short before an insolvency due to mismanagement.

If okcoin did indeed forge the contract, then yes, that action is wrong. That does not equate to Roger Ver being on the righteous side of things, and being "right". There may have been many other events prior and after where Roger Ver was completely in the wrong. We simply have no idea what went on, and to say OKcoin was wrong, Roger Ver is right is too early, and not something we can make a judgement on, IMO.

True, but we can have an opinion and we can talk about it. Thats is what forums are made for. It might help one to develop an opinion or help others to strengthen or even change theirs. You don't have necessarily have to be involved personally with a topic to simply state your opinion about it.

[ajareselde]

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong, and there's no way roger ver would act this way if he thought he was wrong. There could be some sort of a misunderstanding or something deeper behind all this. In all likelihood, it's probably a 50/50, some right and some wrong on both sides.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity. But maybe bitcoin already has enough bad publicity. Maybe some people will claim that roger ver "owns" bitcoin now, since he has the domain.

When one side fakes a contract and the other site has a 100% mathematical proof, that it was indeed manipulated it is not 50/50, but 0/100.

Avoiding to give lawyer details is just another thing thats making them even more shady. I would avoid them in a wide circle.

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong

It's called scare tactics; you try to intimidate the opposing side by bluffing, which in this case failed miserably.
There was no honesty in OKcoin from their start, even the market volume was/is faked

cheers

[gentlemand]

Regardless of who's right or wrong in this case, OKcoin have shown themselves up to be prize idiots.

The contract was blatantly a bitch to service. They shouldn't have entered into it in the first place. They then come up with what appears to be a fictional lawyer who uses google translate for contracts and then say that OKcoin doesn't particularly exist.

Is this a 'company' I would entrust large amounts of value to? Possibly not.

[AGD]

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong, and there's no way roger ver would act this way if he thought he was wrong. There could be some sort of a misunderstanding or something deeper behind all this. In all likelihood, it's probably a 50/50, some right and some wrong on both sides.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity. But maybe bitcoin already has enough bad publicity. Maybe some people will claim that roger ver "owns" bitcoin now, since he has the domain.

When one side fakes a contract and the other site has a 100% mathematical proof, that it was indeed manipulated it is not 50/50, but 0/100.

Avoiding to give lawyer details is just another thing thats making them even more shady. I would avoid them in a wide circle.

I think the thing isn't so simple. There's no way OKcoin will act the way they are if they thought they were 100% wrong

It's called scare tactics; you try to intimidate the opposing side by bluffing, which in this case failed miserably.
There was no honesty in OKcoin from their start, even the market volume was/is faked

cheers

+1

Roger simply went all in and is letting OKCoin to decide whether to call or fold. Honestly: they should fold.

[MemoryDealers]

I invite all of you to read the entire email chain between myself and OKcoin.
Then decide for yourself who is in the right or wrong here:

https://imgur.com/a/DabzS

It's a long read,  but lots of interesting points.

[AGD]

I have read it and my opinion is clear, even without that cryptographic proof. OKCoin is acting just like a company that 1. has a fully incompetent management and 2. has liquidity problems due to 1.
I don't think you'll get your money, Roger.