Bitcoin Forum
October 16, 2019, 06:10:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies.  (Read 2105 times)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1496



View Profile
May 09, 2018, 04:59:26 PM
Last edit: May 09, 2018, 05:24:36 PM by franky1
 #201

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

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
1571249446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571249446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571249446
Reply with quote  #2

1571249446
Report to moderator
1571249446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571249446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571249446
Reply with quote  #2

1571249446
Report to moderator
1571249446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571249446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571249446
Reply with quote  #2

1571249446
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571249446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571249446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571249446
Reply with quote  #2

1571249446
Report to moderator
1571249446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571249446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571249446
Reply with quote  #2

1571249446
Report to moderator
1571249446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571249446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571249446
Reply with quote  #2

1571249446
Report to moderator
JollyGood
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 393


View Profile
May 09, 2018, 07:04:25 PM
 #202


Maybe we should just rename all of them to remove bitcoin and stop people from getting confused.

BCash

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



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

SCAMS|| ADAB SOLUTIONS || BANKERA || BETKING BITSAFE & DEAN NOLAN || BITINGLE || CHANGELLY CHANGENOW & ATOMIC SWAP || COINSBIT || CRYPTOKNOWMICS || FURTCOIN || FLYP.ME || HITBTC || HOLY TRANSACTION || HUMANCOIN ||
||
HUMANITYONE || MINEXCOIN || || MOBILEGO || P2PB2B || REPUBLIA || ROCK TRADING || SOVRANOCOIN || SPECTROCOIN || TOKENPAY || TRADESATOSHI || ULORD || VIBEO || 520bit/vitalii_invest/RoyalTeam ||
|| READ MY FULL SCAM LIST
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1350


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2018, 08:20:35 PM
 #203

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

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.


barcelona 94
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 113
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:24:21 AM
 #204

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.
dorofeev
Copper Member
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 78
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:32:45 AM
 #205

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.
pushups44
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 263


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:34:40 AM
 #206

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

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.
pushups44
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 263


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:37:07 AM
 #207

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 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.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1496



View Profile
May 10, 2018, 03:21:22 AM
Last edit: May 10, 2018, 03:47:35 AM by franky1
 #208

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.

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

Quote
The UASF (BIP 148) approach to achieving a chain where 100% of blocks signal support for Segwit is relatively simple.

On August 1st if Segwit itself is not already at the status of locked-in or activated, any node running the BIP 148 code will begin orphaning blocks that do not signal for Segwit using bit 1.

Quote
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) &&  // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
     (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) &&  // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
     (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&  // Segwit is not locked in
      !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) )   // and is not active.
{
    bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
    bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
    }
}

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 05:09:44 AM
 #209

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.

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)


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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Quote
The UASF (BIP 148) approach to achieving a chain where 100% of blocks signal support for Segwit is relatively simple.

On August 1st if Segwit itself is not already at the status of locked-in or activated, any node running the BIP 148 code will begin orphaning blocks that do not signal for Segwit using bit 1.

Quote
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) &&  // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
     (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) &&  // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
     (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&  // Segwit is not locked in
      !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) )   // and is not active.
{
    bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
    bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
    }
}

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

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.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
david tien
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 05:21:49 AM
 #210

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.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1496



View Profile
May 10, 2018, 07:29:20 AM
 #211

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


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
Quote
FIBRE is designed to be easy to operate for anyone already running a network of Bitcoin Core instances, instantly providing high-speed transfer of blocks.

Quote
and thus only enable this optimization between nodes run by the same group.

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
JollyGood
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 393


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 08:16:09 AM
Last edit: May 10, 2018, 09:12:36 AM by JollyGood
 #212


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.

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.

SCAMS|| ADAB SOLUTIONS || BANKERA || BETKING BITSAFE & DEAN NOLAN || BITINGLE || CHANGELLY CHANGENOW & ATOMIC SWAP || COINSBIT || CRYPTOKNOWMICS || FURTCOIN || FLYP.ME || HITBTC || HOLY TRANSACTION || HUMANCOIN ||
||
HUMANITYONE || MINEXCOIN || || MOBILEGO || P2PB2B || REPUBLIA || ROCK TRADING || SOVRANOCOIN || SPECTROCOIN || TOKENPAY || TRADESATOSHI || ULORD || VIBEO || 520bit/vitalii_invest/RoyalTeam ||
|| READ MY FULL SCAM LIST
Zin-Zang
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 11

Killing Lightning Network with a 51% Ignore attack


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 09:00:39 AM
Last edit: May 10, 2018, 09:17:26 AM by Zin-Zang
 #213


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.

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 wouls 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.   Smiley

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

I was Red Tagged because Lauda Blows Theymos to get back on DT
The rest are just lauda's personal butt monkeys=> Hhampuz , Vod, TMAN , achow101
JollyGood
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 393


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 09:17:19 AM
 #214


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.

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 wouls 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.   Smiley

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.

SCAMS|| ADAB SOLUTIONS || BANKERA || BETKING BITSAFE & DEAN NOLAN || BITINGLE || CHANGELLY CHANGENOW & ATOMIC SWAP || COINSBIT || CRYPTOKNOWMICS || FURTCOIN || FLYP.ME || HITBTC || HOLY TRANSACTION || HUMANCOIN ||
||
HUMANITYONE || MINEXCOIN || || MOBILEGO || P2PB2B || REPUBLIA || ROCK TRADING || SOVRANOCOIN || SPECTROCOIN || TOKENPAY || TRADESATOSHI || ULORD || VIBEO || 520bit/vitalii_invest/RoyalTeam ||
|| READ MY FULL SCAM LIST
Zin-Zang
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 11

Killing Lightning Network with a 51% Ignore attack


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 09:20:22 AM
 #215

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?

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 cycle stops things wil not change. (Note I did not add a smiley face to shows I was having crypto-cyber-orgasm after making my point)

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.  Smiley


I was Red Tagged because Lauda Blows Theymos to get back on DT
The rest are just lauda's personal butt monkeys=> Hhampuz , Vod, TMAN , achow101
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1350


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 10, 2018, 01:13:37 PM
 #216

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.

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

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. 

vormir72
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
May 10, 2018, 01:26:51 PM
 #217

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.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1496



View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:06:48 PM
Last edit: May 10, 2018, 03:50:51 PM by franky1
 #218

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.

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

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.  

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


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.  

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
alvinmtp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 505



View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:18:02 PM
 #219

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.
JollyGood
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 393


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 03:26:16 PM
 #220

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?

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 cycle stops things wil not change. (Note I did not add a smiley face to shows I was having crypto-cyber-orgasm after making my point)

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.  Smiley

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 Smiley

SCAMS|| ADAB SOLUTIONS || BANKERA || BETKING BITSAFE & DEAN NOLAN || BITINGLE || CHANGELLY CHANGENOW & ATOMIC SWAP || COINSBIT || CRYPTOKNOWMICS || FURTCOIN || FLYP.ME || HITBTC || HOLY TRANSACTION || HUMANCOIN ||
||
HUMANITYONE || MINEXCOIN || || MOBILEGO || P2PB2B || REPUBLIA || ROCK TRADING || SOVRANOCOIN || SPECTROCOIN || TOKENPAY || TRADESATOSHI || ULORD || VIBEO || 520bit/vitalii_invest/RoyalTeam ||
|| READ MY FULL SCAM LIST
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!