Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies.

[JollyGood]

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

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

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

There is no hypocrisy at all.

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

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

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

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

[1714917717]

1714917717

[1714917717]

1714917717

[franky1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BrewMaster]

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

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

[JollyGood]

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

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

[cunese]

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

[JollyGood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DooMAD]

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

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

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

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

[JollyGood]

We've been through this.  Chains aren't named after dev teams.  BTC is not the "core chain", so stop trying to claim otherwise.  People aren't going to erroneously start calling it "Bitcoin Core" just because the bitcoin.com website has engaged in dishonest marketing practices.  "Bitcoin Core" is a dev team, a repository and a client.  It is not a chain.  Altcoins can call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever", but "Bitcoin" will continue to be whichever one has the largest economic majority and most accumulated proof of work.  In case you hadn't noticed, that's not BCH.  

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

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

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

[KingScorpio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you can trash all your "reasoning" down the toilet

there is something called "freedom of oppinion"

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

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

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

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

regards

[franky1]

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

We've been through this.  Chains aren't named after dev teams.  BTC is not the "core chain", so stop trying to claim otherwise.  People aren't going to erroneously start calling it "Bitcoin Core" just because the bitcoin.com website has engaged in dishonest marketing practices.  "Bitcoin Core" is a dev team, a repository and a client.  It is not a chain.  Altcoins can call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever", but "Bitcoin" will continue to be whichever one has the largest economic majority and most accumulated proof of work.  In case you hadn't noticed, that's not BCH.  

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

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

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

BTC=USD
BCH=AUD

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

core=america
cash=australia

bitcoin=dollar

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JollyGood]

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



you can trash all your "reasoning" down the toilet

there is something called "freedom of oppinion"

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

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

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

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

regards

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

[KingScorpio]

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

We've been through this.  Chains aren't named after dev teams.  BTC is not the "core chain", so stop trying to claim otherwise.  People aren't going to erroneously start calling it "Bitcoin Core" just because the bitcoin.com website has engaged in dishonest marketing practices.  "Bitcoin Core" is a dev team, a repository and a client.  It is not a chain.  Altcoins can call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever", but "Bitcoin" will continue to be whichever one has the largest economic majority and most accumulated proof of work.  In case you hadn't noticed, that's not BCH.  

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

BTC=USD
BCH=AUD

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

core=america
cash=australia

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

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

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

regards

[kulitmanggis]

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

[davison2]

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

[KingScorpio]

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

thanks

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

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

you dont think as far as i do,

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

we might see something similar again.

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

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

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

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

[JollyGood]

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

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

[KingScorpio]

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

I am not sure this propaganda is the best way forward but theymos really should think about ethics and morals and he should use bitcoin.org domain in a clearer manner

FTFY

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

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

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

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

[DooMAD]

you keep on repeating the scentiment that the network maintained by core is bitcoin and anything else is an attack.

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

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

thats the whole point..

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

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