Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies.

[Betheng10]

Another reason for bitcoin's price to decline. Not only that possible investors are lost, but the image it may give to people with a little knowledge about bitcoin can spread like a wildfire.

More reason for countries to ban and not support cryptocurrencies.

[pushups44]

@DooMAD

It seems that Ver is obsessed with calling his BCash creation "Bitcoin". He knows very well the true power behind the crypto name and brand with historical emphasis is with Bitcoin and not with "Bitcoin Cash".

Those in the know are happy to make money out of BCash in the same way as they could from any altcoin, no problem about that but the idea a couple of angry disgruntled whales get together and try to use the Bitcoin name saying Satoshi would have wanted Bcash instead of Bitcoin to associated as his closest vision of crypto is just ridiculous.

I agree with you and think by far most of the community agree that Bitcoin is Bitcoin (not "Bitcoin Core"). And Bitcoin Cash is either Bcash or Bitcoin Cash or BCH and is just an altcoin.

I like Bcash precisely because it pisses Ver off so much. I mean I am all for letting the markets decide, but if Ver is a true libertarian, he should not feel so insecure about people calling his preferred coin a particular name. The markets will decide if a meme sticks or not.

[Wind_FURY]

Poor franky1, staunch Roger Ver supporter. His fraudulent tendencies are very clear as night and day but you keep on defending him. Why?

I wish to see you discuss about Bitcoin Cash's development and the pros and cons of bigger blocks to convince us to use it.

Plus I never gave you a "think what you want attitude". I tried to stick to the facts, but your replies are tinfoil hat conspiracies trying to pull everyone down to Roger Ver and Craig Wright's level.

At any rate I enjoy the discussion. I like listening on your side of the story and I believe everyone should too. But stick to the facts, not the subjective consiracy stories.

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

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.

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

[franky1]

Poor franky1, staunch Roger Ver supporter. His fraudulent tendencies are very clear as night and day but you keep on defending him. Why?

I wish to see you discuss about Bitcoin Cash's development and the pros and cons of bigger blocks to convince us to use it.

Plus I never gave you a "think what you want attitude". I tried to stick to the facts, but your replies are tinfoil hat conspiracies trying to pull everyone down to Roger Ver and Craig Wright's level.

the thing is. you keep thinking im defending ver..
page after page all i have said is BOTH sides of the same family of centralists are doing kardashian drama.

but you keep on thinking that if someone is not a kim fan they must be a kylie fan..
i am a fan of neither khloe(P.wuille (core)) or kim(jgazic (cash))
and
certainly not a fan of kanye west(ver).. nor kylie jenner(theymos) - both ego drama queens with no talent
and
im not a fan of robert kardashian(barry silbert)

its all one big drama event you pull two sides of the same rope.
but all you can see is there is only a single rope to pull and only one side should win.
you dont see that its a rigged game and both players are both sponsored by the same team
trying to get everyone in on the game so that either way robert kardashian(barry silbert) get the brand name

i personally see it as a no one should trademark "kardashian" so that even little lady down the road can be a kardashian or a teenager at school can be a kardashian. without lawsuits and licences being required.

it seems like you dont want to take the core defence hat off to wear a decentralisaed no on owns brand bitcoin hat.

But stick to the facts,

i guess you missed the links to the funding
i guess you skipped over the links to the bilateral split data. even when it was links provided by your kings
i guess you missed the code provided by your own kings

[JollyGood]

I like Bcash precisely because it pisses Ver off so much. I mean I am all for letting the markets decide, but if Ver is a true libertarian, he should not feel so insecure about people calling his preferred coin a particular name. The markets will decide if a meme sticks or not.

What you say is true pushups44 but Ver seems to think because he is a whale because he was an early investor in Bitcoin start-ups he has an automatic right to direct the way Bitcoin develops. He was behind Bitcoin Cash because he could not have any influence over Bitcoin. No whale has an automatic right to dictate the direction of future development.

As for names and memes are concerned some most members of the community that dislike Bitcoin being called Bitcore Core by the Bitcoin Cash fanclub, they are calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash just because Ver REALLY dislikes it

[Ayasena]

 how he handled things, that really warrants a class action lawsuit, though I doubt they would really get into it.
 What he did from a consumer's perspective is fraudulent and you can't defend that no matter how you put it in the court.
 Nobody owns bitcoin nor bitcoin cash, sure, but misleading people to buy your 'product' (technically, Roger Ver is the face of bitcoin cash and he advertises the hell out of it) while they wanted to buy another product is fraud. I hope that they really are enthusiastic in getting this thing off so as to put Ver behind bars. A once smart man lowered to the ranks of a scum.

[aiviaa485]

This has been talked about on this forum. Roger Ver has been (supposedly) misleading newbies, making them believe that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin:

A group of cryptocurrency enthusiasts is considering filing a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com owner Roger Ver, claiming he deliberately misleads novice investors by exploiting newbies’ confusion between bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, which forked off the original cryptocurrency in August 2017.

The potential class-action lawsuit is being organized by Twitter user @MoneyTrigz, who is the co-owner of Coindaily.co.

The lawsuit is being discussed in a Telegram chatroom called “Bitcoin.com lawsuit/victims,” which anyone can join. The chatroom already has more than 444 members, but it’s unclear how many of them will join the lawsuit.

Ver (also known as “Bitcoin Jesus”) was an early investor in bitcoin startups. He previously backed the original Bitcoin, but has since become an outspoken advocate of its derivative, Bitcoin Cash.
Critics: Ver Is Committing ‘Consumer Fraud’

According to Wallet Investor, Ver is deliberately misusing the “bitcoin” name on his website Bitcoin.com — a hub that sells bitcoin and bitcoin cash — to fool gullible investors into buying the wrong bitcoin.

“Considering the site is named Bitcoin.com and is also a hub for selling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Cloud mining contracts, this could potentially deceive novice investors and newcomers into buying the wrong Bitcoin.”

....

In the lawsuit chatroom on Telegram, the consensus of cryptocurrency evangelists is that Ver is an unethical “scumbag” who deserves to be sued into oblivion.

One person wrote, “He can rot in hell for that. Will lose noobs’ money sending to wrong addresses. Hurting Bitcoin in the process.”

Another forum member wondered, “How is he allowed to get away with this?”

Still another person summed up the group’s collective sentiment, “I support this movement. Roger Ver is a scumbag.”


More info: https://btcmanager.com/bitcoin-jesus-roger-ver-may-be-sued-for-defrauding-bitcoin-investors/

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

this is bad news for Bitcoin users, and should be law as fair as it is.

hopefully the authorities will understand this.

and can solve this problem cleanly.

[jmvzlfyg]

Roger Ver deliberately misled people on his website "bitcoin.com". Marking BCH as bitcoin is not a mistake for a professional website. It will mislead novice and hurt new investors' enthusiasm for encryption.

[ratnawide]

A group of cryptocurrency enthusiasts is considering filing a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com owner Roger Ver, claiming he deliberately misleads novice investors by exploiting newbies’ confusion between bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash

I've seen/read actual cases where new buyers got confused several times already. Basically, he's selling counterfeit Bitcoins!

fake bitcoin? how bitcoin can be faked?
if indeed he harms the crowd I strongly agree if he is prosecuted because it will reduce further investors and destroy the ICO project due to the absence of investors who believe

[freshm4ker]

Some people suggest it and when you commit a large-scale fraud or just a matter of time an influential person becomes his victim.

[samuraijin]

lol, it's an unappealing action even rogerver always gives a comparison between BCH and BTC, so who's right? that he also wants you to throw your BTC for BCH so he holds more of your BTC

[darsiderin]

@DooMAD

It seems that Ver is obsessed with calling his BCash creation "Bitcoin". He knows very well the true power behind the crypto name and brand with historical emphasis is with Bitcoin and not with "Bitcoin Cash".

Those in the know are happy to make money out of BCash in the same way as they could from any altcoin, no problem about that but the idea a couple of angry disgruntled whales get together and try to use the Bitcoin name saying Satoshi would have wanted Bcash instead of Bitcoin to associated as his closest vision of crypto is just ridiculous.

I agree with you and think by far most of the community agree that Bitcoin is Bitcoin (not "Bitcoin Core"). And Bitcoin Cash is either Bcash or Bitcoin Cash or BCH and is just an altcoin.

I like Bcash precisely because it pisses Ver off so much. I mean I am all for letting the markets decide, but if Ver is a true libertarian, he should not feel so insecure about people calling his preferred coin a particular name. The markets will decide if a meme sticks or not.

Roger Ver is not a "true libertarian", he is not a libertarian at all. He is an avid businessman who wants a lot of money and fame.

[aso118]

Another reason for bitcoin's price to decline. Not only that possible investors are lost, but the image it may give to people with a little knowledge about bitcoin can spread like a wildfire.

More reason for countries to ban and not support cryptocurrencies.

I doubt if this particular case or the publicity around it could impact Bitcoin's price so much. While the general public and newbies might give these stories some weight, I don't think the price gets impacted.

[Wind_FURY]

Poor franky1, staunch Roger Ver supporter. His fraudulent tendencies are very clear as night and day but you keep on defending him. Why?

I wish to see you discuss about Bitcoin Cash's development and the pros and cons of bigger blocks to convince us to use it.

Plus I never gave you a "think what you want attitude". I tried to stick to the facts, but your replies are tinfoil hat conspiracies trying to pull everyone down to Roger Ver and Craig Wright's level.

the thing is. you keep thinking im defending ver..

Because you are. You are biased and arguing for his statement that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which is a stupid argument to start with.

If you have that kind of argument, then I say that Bitcoin Clashic is the real Bitcoin Cash, http://bitcoinclashic.org/

I assume you also support Roger Ver's fraudulent tendencies? What can you say about his support for Craig Wright as the real Satoshi Nakamoto?

Back again to the Kardiasiancoin Conspiracy. Hahaha.

Make the thread and let us discuss it on its own.

[franky1]

Poor franky1, staunch Roger Ver supporter.

Because you are. You are biased and arguing for his statement that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which is a stupid argument to start with.

I assume you also support Roger Ver's fraudulent tendencies? What can you say about his support for Craig Wright as the real Satoshi Nakamoto?

Make the thread and let us discuss it on its own.

i told you before craig is a scammer.

do you not actually read. seems not instead you turn into a reddit sheep to repeat core support statements along with thier well known buzzwords.
i have repeatedly said this. at first i thought that you wre new, and just niave to the state of the community. but your over use of knwn buzzwords and you constant band camp drama concentration is not making m think you are indocrinated into core

so lets make it clear. i said:

NO ONE...
NO ONE..
NO ONE
should own the brand

this whole pointing the finger at ver is just drama to get sheep to vote core as king.
(point your finger at khloe so kim can be queen kardashian)
yes i detest core. but that does not meam anyone that detests core should be automatically shoved into another camp/fanclub.

you really do need to learn about decentralisation and independance because its becoming obvious all you can see is camps that people need to be put in. meaning its starting to become obvious that any discussion on decentralisation/independance will be lost on you

as for the turning into a sheep to read out a core script. well when i see you use the core invented buzzwords "bigblockers" and you only attack ver/wu but you have refused to add jgarzic(who actually made bitcoin cash)  into your attack. its obvious your repeating something you read on reddit and had no independant thought or research

i bet you didnt even know about jgarzics involvement because the core reddit scripts never mentioned it.

anyway when you use well known buzzwords, it reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStpvviPgxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

it even gets worse when your repeating the same statement years after that script began, its like your stuck a few years behind
let me guess you were dying to find an oppertunity to say core are "conservative" as a reason you defend core.. yea yea yea we all heard that script its not unique or original

so you might want to take a few days to reset yourself. take a few steps back and stop just repeating the reddit mindset

have a good few days off restting yourself. i hope one day shep wake up and start having an original thought, as its becoming too obvious that core seem to be forming a centralist group

[Wind_FURY]

Poor franky1, staunch Roger Ver supporter.

Because you are. You are biased and arguing for his statement that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which is a stupid argument to start with.

I assume you also support Roger Ver's fraudulent tendencies? What can you say about his support for Craig Wright as the real Satoshi Nakamoto?

Make the thread and let us discuss it on its own.

i told you before craig is a scammer.

do you not actually read. seems not instead you turn into a reddit sheep to repeat core support statements along with thier well known buzzwords.
i have repeatedly said this. at first i thought that you wre new, and just niave to the state of the community. but your over use of knwn buzzwords and you constant band camp drama concentration is not making m think you are indocrinated into core

But what about Roger Ver? Do you support his fraudulent ways of manipulating and confusing the public when he claims that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin"?

Then we go to the "sheep counterargument" again because Bitcoin Cash cannot compete with Bitcoin technically and economically. If I am a sheep then more than 90% of the community sre sheeps.

so lets make it clear. i said:

NO ONE...
NO ONE..
NO ONE
should own the brand

No one said anyone owns the brand. It is Roger Ver who keeps claiming that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" and it confuses some of the people, especially the newbies because in truth Bitcoin is the cryptocurrency the big blockers call "Bitcoin Core". To make it short, "Bitcoin is Bitcoin".

Bitcoin Cash is Bcash, an altcoin.

The Kardasiancoin Conspiracy

Stop. You cannot bring the Core developers to their level. Core is composed of the best minds in the whole cryptocurrency community. If your proposals are not good enough for them, then they will not be included in their repository. But you are free to start your own Bitcoin implementation or start your own hard fork like what Bitcoin Cash has done.

[DooMAD]

so lets make it clear. i said:

NO ONE...
NO ONE..
NO ONE
should own the brand

Well I have some good news for you, no one does!  The name belongs to the largest body of users.  You're going to find it difficult to convince them it doesn't.

Look at what happened with the Ethereum hardfork that everyone has almost forgotten about now.  ETH and ETC.  ETC argued profusely that their vision was closer to the intended original version.  But when someone says "Ethereum", you know they mean "ETH" because that's what most users call it.  If you want ETC you need to say "Ethereum Classic".  As such, I'll repeat again, the economic majority will continue to prove they can claim the Bitcoin brand because it will continue to be known as Bitcoin.  That's just how it's going to be.  No butchering the meaning of "decentralisation" will change that.

You still get decentralisation.  Each version of Ethereum gets to exist and have Ethereum in their name.  Users have total freedom of choice over which one they want to use.  But ETC have to settle for the fact that they need to clarify they're "Classic", and not compatible with what most people mean by "Ethereum".  Why is that so bad to you?  Just accept the reality of it and move on with your life.

I'm going to cross-paste my last post in another thread for context, to demonstrate my neutral stance on hardforks and to illustrate where I suspect our paths diverge.  Have a read.  

Am I right to assume we agree up until that last paragraph?

Conversely, after a split has occurred, the lesser of the two chains is undisputedly the altcoin.  If the altcoin then tries to claim the mantle of Bitcoin, despite having insufficient support, you can call that an attempted hostile takeover to your heart's content.  You won't hear any complaints from me there.  Because that's a smaller group of users deliberately trying to take something from a larger group of users against their wishes.

Because it sounds like that's what you're advocating.  BCH are the smaller group, yet you seem supportive of the notion that they have the right to rename "Bitcoin" to "Bitcoin Core", despite the wishes of the majority, whilst simultaneously stating that BCH is Bitcoin?  And you wonder why we aren't willing to just go along with that like it's somehow okay?  Are you even hearing yourself?

[data_teks]

I would agree with what has been mentioned abobe, that the raising attention to this accident can negatively affect the market but at the same time any attention is good because you are getting to be talked about.

[Wind_FURY]

so lets make it clear. i said:

NO ONE...
NO ONE..
NO ONE
should own the brand

Well I have some good news for you, no one does!  The name belongs to the largest body of users.  You're going to find it difficult to convince them it doesn't.

Look at what happened with the Ethereum hardfork that everyone has almost forgotten about now.  ETH and ETC.  ETC argued profusely that their vision was closer to the intended original version.  But when someone says "Ethereum", you know they mean "ETH" because that's what most users call it.  If you want ETC you need to say "Ethereum Classic".  As such, I'll repeat again, the economic majority will continue to prove they can claim the Bitcoin brand because it will continue to be known as Bitcoin.  That's just how it's going to be.  No butchering the meaning of "decentralisation" will change that.

You still get decentralisation.  Each version of Ethereum gets to exist and have Ethereum in their name.  Users have total freedom of choice over which one they want to use.  But ETC have to settle for the fact that they need to clarify they're "Classic", and not compatible with what most people mean by "Ethereum".  Why is that so bad to you?  Just accept the reality of it and move on with your life.

I'm going to cross-paste my last post in another thread for context, to demonstrate my neutral stance on hardforks and to illustrate where I suspect our paths diverge.  Have a read.  

Am I right to assume we agree up until that last paragraph?

Conversely, after a split has occurred, the lesser of the two chains is undisputedly the altcoin.  If the altcoin then tries to claim the mantle of Bitcoin, despite having insufficient support, you can call that an attempted hostile takeover to your heart's content.  You won't hear any complaints from me there.  Because that's a smaller group of users deliberately trying to take something from a larger group of users against their wishes.

Because it sounds like that's what you're advocating.  BCH are the smaller group, yet you seem supportive of the notion that they have the right to rename "Bitcoin" to "Bitcoin Core", despite the wishes of the majority, whilst simultaneously stating that BCH is Bitcoin?  And you wonder why we aren't willing to just go along with that like it's somehow okay?  Are you even hearing yourself?

Plus franky1 wants to confuse the readers by saying "Core centralization", strongly suggesting that the Core developers have control over the network. If they did then why did it take for a long time, and a need for a UASF to activate Segwit?

[pat4cryptoreal]

I thank god for coming across an information like this in this forum, this is one of the reason I like this forum. It is not only newbies that will be confuse even old people in cryptoworld will be confuse too. Bitcoin is written is bitcoin core while bitcoincash is written as bitcoin. That site did to be shut down if he is not ready to make necessary correction.