Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies.

[Wind_FURY]

Aside from misleading newbies. This guy can be charged for "domain squatting". Roger bought bitcoin.com ,including the bitcoin reddit and twitter @bitcoin to promote his own coin called Bitcoin Cash. He is a troll guy!

This is my tinfoil hat theory on Roger Ver's "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" trolling. He wants to be sued in court so he that he could argue his case. Whether he wins or he loses he gets the attention and gets the opportunity to shill Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin. But if he wins then I believe that gives him the right to pressure the exchanges to use the "BTC" ticker for Bitcoin Cash.

[1713963321]

1713963321

[1713963321]

1713963321

[1713963321]

1713963321

[qiman]

He is another reason for people to mistrust crypto currencies. His shoddy way of devaluing the Bitcoin market with his Bitcoin cash stupidity is putting many new people off from entering this market. I hope his ass gets sued and he learns a big lesson not to bite the hand that fed him and not to behave like some cheap trash traitor. I think people like this deserve a good thrashing and we all need to say our piece on social media to make him very unpopular at least.

[JollyGood]

He is another reason for people to mistrust crypto currencies. His shoddy way of devaluing the Bitcoin market with his Bitcoin cash stupidity is putting many new people off from entering this market. I hope his ass gets sued and he learns a big lesson not to bite the hand that fed him and not to behave like some cheap trash traitor. I think people like this deserve a good thrashing and we all need to say our piece on social media to make him very unpopular at least.

Many feel that Ver is biting the hand that fed him. Another is Wu that people see as someone who is biting the hand that fed him.

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

[thesmallgod]

I think I have seen some threads about someone here posting about his friend buying bitcoin cash thinking that he bought bitcoin from bitcoin.com but later find out it is not bitcoin. Firstly I think as a newbie you need to understand what are cryptocurrencies but it is painful that many of them jump into buying because they hear about it and they see that bitcoin.com is selling cheaply without doing research what price BTC is being sold. an Intelligent person should know Bitcoin will not be offer at that particular price bitcoin.com is selling. you want to buy bitcoin cheaply and you got served rightly.

[RawDog]

making them believe that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin:

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Roger Ver spent a whole bunch of his own money and a shit ton of effort to SAVE the true Bitcoin from assholes at Blockstream.  And he did save Bitcoin.  In the end, he will come to be known as 'Bitcoin Jesus'.  He did resurrect Bitcoin after Blockstream killed it.  God bless him.

[JollyGood]

I think I have seen some threads about someone here posting about his friend buying bitcoin cash thinking that he bought bitcoin from bitcoin.com but later find out it is not bitcoin. Firstly I think as a newbie you need to understand what are cryptocurrencies but it is painful that many of them jump into buying because they hear about it and they see that bitcoin.com is selling cheaply without doing research what price BTC is being sold. an Intelligent person should know Bitcoin will not be offer at that particular price bitcoin.com is selling. you want to buy bitcoin cheaply and you got served rightly.

Newbies do not deserve to get scammed or confused regardless of their lack of research. The fault and blame lay solely with Ver because of the confusion caused by the bitcoin.com domain

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

[Google+]

it seems that roger ver is trying to make people think that bitcoin is bitcoin cash so change it like that but in my opinion it is not good and it reflects the ugliness of bitcoin cash, and I see the current website is fixing bitcoin (BTC) is no longer bitcoin cash.

[brengoskandel]

so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.

[franky1]

theymos does the same thing about bitcoin core.

check out the days of bitcoin Xt, bitcoin classic, bitcoin unlimited. these were software that did not want to be altcoins but wanted to be on the old mainnet and continue on the old mainnet. but just not want to sheep follow core.. and theymos REKT, censored and abused them, by saying that they were not bitcoin and only core was bitcoin.

But were those implementations of Bitcoin good enough? I also believe a block size increase for political reasons is wrong. The risk is too great.

Plus they looked like they were also attempts to fork the network away from the Core developers.

theymos and ver are 2 sides of the same coin (excuse the pun)
so while attacking ver, atleast drop the hypocrisy and attack theymos aswell.. if not then simply accept bitcoin core is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash and neither get to own just "bitcoin" brand

Is that your defense for Roger Ver? Because you believe Theymos is wrong then you think Roger Ver should also do wrong?

1. xt, clasic, unlimited were not power grabbing. their code did not involve a bilateral split. they were not taking any power away from core because back then. there was a blief that core had no power to take (but funny how you beleive core have power after all your pretense tha core have no power)

2. xt, classic, unlimited just wanted to upgrade the network where all node "brands" could continue to run on the SAME network. but as you now can actually admit. cores power veto'd consensus against a network upgrade via consensus against xt, unlimited, classic. and. so the ntwork didnt upgrade via consensus.
even so. gmaxwell actually begged them to bilateral split. and those other nodes refused. they wanted a network upgrade not a altcoin creation. there was no political reason about power grabbing. it was more so trying to get more functionality out of the network but (inhindsight) requires core to de-power themslves(backdown/compromise) and to play ball with the rest of the community so that everyone was on the same level playing field.

3. i am not defending ver. im just displaying that core are doing the same practice, because theymos and ver are twins of the same big family tree
bloq and blockstream are not opposition. blockstream codd segwit, bloq coded cash.. both are paid by barry silbert. and both get paid by sponsorship of barry silberts media subsiduary coindesk to go to conferences and play act out some rivalry drama.
the funny part is that most core defenders are not independant thinkers. because they are just repeating the ver narrative. but if they were smart independant thinkers they would be talking about jgarzic who actually made bitcoin cash

4. so with all your research(reddiit script reading) and asking script writers (carlton and achowe) do any of them even mention jgarzig. because in all the debates i keep hearing from the core defenders. its the same script, same buzzwords, sam mantra's.
and ys i say core defenders. not bitcoin defenders. because even they have to admit, they are not defending a NETWORK of open community of multiple node code bases. they are defending one team, and are against any other codebase that wishes to upgrade the NETWORK in a different way than core desires

[JollyGood]

so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.

The proposed lawsuit was based on raising enough funds to pay for legal fees but the proposers stopped the funding page and decided agianst any legal action because they only raised a few hundred US$ in Bitcoin donations.

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

[masudginanjar]

in the appearance of the coin there is no such thing as bad intent or tarnished the coin's name.

but the advertising media Roger Ver is doing is very tarnished the name of Bitcoin.

it's clear Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are different but he said he can see his news on bitcoin.com, where there Bitcoin has a website because Bitcoint is his anonymous nature.

[Wind_FURY]

theymos does the same thing about bitcoin core.

check out the days of bitcoin Xt, bitcoin classic, bitcoin unlimited. these were software that did not want to be altcoins but wanted to be on the old mainnet and continue on the old mainnet. but just not want to sheep follow core.. and theymos REKT, censored and abused them, by saying that they were not bitcoin and only core was bitcoin.

But were those implementations of Bitcoin good enough? I also believe a block size increase for political reasons is wrong. The risk is too great.

Plus they looked like they were also attempts to fork the network away from the Core developers.

theymos and ver are 2 sides of the same coin (excuse the pun)
so while attacking ver, atleast drop the hypocrisy and attack theymos aswell.. if not then simply accept bitcoin core is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash and neither get to own just "bitcoin" brand

Is that your defense for Roger Ver? Because you believe Theymos is wrong then you think Roger Ver should also do wrong?

1. xt, clasic, unlimited were not power grabbing. their code did not involve a bilateral split. they were not taking any power away from core because back then. there was a blief that core had no power to take (but funny how you beleive core have power after all your pretense tha core have no power)

But they did want to take over as the "developers the community should follow". But we saw that it did not work because their arguments about scaling was not truly and argument at all. 1mb block sizes to regulate the network in terms of the blockchain's size, block propagation and transaction propagation should always be there for now.

But it is good that Bitcoin Cash is forking a 32mb block size to observe if all the Core developers' fears are true. I want Bitcoin Cash to be successful like Ethereum for this purpose.

2. xt, classic, unlimited just wanted to upgrade the network where all node "brands" could continue to run on the SAME network. but as you now can actually admit. cores power veto'd consensus against a network upgrade via consensus against xt, unlimited, classic. and. so the ntwork didnt upgrade via consensus.
even so. gmaxwell actually begged them to bilateral split. and those other nodes refused. they wanted a network upgrade not a altcoin creation. there was no political reason about power grabbing. it was more so trying to get more functionality out of the network but (inhindsight) requires core to de-power themslves(backdown/compromise) and to play ball with the rest of the community so that everyone was on the same level playing field.

I believe it is up to the community to choose which Bitcoin software they want to run as full validating nodes.

3. i am not defending ver. im just displaying that core are doing the same practice, because theymos and ver are twins of the same big family tree
bloq and blockstream are not opposition. blockstream codd segwit, bloq coded cash.. both are paid by barry silbert. and both get paid by sponsorship of barry silberts media subsiduary coindesk to go to conferences and play act out some rivalry drama.
the funny part is that most core defenders are not independant thinkers. because they are just repeating the ver narrative. but if they were smart independant thinkers they would be talking about jgarzic who actually made bitcoin cash

Ok. It is good to know that you also believe that Roger Ver is a scammer trying to defraud confuse and manipulate the community with his "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" propaganda. Thanks for the honesty.

4. so with all your research(reddiit script reading) and asking script writers (carlton and achowe) do any of them even mention jgarzig. because in all the debates i keep hearing from the core defenders. its the same script, same buzzwords, sam mantra's.
and ys i say core defenders. not bitcoin defenders. because even they have to admit, they are not defending a NETWORK of open community of multiple node code bases. they are defending one team, and are against any other codebase that wishes to upgrade the NETWORK in a different way than core desires

Maybe I am to a fault listening too much of one side. But that side is what made more sense for me. But I will try to listen to all sides next time. The problem is the other side has too much propaganda. You know Roger Ver is always about the propaganda because he lacks the technical knowledge.

[JollyGood]

@Wind_FURY

Got to say you are a great debater. You analyse and dissect all questions before answering them elegantly and eloquently.

You (and everyone else here) has had so much pro-Ver and pro-Bitcoin Cash propoganda thrown at them that they could have drowned in the pool of confusion and misinformation but you are a model of how debating and responding should be. No doubt many newbies and some seasoned crypo enthusiasts will be relieved after reading your posts because they dismantle the claims behind Bitcoin Cash.

Thank you


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

[DooMAD]

1. xt, clasic, unlimited were not power grabbing. their code did not involve a bilateral split. they were not taking any power away from core because back then. there was a blief that core had no power to take (but funny how you beleive core have power after all your pretense tha core have no power)

But they did want to take over as the "developers the community should follow".

It's worth emphasising that there is no one particluar developer the community should follow.  People will naturally run whichever client is most representative of the rules they think the network should be governed by.  No developer has any inalienable right to be the ones we "follow".  Since it is ultimately up to users, it shouldn't really be described as "taking over".  No one ever takes over the power users have.

In effect, we only follow them while they provide the best code.

For once, I'm inclined to agree with franky1.  XT, classic and unlimited were not "hostile takeovers".  They were merely proposals to change consensus.  Proposals which failed, but proposals nonetheless.  Where franky1 and I likely part ways is if, for example, XT had decided to fork away, but didn't have an economic majority or the most accumulated POW, but decided that they were the "real" Bitcoin.  That would be a hostile takeover, because they would then be trying to steal a name from a majority of users who disagreed with them.

Conversely, if XT had hypothetically forked and did have the economic support and accumulated POW to back it up, it would be the users then electing to change the consensus rules, so it wouldn't be a hostile takeover and could righty claim the mantle of Bitcoin.

As such, I'd argue that alternative clients can only be considered hostile after a fork has occurred.  Until then, they're just options for users to consider.

[Wind_FURY]

@Wind_FURY

Got to say you are a great debater. You analyse and dissect all questions before answering them elegantly and eloquently.

You (and everyone else here) has had so much pro-Ver and pro-Bitcoin Cash propoganda thrown at them that they could have drowned in the pool of confusion and misinformation but you are a model of how debating and responding should be. No doubt many newbies and some seasoned crypo enthusiasts will be relieved after reading your posts because they dismantle the claims behind Bitcoin Cash.

Thank you


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

No I'm not. I try to post the other side of the argument but I also know that there are small mistakes in what I know and what I thought I knew.

The best outcome from this is everyone learns from each other.

1. xt, clasic, unlimited were not power grabbing. their code did not involve a bilateral split. they were not taking any power away from core because back then. there was a blief that core had no power to take (but funny how you beleive core have power after all your pretense tha core have no power)

But they did want to take over as the "developers the community should follow".

It's worth emphasising that there is no one particluar developer the community should follow.  People will naturally run whichever client is most representative of the rules they think the network should be governed by.  No developer has any inalienable right to be the ones we "follow".  Since it is ultimately up to users, it shouldn't really be described as "taking over".  No one ever takes over the power users have.

In effect, we only follow them while they provide the best code.

For once, I'm inclined to agree with franky1.  XT, classic and unlimited were not "hostile takeovers".  They were merely proposals to change consensus.  Proposals which failed, but proposals nonetheless.  Where franky1 and I likely part ways is if, for example, XT had decided to fork away, but didn't have an economic majority or the most accumulated POW, but decided that they were the "real" Bitcoin.  That would be a hostile takeover, because they would then be trying to steal a name from a majority of users who disagreed with them.

Conversely, if XT had hypothetically forked and did have the economic support and accumulated POW to back it up, it would be the users then electing to change the consensus rules, so it wouldn't be a hostile takeover and could righty claim the mantle of Bitcoin.

As such, I'd argue that alternative clients can only be considered hostile after a fork has occurred.  Until then, they're just options for users to consider.

Ok, I will ask around and search for the facts on what truly happened. But I believe it was more than a "scaling debate. It was a war.

[franky1]

But they did want to take over as the "developers the community should follow". But we saw that it did not work because their arguments about scaling was not truly and argument at all. 1mb block sizes to regulate the network in terms of the blockchain's size, block propagation and transaction propagation should always be there for now.

no they did not want to take over.
they wanted to use consensus and hope the other teams ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD included nw features so that EVERYONE on the network was on the same level.

it has only been core that refuse to be on an even playing field.
core literally called themselves core because they want to be at the centre. they want to be the engine that drives the protocol. its why they chose the name
core wanted any other dev team that wanted different features to fork off
core and core partners then instigated a contentious bilateral split to then say.. opposers.. you to to the left by using bloqs new fork while core go to the right with blockstreams new fork

xt, classic, unlimited wanted to keep a united single network.. but wanted features on that single network that core devs didnt want as it would cause issues for the cor devs sponsors who wanted bitcoins blockchain to stagnate to drive desires for LN to rise.
LN will be a corporate network worth billions. hense why silbert set out to pay blockstream/bloq devs hundreds of millions upfront to pave th way for it.

but im still laughing at how your trying to sway the attention back towards it all being about ver. even though the bitcoin cash code is BLOQ written and barry silber funded.
why are you so afraid to even mention BLOQ/barry silbert/blockstream

[franky1]

I believe it is up to the community to choose which Bitcoin software they want to run as full validating nodes.

i BELIEVED that too based on the 2009-2013 network..  as consensus was one of the great things about satoshi's features he added into bitcoin
my belief then dwindled in 2013 once the rebrand to CORE occured and power plays started happening and core started wanting control

It's worth emphasising that there is no one particluar developer the community should follow.  People will naturally run whichever client is most representative of the rules they think the network should be governed by.  No developer has any inalienable right to be the ones we "follow".  Since it is ultimately up to users, it shouldn't really be described as "taking over".  No one ever takes over the power users have.

In effect, we only follow them while they provide the best code.

it would have be easy to follow any client. IF it was not for cores REKT, "fork off" bilateral split campaigns that literally treat core opponents as "network attackers".
yes anyone can run a sheep client to cores protocol. but dare anyone to start their own version with their own OPEN and UNMODERATED bips proposal. that tried to defy cores closed and modered BIPS.. you would soon see that consensus would be avoided by core and new REKT, "fork off" and bilateral split campaigns occur again. even if core only had 35% vote in its favour before their fake election trigger day

[starblocks]

That misleading label appears to have been removed now but the site remains extremely biased towards Bitcoin Core throughout and places Bitcoin Cash content under the same header as Bitcoin which would be very confusing for newcomers

Any media attention this gets should help clarify the difference

[Ulises123]

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.

[DooMAD]

It's worth emphasising that there is no one particluar developer the community should follow.  People will naturally run whichever client is most representative of the rules they think the network should be governed by.  No developer has any inalienable right to be the ones we "follow".  Since it is ultimately up to users, it shouldn't really be described as "taking over".  No one ever takes over the power users have.

In effect, we only follow them while they provide the best code.

it would have be easy to follow any client. IF it was not for cores REKT, "fork off" bilateral split campaigns that literally treat core opponents as "network attackers".

There are clearly some incredibly vocal supporters of Core.  Some of them do take things to extremes.  While it generally pervades the forum narrative that it's the supporters of alternative clients who supposedly act with "bad intentions", it's worth pointing out that some of the more militant, tribalist Core supporters have exhibited behaviour in the past that could be considered an attack on consensus.  Things like encouraging client spoofing to manipulate statistics of current support levels, impersonating Satoshi to discredit fork proposals and even DDoS attacks on alternative clients.  We've seen all of that and more.  And I'll continue to argue against that kind of behaviour when I see it.  I'm under no illusion here that it's an incredibly hostile environment for alternative clients to make any ingress.  

But chances are, at the very least, some people will continue to describe any alternative client proposing consensus changes an "attack" or a "power grab" and have yet another "REKT" social engineering campaign whenever the opportunity arises.  Even for those of us who don't believe that's a rational argument (and I certainly don't, because there isn't a central entity in Bitcoin to take power from), there's nothing you can do to prevent them saying that, as they're free to express their opinions.  All anyone can do is state why you might disagree and argue a compelling case to the contrary.  Granted, I don't seem to be having much success with that here, but still.  I'll say it again just in case:  alternative clients that propose changes in consensus rules are not attacks, power grabs, coups, hostile takeovers, etc and should not be relegated to the altcoins subforum until a fork has occurred and that chain is the minority fork.

However, while I'm sympathetic to your stance, I have to make it clear that while supporters are acting in this way, that should be no reflection on what any dev team themselves are doing.  All the developers are doing is producing the code they think is best.  If they want to do that via strictly moderated channels and procedures to produce what they believe is the strongest and most resilient code, that's entirely their prerogative.

but dare anyone to start their own version with their own OPEN and UNMODERATED bips proposal. that tried to defy cores closed and modered BIPS.. you would soon see that consensus would be avoided by core and new REKT, "fork off" and bilateral split campaigns occur again. even if core only had 35% vote in its favour before their fake election trigger day

It once again sounds like you're blaming one particular dev team for the way in which it's difficult to change consensus in Bitcoin.  Any dev team can have prerequisites and processes that need to be adhered to in order to submit new code.  Just because Core are quite strict and regimented about what can go into their repo, it doesn't mean they have any influence about what code goes into other clients.  Ultimately it's still the users who are effectively forcing it work in this way, because it's the users who are choosing to run the code that has gone through such a rigorous process and rejecting other clients which may arguably be less stringent.  But again, if they could do it without the social engineering REKT silliness, that would be an improvement.  People should make more of an effort to be neutral and impartial about these things and not just jump on a bandwagon because it's popular.  Ultimately, though, if the current methods are what the majority of users approve of, that's how it'll continue to be done.  So blame the users, not that one dev team.