1. the price was not a crash. it was a correction. the $20k spike was never sustainable and was just pure hype bubble that was always suppose to pop and correct. this level of $6k-$9k is more accurate stable sustainable level. if you cut a line from november 2017 to march2018. you will see the natural level of sustainable value
now some shocking things
2. the bitcoin core bitcoin cash are 2 sides of the same coin.. ver and theymos play the same social forum drama rolls like a mirror image.
ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror
samason mow plays jihans mirror..
but all are part for the same family if you follow the money and research
3. the august 2017 bilateral split of bitcoin core and bitcoin cash was instigatd by bankers. who with high invstments of over $100m coerced devs to made a roadmap to stifle bitcoin cores blockchain innovation and push the social drama of 'blockchains are broken and cant scale' and the only future is co-managed accounts called channels. whereby commercial companies can set up hubs and earn fee's.. as that is how the devs that were paid were suppose to offer the investors a service to allow the investors a return on their investment.
to implement it they had to play a very twisted double side 3 card trick on the community.. they played it well
4. but the article is pointing at the wrong whipping pupetmaster of the investors.. the real whippers are DCG.
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#btake note of : blockchain, bloq, blockstream, btcc
if you look at the history of all the drama of august 2017, everything from UASF, segwit 2x, cash and sgwit1x
samson mow (UASF) got paid by btcc and blockstream which done one campaign to start the ball rolling. then there was Bloq, who done another campaign and then ver and partners who are part of blockchain.info done the third.
yep thats right ver is part of the same game.
it was all one big mascarade to make it appear as free choice. but instead was a mandatory bilateral split. anyone against it got falsely pushed to another coin and were being told its the original satoshi vision.. oh, and giving people fre coin via th split as a bribe to distract them from disagreeing with a mandatory split. (decentralised fre choice should never result in a mandatory bilateral split. a real satoshi ethos is consensus. where by cor should have realised they only had 35% and went back to the drawing board and found a new reconsideration proposal/compromise that the community would agree on without the 2017 drama/events)
5. but lets get back to the article.. DCG is the puppet master. they have fingers in the pie of mastercard. jp morgan, US trasury amungst othrs.. trying to write an article to do a social meandering mindtwist to make it sound like a insurance company is a pupet master doesnt make sense. yet those involved in mastercard, central banks and treasury does make sense
summary
bitcoin core and bitcoin cash are 2 sides of the same coin create as a false illusion of choice, which pretty much started moving btc away from the original whitepaper ethos, when it became "core" in 2013-2014. there are many quotes from the paid devs shouting how blockchain technology is broke and cant scale.
in my view.. no one should own the brand "bitcoin" and so with core controlling the btc protocol it should be branded as bitcoin core. not to illustrate or to hand core the network. but to highlight that they do control it. and thus hope it wakes people up enough to demand that core sort themelves out and stop saying btc protocol is broke. and instead ask other teams to work on the network.
(its a bit of reverse psychology. call it bitcoin core. pople wake up and realsie core control it. to then kick core in the but to fix the issues or move aside to avoide th network being officially branted bitcoin core)
even the drma of cash shouting they are bitcoin was a mindgame by DCG by hoping it would make the community want to hand the brand bitcoin to core just to not leet anyone else have it..
but no one should own it
anyways
anyone saying that any team thats not paid by DCG or opposes the radmap must be an attacker, obviously is against decentralisation and doesnt want the DCG family to lose control
