Is loss of bitcoin.com a setback for Bitcoin Core?

[SaShiRaJaVu]

this is shameful. how can someone be so cruel to bitcoin? I am sure he has also made a lot of profit from bitcoin and as it goes he is not against bitcoin and not even that. he is misleading people against bitcoin. we can not blame newbies about it but can expect them to switch to real bitcoin as soon as possible or else they are gonna lose a lot of money.

In reality there is nothing cruel over here as it is a commercial domain extension and we have the professional one, we could have purchased that domain a long back as we could have collected enough funds as a community to purchase the commercial domain but no one bothered to do that even with the funds we had from the situation i understand, newbies coming into this market should understand the difference between BTC and BCH even if they advertise it as the real bitcoin.

[1714138138]

1714138138

[1714138138]

1714138138

[1714138138]

1714138138

[1714138138]

1714138138

[1714138138]

1714138138

[pooya87]

i hope you realize that your title is wrong because you are asking about effects of a website (bitcoin.com) on a full node client (bitcoin core)!

as for bitcoin.com, unfortunately they have been scamming people for some time now. ever since they created their centralized token called bitcoin-cash they have been selling it to newbies in the name of bitcoin. there even have been cases where a newbie bought what they told him was "bitcoin" and waited to receive it in their wallets but they never received anything because they actually bought an altcoin (BCH) and were waiting to receive it in their bitcoin wallet.
you can see dozens of this type of issue in the tech support board, specially in 2017 when there were a large number of new newbies coming in.

[Nalbo]

I'm quite familiar with the crypto world and can differentiate things. But I also look for things in internet.
If you do a google search with bitcoin, bitcoin.com comes in the second place. And most people also has a habit of looking for topic.com which leads to bitcoin.com. But the site bitcoin.com in many instances refers Bitcoincash as Bitcoin while they call the longest chain of Bitcoin as Bitcoin Core. This way they are presenting bitcoincash as the real bitcoin. And the more you see lie, the more it looks real.

Bitcoin is a community based project while Bitcoincash has business involved. Bitcoincash might even be better than Bitcoin in many aspects. They would do anything to promote their holdings and are generally more successful with their advertising than volunteer supported projects. But it would not undermine the Bitcoin project.

[CryptoBry]

I'm quite familiar with the crypto world and can differentiate things. But I also look for things in internet.
If you do a google search with bitcoin, bitcoin.com comes in the second place. And most people also has a habit of looking for topic.com which leads to bitcoin.com. But the site bitcoin.com in many instances refers Bitcoincash as Bitcoin while they call the longest chain of Bitcoin as Bitcoin Core. This way they are presenting bitcoincash as the real bitcoin. And the more you see lie, the more it looks real.

I hate to admit it but this Roger Ver (scammer) is too much into his bullshit that he is doing this shameless marketing. He is using the fame of Bitcoin and misleading the new people in this industry. I have seen a lot of newbies buying BitcoinCash thinking it's Bitcoin. I am not sure how we can stop this misleading marketing. Bcash is just another altcoin.

Roger Ver is recognized to be one of the leading figure in the world of cryptocurrency but for many he has lost his good reputation when he started Bitcoin Cash and made a war with those who continue to support the real bitcoin. In my opinion, too much greed has gone into his head that he don't care too much even if his many actions can affect bitcoin. People who have been here in this industry are already aware of who Roger Ver is and what he tried to do with the bitcoin ecosystem.

[Indamuck]

People definitely get influenced to buy bitcoin cash over bitcoin when they visit bitcoin.com and I'm sure a lot of new crypto users visit bitcoin.com first to see what it is all about.  I'm sick of the fighting myself and want to see all the top coins succeed, there is no reason we can't all support each other.  There is more than enough new money to be spread around.

[pawanjain]

Well I think it's the newbies fault here. I am not a BCH supporter but the site clearly says that BTC and BCH are two separate things. Even when you go to buy bitcoin it has 2 options: BCH and BTC.
So that must easily explain that person has to make a choice to buy between two separate coins. If the person doesn't understand the difference between the two then google can help easily solve this.
Even after this if the user is buying BCH thinking it as BTC then it is clearly the user's fault in this.

And no "bitcoin.com" doesn't seem like a set back to me. The thing is not many know the difference between the .com and .org versions.
If they get to know why Satoshi had bought .org then it must be pretty clear that why .org was necessary for bitcoin and not the .com

[LeGaulois]

Despite they are absolutely pro bitcoin cash (their "real bitcoin")   , I don't see any attempt to post fake informations about bitcoin core.
Otherwise they can just foolish only noobs with their hyped news... (e.g. "You can use sms for send bitcoincash") .

You should check bitcoin.com website. It has video tutorials to explain what is Bitcoin and how it works. The videos mention "Bitcoin" but guess what, they're explaining Bitcoin cash. So people think they're watching a video about BTC while it's about Btrash. They can't realize it immediately. There are surely a lot of people buying BCH but thinking they're purchasing BTC

They don't mislead people only via bitcoin.com, they also use other channels/platforms

[tsaroz]

As mentioned previously, the largest problem the new investors face while buying through bitcoin.com is they send the bitcoincash to their bitcoin address. This as is impossible would make the very first transaction of the new user a failure, a scam. It would not only make him/her distrust bitcoin but also every cryptocurrency. If they want to advertise bitcoincash, they should do that in an ethical way. Just say why bitcoincash is better bitcoin and don't confuse people with the addresses.

[Msworld83]

Its very clear and can be seen that bitcoin.com was created when the going was still smooth between the bitcoin cash founder with bitcoin and believe he can tarnish the image of bitcoin to have a good ride in bch which is not possible and only a newbies will be surprise and join that scam as real btc but those that read and know what real btc is always go against him.

[vv181]

Well I think it's the newbies fault here. I am not a BCH supporter but the site clearly says that BTC and BCH are two separate things. Even when you go to buy bitcoin it has 2 options: BCH and BTC.
So that must easily explain that person has to make a choice to buy between two separate coins. If the person doesn't understand the difference between the two then google can help easily solve this.
Even after this if the user is buying BCH thinking it as BTC then it is clearly the user's fault in this.

And no "bitcoin.com" doesn't seem like a set back to me. The thing is not many know the difference between the .com and .org versions.
If they get to know why Satoshi had bought .org then it must be pretty clear that why .org was necessary for bitcoin and not the .com

It is indeed they make the site has an option, and force a newbie to choose. But You should realize who backed the website. It is clearly stated in the footer that Rover Ver is the (CEO). We all know how awful he is, and because the site owned by him, he could easily spread false and biased information, to make newbs things BTRASH is the real Bitcoin. A brand new user shouldn't be blamed when they bought the wrong coin since they got biased information.

Most people don't know the differences between those domains, but I believe the .com domain sound more legitimate for a non-techie person. Which I believe it has a high chance to mislead mainstream.

[Wind_FURY]

I'm quite familiar with the crypto world and can differentiate things. But I also look for things in internet.
If you do a google search with bitcoin, bitcoin.com comes in the second place. And most people also has a habit of looking for topic.com which leads to bitcoin.com. But the site bitcoin.com in many instances refers Bitcoincash as Bitcoin while they call the longest chain of Bitcoin as Bitcoin Core. This way they are presenting bitcoincash as the real bitcoin. And the more you see lie, the more it looks real.

This is an old issue and it won't end.Roger Ver owns bitcoin.com and he won't sell it to some bitcoin core supporter.Many newbies will fall victims of this misleading scam, if they don't do enough research about the topic.I thinking about a way to shut down bitcoin.com,but this can be only temporary.

i am not 'cash' camp nor core camp. as i think no one should own 'bitcoin' but if you take 5 steps back away from the social drama and ask yourself this.. you may see that things are not scammy. but just social drama provocations

if you have $10k.
if you 'accidentally' bought bch, you would get 24.3 coin
if you 'accidentally' bought btc, you would get 1.26 coin

when realising the mistake of not understanding which community/nation you bought into. you could just convert one into the other and be equal.

the only time there would be a scam is if they were selling bch where you would only get 1.26bch per $10k right now. which is not the case

Agree, to this. However the problem is the mis leading information that newbies will get if they will use google to define bitcoin and to directly define bch as the real bitcoin. Since I had started to know about bitcoin there was only bitcoin core. Newbies must just be cautious and verify thru other sources about the information they get from google.

but since core own btc rule proposals btc is not the same as the 2009-2015 intention/ethos of 'bitcoin'. thus its just best to treat things as separate communities/nations of something that was unified years ago

to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

That's very disingenuous of you to drag Bitcoin down in Bitcoin Cash's level. Or maybe you were lifting Bitcoin Cash up to Bitcoin's level?

Newbies, don't let him confuse you. There's only one Bitcoin. The Bitcoin with the highest hashing power, the Bitcoin with the greatest marketcap value, the Bitcoin that has the largest accumulated POW, the Bitcoin that has the "BTC" ticker.

All the other forked Bitcoin coins are altcoins.

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault

It was the community. Remember UASF.

[franky1]

to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

That's very disingenuous of you to drag Bitcoin down in Bitcoin Cash's level. Or maybe you were lifting Bitcoin Cash up to Bitcoin's level?

Newbies, don't let him confuse you. There's only one Bitcoin. The Bitcoin with the highest hashing power, the Bitcoin with the greatest marketcap value, the Bitcoin that has the largest accumulated POW, the Bitcoin that has the "BTC" ticker.

All the other forked Bitcoin coins are altcoins.

put your social drama aside. its got nothing to do with faming up cash or faming down core. its about understanding that there is not one. even your own words 'all other forked bitcoins' shows you deep down beneath the social drama still show linkage of 'bitcoin' towards the forks.
by knowing they are forks of. and yes even segwit is a fork of 'bitcoin' 2009-2017. again you know they are forks. and its not to suggest btc is any less popular. its just saying there is not just one.

yes they are altcoins.
analogy: yes canadian dollar is a alt currency of US dollar. yes australian dollar is an alt currency of us dollar. its not suggesting canadian/australian is any better or worse. its just clarifying that the US is not the sole controller of 'dollar'.

you pretending something doesnt exist/didnt happen may help your core loyalty, but doesnt help the millions of people in the world to understand the complexity of the issue

the simplest analogy is the 'bitcoin/dollar' comparison

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault

It was the community. Remember UASF.

"UASF" was just a buzzword and a hat logo. the code/implementation method of it didnt actually need community consensus opt-in to activate it. it was a mandatory activation that used/abused 'compatible nodes' and also controlled features like DNS and Fibre. if you really want to get involved in how things technically happened atleast look into it before assuming.


again the mulit community of bitcoin would be a different scenario if things were as a unified consensus network of keeping the commUNITY together (research byzantine generals theory) whereby real consensus is used by making real commUNITY decisions. rather than social drama of 'if you dont like A's rule proposal heres a mandatory aparthied campaign to kick you out' controversial forks

[Tipstar]

Bitcoin is not going to be the leader forever and nor is bitcoincash. Promoting every crypto is ultimately in favor of every cryptocurrencies and most probably is the best way to fulfill satoshi's dream. But at least we should agree to something like naming and not confuse the new comers.
If someone came to the market for buying bitcoincash but didn't find anything like that and never spent his money on crypto than it would not be a positive signal for crypto progress.

[Wind_FURY]

to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

That's very disingenuous of you to drag Bitcoin down in Bitcoin Cash's level. Or maybe you were lifting Bitcoin Cash up to Bitcoin's level?

Newbies, don't let him confuse you. There's only one Bitcoin. The Bitcoin with the highest hashing power, the Bitcoin with the greatest marketcap value, the Bitcoin that has the largest accumulated POW, the Bitcoin that has the "BTC" ticker.

All the other forked Bitcoin coins are altcoins.

put your social drama aside. its got nothing to do with faming up cash or faming down core. its about understanding that there is not one. even your own words 'all other forked bitcoins' shows you deep down beneath the social drama still show linkage of 'bitcoin' towards the forks.

My social drama? Nothing to do with faming down Bitcoin - BTC? Let me quote you.

to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault

You live for the social drama, admit it.

by knowing they are forks of. and yes even segwit is a fork of 'bitcoin' 2009-2017. again you know they are forks. and its not to suggest btc is any less popular. its just saying there is not just one.

That's disingenuous of you to brand Segwit like it was a fork the same as Bitcoin Cash. Segwit is a backwards compatible feature that was a soft fork. It didn't split into another chain, and became an altcoin like Bitcoin Cash.

yes they are altcoins.

Thanks, no analogy required.

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault

It was the community. Remember UASF.

"UASF" was just a buzzword and a hat logo. the code/implementation method of it didnt actually need community consensus opt-in to activate it. it was a mandatory activation that used/abused 'compatible nodes' and also controlled features like DNS and Fibre. if you really want to get involved in how things technically happened atleast look into it before assuming.

Newbies, DYOR on the UASF. Learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/

again the mulit community of bitcoin would be a different scenario if things were as a unified consensus network of keeping the commUNITY together (research byzantine generals theory) whereby real consensus is used by making real commUNITY decisions. rather than social drama of 'if you dont like A's rule proposal heres a mandatory aparthied campaign to kick you out' controversial forks

What are you even talking about? Haha.

[illyiller]

I'm quite familiar with the crypto world and can differentiate things. But I also look for things in internet.
If you do a google search with bitcoin, bitcoin.com comes in the second place. And most people also has a habit of looking for topic.com which leads to bitcoin.com. But the site bitcoin.com in many instances refers Bitcoincash as Bitcoin while they call the longest chain of Bitcoin as Bitcoin Core. This way they are presenting bitcoincash as the real bitcoin. And the more you see lie, the more it looks real.

C'est la vie.

Bitcoin.com wasn't available when Satoshi launched Bitcoin. It was inevitably going to be used for someone's private gain if Bitcoin ever gained any traction.

I believe "caveat emptor" is an essential part of free markets. It's unfortunate that newbies are being fleeced on Bitcoin.com but it's not going to change the bigger picture. It's not going to hold Bitcoin back.