Roger Ver why is he red trusted?

[gentlemand]

Don't tempt him by setting arbitrary figures.

They'll start their own weather app posting whatever the hell the bsv one is posting too with extra knobs on.

[1714109031]

1714109031

[1714109031]

1714109031

[1714109031]

1714109031

[Cryptotourist]

~ Let's talk again when its 50%.

Black humor.

[JollyGood]

Bitcoin is Bitcoin and is "BTC"

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash and is "BCH"

That is effectively the message being given out on the Ver exchange albeit with "Bitcoin Core" being used.

Most of the community do not buy the argument put forward that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. No, Bitcoin is Bitcoin and "Bitcoin Cash" is a fork.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash and is "BCH"

In other words, it's an altcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

What about the people who buy BTC thinking that it is the Bitcoin that was described in the white paper and became popular to begin with?  In my opinion they are clearly being duped, and I've put for strong factual arguments that that is the case, while the BTC camp has mainly resorted to censorship and name calling to support their case that BTC is Bitcoin.

Don't be so ridiculous about the supposed censorship allegations.  You are not being stopped from propagating your bullshit nonsense in this forum as long as you engage in such bullshit propaganda in the right threads. I doubt that any of your posts in this thread are going to get deleted based on your attempting to get your stupid-ass deceptive bcash arguments out, unless you engage in obvious breaches of the forum's rules.. but if you are merely attempting to argue substance, then no one is stopping you, as long as you are doing it in threads in which such topic is within the range of the thread.  If you are spamming or trolling threads that would be a different story, and likely in need of deletion or even suspending or banning account holders who persistently engage in such spamming and trolling of threads that have a topic other than their post contents.

Let's grow the size of the crypto pie, not fight over the percentage of the current sized crypto pie.
Unfortunately drastically changing the roadmap of BTC and limiting the block size set back all of crypto currency adoption by nearly half a decade!

Pie in the sky speculation.

You have no way of having any solid sense of if BTC's growth has been limited based on NOT increasing the block size (beyond the blocksize increases that the adoption of segwit has contributed/allowed)

We support bitcoin and hold BTC and some BCH.  We also hold a few other projects that seem to have great developers and very interesting potential.

As do I.  Any smart businessman would.

I agree that the smart thing is to diversify, but with your purported passionate belief in bcash, it seems a bit ironic, if not even hypocritical that you continue to invest in bitcoin in any way..

Maybe you can describe your allocation to help with this?  So for example, if you believe that bcash has a 90% chance of surpassing bitcoin, then it would be logical (and likely less hypocritical) that you would be invested 90% bcash and 10% bitcoin.... So maybe clarification is needed regarding this aspect, especially since you remain such a ready, willing and able outspoken proponent of bcash being the real bitcoin.

I think the real reason they complain so loudly about Bitcoin Cash is that they know it has a real chance of surpassing BTC's market share, and merchant adoption.  

We will see how it plays out, but it seems that you are engaging in real fantasy thinking with your above assertion.  Largely people are going to realize that bcash is the sham coin that does not hold its value and operates based on a lot of shenanigans and copycat-isms rather than adding any actual value to the space.  

There are already more physical shops around the world accepting BCH than BTC.  They fight against it because they fear it will hurt their investment in BTC.

Hopefully, those "shops" accepting bcash are smart enough to convert out of bcash and into BTC before they get r3ckt, and to the extent that anyone in the BTC camp is fighting against bcash it is because bcash remains a kind of snake oil rather than the real deal, and likely there is some hope in the bitcoin camp that not too many innocent people are deceived by such snake-oil realities when the thing that they bought does not hold its value (unless they happen to be able to get out on a bcash pump or something like that).  Of course, I doubt that many folks in the btc camp give too many shits about bcash supporters who go into bcash willingly and knowingly and end up getting screwed because they actually had believed that bcash is the real bitcoin.

[JollyGood]

LoL he was fooled again!

I lost the count how many times he got fooled?

That is exactly what happened.  He did offer it to me. I thought, and still think the price was too high, so he sold it to someone else who lied to him about his views on myself and Bitcoin Cash.

GOOGLE FOOLED ME!!!

I see that self-made millionaire 'Roger Red' is back to face his arch enemy 'Terrible Theymos'
Oh it will be Battle of The Ages
RR vs TT

Theymos is one of the worst things that happened to Bitcoin...
source video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU7343Ji8GI
 

 

Reading your post... well, you do have a point.

With Ver backing MtGox when all those rumours were swirling around gave users false sense of security and many did not try to withdraw their crypto when they had the chance and many unfortunately sent their crypto there thinking the website was safe and secure. Many people became victims directly as a result of Ver backing MtGox.

[JayJuanGee]

Less hostility from both sides = better chance of success for each.

Don't be ridiculous in your assertion that less hostility is an appropriate way forward.  Bcash deserves the vast majority of the hostility that it receives.  It's acts largely as an attack vector and a pump and dump vehicle.  From the start, those nutjobs were not inclined to really attempt to improve upon bitcoin.  They were largely motivated by pump and dump motivations (such as avoiding covert asic boost) and ways to attempt to undermine bitcoin's built in difficulties to changeability (many of them asserted that they wanted bitcoin to be more easily changed - which would have largely destroyed bitcoin in terms of resilience towards corporate attacks/dominance that would have become bitcoin's fate as merely another payment mechanism rather than real censorship resistant sound money).

In other words, there is no reason to give an inch to attack vectors.  Maybe their pump and dump is somewhat innocent in that it is the "capitalistic way" and allowable in the freemarket to attempt to make money however you can, but the ongoing attempts towards attacking bitcoin remains the much more egregious aspect of bcash and other crypto projects that engage in such behaviors which justifies much of the employment of hostility of bitcoiners towards such historical or ongoing attack vectors.

[theymos]

Setting aside the arguments regarding MemoryDealers' character, the scammer flag is not a correct use of the system, and should not be active. Supporters of the flag affirmed that this statement was true:

MemoryDealers violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. MemoryDealers did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2017. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Where is the written contract? Who are the victims? Hypothetically, how could MemoryDealers make the victims of the act whole or receive their forgiveness?

The strongest case for a scammer flag AFAICT is when bitcoin.com (MemoryDealers' responsibility) was set up in a way which could've confused people into thinking that they were buying BTC when they were actually buying BCH. But you need to identify specific victims so that MemoryDealers could hypothetically say, "Oh damn, you're right. Here's some compensation for the mixup." If you just throw out a vague statement of, "Confusing information existed, so someone could've been scammed into buying BCH," then reconciliation is impossible. Scammer flags are for extremely clear cases with obvious victims, not cases which are impossible to definitively resolve due to political divisions and vague claims.

Oftentimes MemoryDealers expresses the opinion that BCH more accurately follows the original vision of Bitcoin than BTC. This is just an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, and it should not enter into the trust system at all. On several occasions, I think that he's crossed a line where he's implied that when people say/think "Bitcoin", they mean BCH, even in contexts where this is not actually the probable meaning; this perhaps reasonably contributes to a type-1 flag, as do many of the other things mentioned in this thread such as the MtGox incident, the bc.i doxxing, the spreading of misinformation, supporting CSW, etc.

[JayJuanGee]

Whatever singular metric Roger wants to point to in order to make the case that BCH is more popular than BTC is overshadowed by BTC's staggering advantage in market cap, hash rate and transactions per day. It absolutely dwarfs BCH in terms of real world, every day usage, and all other altcoins along with it.

Fair enough that you are highlighting misconceptions regarding single metrics, but also any meaningful comparison discussion would also consider something like the seven network effects that had been outlined by Trace Mayer:

 (https://twitter.com/tracemayer/status/934672438385954818?lang=en):


>>>>>The Seven Network Effects of Bitcoin: 1. Speculation 2. Merchants 3. Consumers 4. Security 5. Developers 6. Financialization 7. World Reserve Settlement Currency<<<<<<

Within those seven network effects, you kind find a lot of sub-metrics, too, and help to assess both the relative status or movement(s) in the status of one project to another.  All coins with any kind of price are going to have some of these, and I would not even expect deception coins, like bcash, to disappear anytime soon, so over the next 10 to 50 years we are going to see various coins and projects that build some of their network effects and might even be considered as competitors to bitcoin; however, so far, we don't see any coins or projects that come even close to bitcoin's various fundamentals, even when we attempt to measure how they are playing out, in terms of network effects.

[The-One-Above-All]

Setting aside the arguments regarding MemoryDealers' character, the scammer flag is not a correct use of the system, and should not be active. Supporters of the flag affirmed that this statement was true:

MemoryDealers violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. MemoryDealers did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2017. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Where is the written contract? Who are the victims? Hypothetically, how could MemoryDealers make the victims of the act whole or receive their forgiveness?

The strongest case for a scammer flag AFAICT is when bitcoin.com (MemoryDealers' responsibility) was set up in a way which could've confused people into thinking that they were buying BTC when they were actually buying BCH. But you need to identify specific victims so that MemoryDealers could hypothetically say, "Oh damn, you're right. Here's some compensation for the mixup." If you just throw out a vague statement of, "Confusing information existed, so someone could've been scammed into buying BCH," then reconciliation is impossible. Scammer flags are for extremely clear cases with obvious victims, not cases which are impossible to definitively resolve due to political divisions and vague claims.

Oftentimes MemoryDealers expresses the opinion that BCH more accurately follows the original vision of Bitcoin than BTC. This is just an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, and it should not enter into the trust system at all. On several occasions, I think that he's crossed a line where he's implied that when people say/think "Bitcoin", they mean BCH, even in contexts where this is not actually the probable meaning; this perhaps reasonably contributes to a type-1 flag, as do many of the other things mentioned in this thread such as the MtGox incident, the bc.i doxxing, the spreading of misinformation, supporting CSW, etc.

Sensible and courteous reply. Imagine you took the time to research and structure such clear insight into all matters here.

You seem to be directly inline with what we have said here on this core issue. If we were a merit source then your clear and correct insight is likely the only post (other than our own) that deserves merit and we would have given you some.

The important point is: He may believe (rightly or wrongly) bitcoin evolved to what BCH is today as a result of BTC violating or not following certain satoshi principles. Therefore that rightly or wrongly is his GENUINE opinion he believes bch should be called "bitcoin". However, it is highly probable and sensible to conclude that the vast majority were seeking BTC when trying to purchase "bitcoin" and would feel betrayed or even scammed if they ended up with a variant they were not intending to hold.

More irresponsible (not foreseeing the implications of not making it 100% clear)  than scamming.

This matter should also not AUTOMATICALLY invalidate any other unrelated points that he wishes to make in future, although the above point may be part of any sensible debate.

The person RV (like it or not) is going to be historically very important in the trustless decentralized movement. Having  a big SCAMMER notices above his threads and scam tags giving misleading and over stated damning almost defaming remarks should be fixed to a lemon flag and sensible accurate descriptions in the trust feedback.

They should say " irresponsible actions that resulted in people purchasing bch rather than the btc they wanted"

It would be interesting though to see some kind of comparison chart matching btc and bch against KEY points and requirements of the original satoshi white paper.
It is also interesting that both sides seem to be making the same claims about each other in some areas like " it will lead to it being centralized and controlled by X"

The network effect (of both) would certainly flow with less friction if a truce could be negotiated for each side to just get on with their own project and seek out their own adoption.

It is also worrying to have proven scammers and scam facilitators screaming "scamming scumbag" regarding what would seem to be far less dangerous and self serving motives than they have shown willing to employ themselves. Also finding ways to shut down peoples free speech and ability to even conduct and objective debate without derailing with off topic irrelevant insults and false allegations. Reign these people in before they really do open this board to criticisms that will be impossible to deny. That would certainly damage btc and the entire movement.

Stick around theymos and start sorting the real enthusiasts from the self serving scum bags that have almost seized full control of merit/trust and even moderator positions.

We support your position on this matter and many other matters (not our own)

IF people are incorrectly supporting flags THEN REMOVE THEM FROM DT. Start to get the message across that if you consistently make poor judgement calls or engage reasoning that collapses under scrutiny then you are not fit for a trust position  (leaving aside the fact proven scammers should not be part of a trust system).  You should have done this with the old system also. SADLY you have grandfathered this kind of abuse into the system now. If you have more negs than + before the flagging system you still get a THIS IS A SCAMMER message on all of your threads.

This is very strange, when you consider we have a flagging system BECAUSE the old system was being clearly abused? makes zero sense and punishes a lot of innocent members.

[mikeywith]

Unfortunately drastically changing the roadmap of BTC and limiting the block size set back all of crypto currency adoption by nearly half a decade!

Not necessarily true, many people got into bitcoin for two simple reasons "Decentralization and Security", your vision for Bitcoin goes exactly against these two features, I wonder who is going to be able to run a BCH full node in a couple years from now ? 

I do not completely discard the need of increasing block size at some point, but with current technology limitations, it only makes sense that we focus on off-chain scaling, there is no need to rush, those who want super fast and cheap transactions without bothering about both security and decentralization should use something else and leave bitcoin to those who don't want to compromise the two most important features of bitcoin.

[jbreher]

ways to attempt to undermine bitcoin's built in difficulties to changeability (many of them asserted that they wanted bitcoin to be more easily changed

Absolute FAIL -- again, JJG. It has been pointed out to you before that one of the central changes in the The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (you know- other than segwit itself) - was a modification to make the protocol easier to change in the future. This is BTC we're talking about, not BCH.

The way the big blockers see the issue, they (we) were saving the original properties of Bitcoin from the core devs' insane Raspberry Pi fetish.

[JeromeTash]

I think Roger Ver is gernerally a good guy and has done a lot for crypto, He worked his butt off to promote bitcoin in the early days and is one of the reasons that crypto has come so far.

Why can't we just let people have their own beliefs on what the block size to be, I don't remember Roger actually ever stealing money from anyone, I don't think he deserves those red marks.

I think it's a lot more than what you just said here.

What would you call a person who claims that Bitcoin = Bitcoin core and Bitcoin Cash, a shitcoin that is not more than 3 years old is the "Real Bitcoin"
He is busy misleading people on his bitcoin.com website into buying his shitcoin using the bitcoin name.

He totally deserves the negative tags

[Foxpup]

The strongest case for a scammer flag AFAICT is when bitcoin.com (MemoryDealers' responsibility) was set up in a way which could've confused people into thinking that they were buying BTC when they were actually buying BCH. But you need to identify specific victims so that MemoryDealers could hypothetically say, "Oh damn, you're right. Here's some compensation for the mixup."

I like that. As far as I know, MemoryDealers never offered skabooboo any form of compensation; not the BTC he thought he was buying, not a refund of the Euros he paid for them, not even so much as an almost-expired coupon for half-price french fries at Burger King.

[JayJuanGee]

ways to attempt to undermine bitcoin's built in difficulties to changeability (many of them asserted that they wanted bitcoin to be more easily changed

Absolute FAIL -- again, JJG. It has been pointed out to you before that one of the central changes in the The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (you know- other than segwit itself) - was a modification to make the protocol easier to change in the future. This is BTC we're talking about, not BCH.

The way the big blockers see the issue, they (we) were saving the original properties of Bitcoin from the core devs' insane Raspberry Pi fetish.

You are full of shit, jbreher.... trying to act like you know something, and also engaging in both historical revisionism and also attempting present supposed benevolent goals of BIG blockers.

In the above quoted portion of my post, I was referring to the actual goal of BIG blockers to change the governance of bitcoin rather than having any actual technical concerns that those diptwats were trying to fix in bitcoin.

Regarding the supposed purpose of segregated witness, get over yourself, likely segwit does allow for easier abilities to build second layer solutions on bitcoin, but it is no way a change for the mere sake of change or a change that makes bitcoin easier to change.  You misleading fucktwat.  Segwit is backwards compatible so you don't even have to use it, as you know. 

Furthermore, segregated witness was passed, locked in and activated in August 2017 by overwhelming consensus, as you know and roger knows and jihan knows...

So get the fuck over your whining over something that has already happened and is largely done (and successful, too).. and not likely to be reversed. 

Either you want to be a part of bitcoin that includes segwit, or better yet, get the fuck out of here and go play around with your various bcash forks, whether the ABC version or the SV version... who fucking cares.. you can do all of the onchain transactions that you like with all of those lanes of highway that have been made available to you, Roger and the other purported BIG block believers.   ...

By the way, I recognized that neither you nor Roger are leaving because the goal(s) of neither of you is to actually attempt to build some kind of better bitcoin.  You and he would rather just whine about it, and also to engage in a variety of tactics to naysay bitcoin and to attack bitcoin in various ways, including spreading misinformation which seems to be a BIG blocker specialty (from a large number of the BIG blocker tards..).

[nutildah]

Where is the written contract? Who are the victims? Hypothetically, how could MemoryDealers make the victims of the act whole or receive their forgiveness?

I agree this is an incorrect use of the flag system. I never supported this flag as Lauda never demonstrated how they were personally harmed. I have removed my negative trust for Memory Dealers as apparently my feedback contained a factual inaccuracy anyway.

At the end of the day, nothing that happens on this forum is going to stop Roger from continuing to damage the credibility of bitcoin for his own financial gain, so why bother trying.

[malevolent]

The original owner had been involved in Bitcoin since 2009, and agrees that Bitcoin Cash is the version of Bitcoin he got involved in.
Unfortunately he needed money for other things, and the new owner of the ID clearly has a different opinion.

Since the deal didn't go through, can you share how much the original owner demanded for the account?

[suchmoon]

I like that. As far as I know, MemoryDealers never offered skabooboo any form of compensation; not the BTC he thought he was buying, not a refund of the Euros he paid for them, not even so much as an almost-expired coupon for half-price french fries at Burger King.

Technically the flag is still invalid unless skabooboo is Lauda's alt.

[DaRude]

I have a question for MemoryDealers.

What's the deal with the @bitcoin twitter account? Why did it recently go from supporting BCH to supporting BTC?

The original owner had been involved in Bitcoin since 2009, and agrees that Bitcoin Cash is the version of Bitcoin he got involved in.
Unfortunately he needed money for other things, and the new owner of the ID clearly has a different opinion.

So bcasher sold out his beliefs to a higher bidder? Even when he had an option to sell it to you, presumably for just a bit less? Hope he at least got paid in BTC. Start building bridges back, China's funding won't last forever.

[JollyGood]

Unfortunately drastically changing the roadmap of BTC and limiting the block size set back all of crypto currency adoption by nearly half a decade!

Not necessarily true, many people got into bitcoin for two simple reasons "Decentralization and Security", your vision for Bitcoin goes exactly against these two features, I wonder who is going to be able to run a BCH full node in a couple years from now ? 

I do not completely discard the need of increasing block size at some point, but with current technology limitations, it only makes sense that we focus on off-chain scaling, there is no need to rush, those who want super fast and cheap transactions without bothering about both security and decentralization should use something else and leave bitcoin to those who don't want to compromise the two most important features of bitcoin.

This is a great way of looking at it.

Look, for what it might be worth it is clear that the majority of people in the community see Ver as somebody who will do what he can to make money off the Bitcoin name but is happy to bite that fed him.

There is no question that Bitcoin made Ver and it took him from being a nobody with a recent criminal past and a recent jail sentence to a multi-millionaire. Why on earth he needed to create BCH with Wu and others just out of spite because he could not control the direction of Bitcoin is something many in the community will never forgive him for.