Topic: Measures against scams misusing the Bitcoin name (Read 2191 times)

Well, govs banning BTC, BTC shills banning BCH or whatever, it proves one thing: its all about money

If you have technical support questions about your obsolete Microsoft system, I urge you to pray to “Bitcoin Jesus”.  Verily, he lied for your sins.  His mark rose heavenward on the pump; then a spear pierced His market’s side for the dump.  Be ye a sick, BOOST ye He shall.  Render unto Caesar Satoshi the things that are Satoshi’s, and unto God Jihan the things that are Jihan’s.  Behold the Good News of His centralized Glory; for His alone are Wholly Profits!

---

Moderators, please.  Outside the Alt section, “Bitcoin Cash” scamcoin promotions must be deleted; and users who make them must be banned.  The years of block wars and hostile takeover attempts have yielded ample precedent for such action, e.g.:


(Discussing the potential of banning Coinbase, if they were to move to a scam forkchain.)

Windows 95 or Windows XP?

bch sees around an eighth of the hashrate that the bitcoin network does, people have already decided that bch isnt the 'real' bitcoin. otherwise, it'd be seeing more than this much mining on its network. the only reason people still mine it is for profitability i'd imagine, with small timers having a hard time getting a real foothold in the bitcoin mining scene.

have to agree with the last bit there, and that would go against some of the 'ideals' of the forum, i guess you could say. going off of how the forum has continued to be run for years though, its probable that this will never actually be implemented.

Signature quoted to illustrate a point:  What’s with the martyrdom complex?

ASICBOOSTCOIN has the odour of a cult/sect.  Not even one of the fun ones:  I mean the boring kind of garden-variety cult whose messiah shears disciples of all their money, whereafter everybody commits mass suicide.  As such, it seems eerily appropriate that this scamcoin is fronted by a self-touted “Bitcoin Jesus”, Roger Ver.

Of course, the foregoing presumes sincerity of “Mrpumperitis”.  The other option is that a low-rent shill just doesn’t know the difference between earnestness and fevered hype.  Be that so, whoever pays must have low standards.  Really, how many BCH does it take to buy an apostrophe?  Yes, “ill”, indeed.

N.b. that on 2017-11-14, the date of the quoted post, “Mrpumperitis” left negative trust ratings against three different users, two of whom have posted in this thread.  All three ratings seem to have been simple revenge from a flamewar in another “Bitcoin Cash” thread.  I wouldn’t trust Roger Ver to distribute car wash tokens; and I wouldn’t trust his followers’ opinions about trustworthiness.

So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash.  It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names.  I don’t even know what to properly call it—other than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize it’s a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.

That said, the automatic replacement of words in software is always a bad idea.  The problems it creates make a “clbuttic” software failure category; moreover, that would mangle posts such as this one.  See, I mentioned “so-called ‘Bitcoin Cash’”.  In context, changing my words would destroy the meaning of what I said above; and I would be most displeased, on the principle that nobody has a right to change my words.  You may delete them, yes, if I were to say something against forum rules; but never presume to put words in my mouth!

Yet the “free speech” arguments in this thread also fall flat.  The self-styled “Bitcoin Cash” would be clear-cut trademark infringement, if Bitcoin had any owner or backing entity to enforce a trademark—which it fortunately does not.  Try opening a burger joint, calling it “McDonald’s”, using a logo of slightly rotated double-arches, claiming outright to be “the real McDonald’s”—and then claiming that’s your “free speech”.  See how far you get.

Now, I am not a fan of trademark law as it has been twisted to be.  But this is not a matter of inadvertent vague similarity which looks like it may be slightly confusing, if you squint at it and try hard to be confused.  Rather, so-called “Bitcoin Cash” is a textbook example of the precise theory on which the concept of trademark rests:  It’s wrong for scammy scammers to scam people by intentionally creating name confusion so as to leech off trust and goodwill.  This obvious conceptual wrong is part of the reason why normal people tend to nod their heads when trademark lawyers talk, instead of strangling them with their own entrails.  (The other part is that normal people are inept at catching the rhetorical tricks by which trademark lawyers expand that wrong to cover things quite dissimilar.)

Fortunately, Bitcointalk.org already has a rule which ought obviate this whole discussion:  “14. All altcoin related discussion belong in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and it's [sic] child boards.”  Despite my aforesaid discomfort with describing scamcoin “Bitcoin Cash” as an “alt”, moderator enforcement of this longstanding rule is perhaps the best all-around solution.

Moderators, when you see a post promoting “Bitcoin Cash”, please think:  Would I delete the post and/or sanction the user, if this were promoting ABCXYZCoin?  In many forums, for most posts, the answer would be yes.  I suspect that this would solve much of the problem, especially in forums where newbies are most likely to be misled.

I hope that helps.  As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion.  Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN.  Any better ideas?  “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long.

"Minimizing the damage" does not mean that the "offending" messages need to, or even should, be altered, i.e.: changing one set of words for another set of arbitrary words, or censoring the message in toto. Because when that starts happening, it is the silencing of a perfectly valid opinion for another equally valid opinion. Opinions need not be based in fact, and in many cases opinions clearly are not based on facts. That doesn't mean that they are invalid opinions, just not soundly reasoned opinions.

So what does the community do to counteract these opinions? Respond to them vigorously using facts to illuminate the erroneous assertions. Do this as often as is necessary. Do not resort to ad hominem attacks against the authors of the unsound arguments. Ad hominem attacks will destroy any credibility that author of the rebuttal may have had.

When talking about freedom of speech, at least in the United States, I liked the quote from "The American President" when Michael Douglas playing President Andrew Shepherd says, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Bitcoin (BTC) is the original. Anyone claiming any BTC fork is more original, or more authentic than BTC, or is the "real" BTC, is just not correct. Anyone can claim whatever they want because that's their opinion, but it doesn't mean they are right. Don't silence them with heavy handed tactics, like censorship, silence them with the truth. Yes, it's hard, fighting propaganda  always is, but it's the only way if credibility is to be maintained.

If people fall for such an obvious scam, it's their own fault in my opinion.
The amount of investors in Bitconnect shows how incapable many people actually are.
And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having them all scammed, so they think cryptos are a scam, which essentially "cleans" the Crypto-market a bit.

Anyways, nice suggestion, although I doubt it's going to be implemented any time soon.

Regards,
Trump

I am a small-time miner. I have a couple of SHA256 miners, and they mine the more profitable of the two. That said, I convert the mining proceeds to BTC automagically. Scam or not, I'll ride the Bitcoin Cash horse until it is not profitable, and when I am done I will say thank you.

If someone is going to play in the cryptocurrency space, they owe it to themselves to be as informed as they can get about their investment. Like any other hyped market, there are people who rush in, only to find out later that they were deceived. Life sucks like that, but you can reduce your risk by not betting the farm, or next month's rent payment, on a high-risk endeavor. Live and learn, and if you want to tell the world, that's great. Just be prepared to back up the statements with proof the rest of us spuds can trust.

I think that there is space for both coins. Which one will have staying power? I don't know for sure, so in the meantime I'm hedging my bets and mining both. Profitability is king.

Another name for a fork is an UPGRADE.

This is pretty much the conspiracy behind the Bitcoin Cash fraud. Claiming that Bitcoin failed to upgrade and a "new, real Bitcoin" is needed. Bitcoin has been evolving for a long time, and it keeps evolving. If people need faster transactions right now there are plenty other good cryptos to choose from. There is, for instance, Litecoin, a fork of Bitcoin that does not blatantly misuse the Bitcoin brand in its own name and does not claim to be the real Bitcoin.


The second some of the Cash folks make claims about the "real Bitcoin" negative trust is the appropriate answer - I completely agree with this stance. This is illegitimate manipulation. It's madness if someone wants to claim a fork of Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin.

Well, your conspiracy is not a prove for me. Put it this way: BTC fails to upgrade for years, need other solution (lets say BCH), now its time for BCH show that its better one and can improve. If every BTC fork will fail to improve with BTC as-well, than whole BTC thing with forks is scam, sad thing is not it?

Neither you or me here will not prove anything about BTC/BCH/B** and etc. if you were holding BTC than hold every fecking fork coin and trust/believe in whatever you think reasonable. If you are a new buyer, than I would stay away from any of them.

And yes I would especially would like to see evidence on "They lieraly pumped  it for the short time and sold their own coins taking the money of other people"

BCH was pumped during the attack on the Bitcoin so the "BCH holders" could take the money of people that bought it at a higer price. They lieraly pumped  it for the short time and sold their own coins taking the money of other people. Adding the attack on BTC and the other rumors and we have the situation that could be clearly concidered as a scam atempt.
I would realy like you to see you proving your statement.

Lauda shill thinks that he can make people think otherwise by giving them negative trust, well, what a muppet 

This is true for me.

This is not true.

Here you are either a rainbow farting creature with phallus in the forehead middle or read former. Anyway:

https://www.google.ie/search?dcr=0&ei=U9EQWtz_EsLoasfUiMgL&q=2+%2B+2+always+4&oq=2+%2B+2+always+4&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l6.7715.11449.0.12845.10.10.0.0.0.0.112.667.9j1.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.660...0j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.79RUL-loKDw


Bitcoin is a scam. Bitcoin Cash is the future and upgrade of Bitcoin (a.k.a. Dead Horse)

Did you read this from Roger's twitter or from Jonald the Baboon's blog post?
1) No development team, all Core's code.
2) Big blocks != scaling.
3) Therefore, no scaling
4) Highly miner, node, and richlist centralization.

You can't do that, neither morally, nor legally and it doesn't have any logical coherence. You must be out of you mind to think 2+2 = 5, or you're a bamboozled shill.

It is a scam altcoin.