Topic: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. - page 14. (Read 3271 times)

I am really happy to hear this, it will set a good example for people cheating on the name of crypto. We need more strict actions such people fooling new investors.

it seems roger ver is trying very hard to try to substitute bitcoin cash into bitcoin so try to buy some assets and a website called bitcoin and used to inform bitcoin cash. it's sad if new users make a mistake when buying.

Still backwards.  It's not the Core dev team enforcing that process.  It's the users who enforce it by running the code.  The fact that most of the nodes are running a Core client strongly indicates users like the way you can't change the rules without going through the moderated IRC/mailing list/BIP process.  If a majority of network participants didn't like it working that way, it wouldn't.

If another developer created a client that a majority of users preferred, there's nothing to prevent a change in the rules.  The other developer wouldn't have to follow Core's processes if they had adequate support from the users.  But that's yet to happen.  Because of the users.  Not because of Core's processes.  It seems you're the one who doesn't like consensus when you don't agree with it. 

Dev teams push code.  Users enforce it.  All that's happening here is that the vast preponderance of users disagree with you and they aren't going to let you rename their network.

Nice one Zin-Zang but the in the interview (link provided) the interviewer called "it" Bcash and this was the reply Roger Ver gave.

Ver is obsessed with calling his fork "Bitcoin" when it really is "Bitcoin Cash" which is forked from Bitcoin. Simple.

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



Surely there has to be another way to move forward to eliminate the confusion for the newbies sake at least?

it is DISTRIBUTED.. there is a difference
the other nodes have to fully comply to CORES policies and rules, or get ban-hammered out of the network
this is why there have been no orphans(caused by consensus competition) on cores network since last summer
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks
because anyone that tries to send a block that differs gets rejected in 2 seconds and thrown out the network
the only time there is any discrepency is due to block timing of what block a pool seen first to build apon. (not due to consensus rule competition)


yes you can call a node by a different name. writ it in a different language but if you intend to make the codebase propose a differnt rule set and want to form a consensus that opposes core.. you will see the REKT campaign begin.

the only way to desire to change the rules or add a feature to cores network is first via their moderatd IRC
then their moderated mailing list
then their moderated BIP list

core hates consensus. thats why any node wanting consensus gets handed a bilateral split or REKT unless the non cor roadmap node does its own unilateral fork. purely to keepcores roadmap ontrack as the sole/only route forward

craig wright.. adams mirror..     kardashian families khloe to kardashians kyle... is saying the same thing. that craig wright helped bring bitcoin possible

they are all part of the same family..
again check out who funded both blockstram(core) and bloq(cash)
dcg.co/portfolio/#b

its all a big drama event to get everyone to love the kardashian family(dcg portfolio group) so that its all centralised.
craig wright never wrote a line of code in 2008-2010 for satoshis invention.. neither did adam back
theymos is vers mirror
.org is .com mirror
bloq is blockstream mirror
btcc is antpool mirror
wu is samson mow mirror

but if you just stop defending one or the other teams and stop thinking the only choice is team A or team B and just say neither.. you begin to se where the problems began about centralisation (2013)

in 2013
hearne and gavin "prtended" to run away from core to make it apear that there was still a free choice of core/xt/classic all happily using the same network protocol and using consensus of a single network to show a fake resemblance of free choice to upgrade to cores roadmap or another roadmap

the agenda was to REKT out xt/classic using social drama so core can win centralisation. (the big picture even gavin and hearn were in it to achieve the core roadmap)

take a look at hearne. he went to R3 to work on hyperledger(bankers project).
take a look at gavin he went to bloq to work on hyperledger
take a look at blockstream who went to work on hyper ledger

then you will see why segwit is so important and why the segwit address identifier and LN is crucial to those paid devs. its to become the bankers network for hyperledger.
they dont want bitcoin core network to be a payment network. they want LN (bankers network of bank branches(hubs) to be the payment network)

Fix that for you.  

Maybe we should just rename all of them to remove bitcoin and stop people from getting confused.
That was the solution BCore Supporters wanted for BCASH, lets do it to all of them  including BCORE, make life easier for everyone. 
BAtom
BCore
BCash
BDark
BDiamond
BFast
BGod
BGold
BGreen
BInterest
BPlanet
BPlus
BPrivate
BScrypt
BX
BZ

Very true.

This is not a mistake or a difference of opinion on part of Ver, Zhouer and Wu, no. It seems Ver is trying to hijack but thankfully failed in hijacking Bitcoin using bitcoin.com domain.

Just to make it clear, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Everything else is a fork or derivative of Bitcoin

Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Dark is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Diamond is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Fast is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin God is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Green is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Interest is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Planet is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Plus is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Private is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Scrypt is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin X is not Bitcoin
Bitcoin Z is not Bitcoin

If you say BCH is a liar, then can I say BTC is a liar? It's also encrypted, probably just in a different place.

I think at this time the website has started to remove and replace the bitcoin with the right code BTC = Bitcoin not bitcoin = BCH, hopefully rogerver not fool the new players for changing the name of bitcoin in the website.

@JollyGood

The Original bitcoin was left behind in a fork, whether you like it or not their is no simple bitcoin only anymore.
Their was No Unified Migration to a single code. The Community like the code Fractured!

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin Core are both forks from the original chain with the same mining algorithm, you can never say one of them is the only bitcoin unless the other dies.
And until one of those forks die, and the communities unify behind a single code upgrade, they are all ALTCOINS.  

Bitcoin Atom
Bitcoin Core
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Dark
Bitcoin Diamond    
Bitcoin Fast
Bitcoin God
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin Green
Bitcoin Interest
Bitcoin Planet
Bitcoin Plus
Bitcoin Private
Bitcoin Scrypt
Bitcoin X  
Bitcoin Z

I asked franky1 if he agrees with Roger Ver's "style" of "promoting" bitcoin.com and I have not yet received a direct answer. I believe he knows he cannot go against Roger because doing it would question his beliefs for Bitcoin Cash.

He can still support Bitcoin Cash and condemn Roger Ver's fraudulent behavior at the same time. He already did call Craig Wright a scammer.

I would also want to know if farnky1 approves of Roger's association with Craig.


They can call it whatever they want. It is also within their rights. But we already know that when everyone says Bitcoin, it refers to the cryptocurrency franky1 calls "Bitcoin Core".

Simply put, yes that is the view of many from the cryptoworld. Add to that the notion many people think it was a deliberate ploy to disrupt Bitcoin then it is clear to understand why Ver, Wu and Zhouer do not have many "fanboys" as it was put in an earlier post.

Roger Ver is a Judas to BTC and BCH. He needs to keep his emotions in line if he wants BTC or BCH to go anywhere and stop being so goddamn deceptive. 

ohm is it also possible to create another cryptocurrency but not call it bitcoin cash or bitcoin gold but call it bitcoin as well?

so it is an identical clone?

and then also market it as the true bitcoin?

How can they be called scammers when they never took a single cent from anyone, Craig came forward and lied that he created something without showing any public proof but that does not mean that he scammed any cent and he along with crazy Roger and eat dick Mcfee is the most trolled person in the crypto market.

franky1 thinks one can hard fork Bitcoin and call it Bitcoin, somehow fails to understand that it doesn't work that way.

You can start your own Bitcoin client and compete against Core, anyone can do so. If you convince enough people that your software is better than Core, then you would have more relevance than Core.. it's as simple as that.

Of course your client must comply with what a Bitcoin valid block is (this includes segwit transactions, which again, you can just ignore if you don't like them) otherwise you are dealing with al altcoin (BCash et al).

Before you start repeating your "dollar argument" for the hundredth time, you have what you want.  You've got your Bitcoin decentralisation.  No one is saying you can't have your BCH version of Bitcoin.  The problem people have is when there isn't a clear enough distinction made between the BTC and BCH versions.  Stop twisting the narrative to claim we don't want you to have your BCH version.  You've got it.  We can't take it away from you.  You're free to call it Bitcoin Cash.  But the BTC and BCH networks are not compatible and the bitcoin.com website was doing a piss-poor job of explaining that.  Many here believe it was intentional and clearly dishonest.  

And if you truly wanted decentralisation, why are you not arguing for bitcoin.com to list all the other multitude of bitcoin forks?  I don't see any mention on their website of Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Private, etc.  



The bitcoin.org website is under no obligation to market your preferred chain.  They choose to only publicise one consensus protocol.  That's within their right to do.  
The bitcoin.com website chooses to publicise two, which is within their right to do.  All we ask is that they do it responsibly so that new users are not disenfranchised or left out of pocket.



Which is confusing to newbies.  He's well within his rights to claim that the BCH chain is better, but he needs to state clearly that it's not compatible with the BTC chain.  Some of the visitors to the bitcoin.com website were looking for BTC and they're leaving with the wrong coin.  The fault of that lies primarily with the bitcoin.com website.  There's no defending it.  

Plus, they clearly know it was wrong because they've now updated their website to change it.

Emphasised, as that point probably shouldn't be lost in the discussion because it's quite important.  Yes, bitcoin.com now looks radically different and somewhat clearer as to which chain is which.  So we can probably stop arguing about it now.  I'm sure we won't, though.    

Although, even on the new version they've made, I do wish they'd stop calling it "Bitcoin Core", because they're not the sole developer.  BIP91, for example, was not a product of Core's repo.  It was merged in after another client (that wasn't Core) adopted it first.  Core are not the owner and don't make all the decisions.  You can't (honestly) argue they do because we can see empirically with BIP91 that they don't.  Also, that's not a "fanboy" argument, because it's an argument that seriously annoys certain fanboys who do mistakenly believe Core make all the decisions.

yes, this is not how it should be, pretending that bch is bitcoin. I understand the advantages of bch, yet he's trying to protect the decomcracy and decentralization of cryptocurrencies while doing exactly the opposite, trying to hijack bitcoin..

But Adam never said he is Satoshi Nakamoto. What I know he did is wanting to get some credit for inventing where Bitcoin's Proof of Work is based on. Hashcash.

Adam Back made Hashcash and he wants to get credit for making Bitcoin possible. I know it might be reaching for some people but give some credit where credit is due.

We cannot say the same for the scammer Craig "Faketoshi" Wright.

so Gmax didnt try getting the network to bilateral split? is that what your saying
so gmax didnt employ samson mow to UASF

oh and by the way.. ver and Wu didnt cause the bilateral split.. but hey i understand your too indocrinated by all the reddit propaganda
again BLOQ and BLOCKSTREAM (core team) instigated the bilateral split.
here is gmax literally begging the core opposition to bilateral split, but the opposition wanted a proper consensus. which greg hated as it lwould have left core stuck at 35% if the bilateral split did not occur.. hense why he insisted the only option was BLOQ as a silent partnr to force a bilateral split