Topic: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. - page 17. (Read 3146 times)

Latest news says that Roger Ver is now safe from lawsuit. Money Trigz, created a telegram group only to raise funds to sue Roger Ver but unable to gather enough funds to file a lawsuit.
Money Trigz says

It's not about Core you belligerent tit.  How many more times do I have to say it?  And yes, both sides did go their separate ways, but one of those sides was much bigger.  If BCH had attracted a majority hashrate and a majority economy, I'd be here right now making the argument that BCH is Bitcoin.  But I can't make that argument because they didn't attract a majority hashrate and a majority economy.  Ergo, they are an altcoin and BTC is Bitcoin.  It really is that simple.  The numbers weren't on their side, so they don't get to be Bitcoin.  They're something else and they need to get comfortable with that.  So do you, it seems.

You can claim you think BCH is better than Bitcoin.  You can assert that BCH is closer to Satoshi's vision.  You can lavish whatever praise you want on BCH and their chosen direction.  All of that is fine.  
But it isn't Bitcoin.  End of.

You are right, we should definitely give it a try. Maybe I was a little pessimistic, but I still think that it will be hard case considering the trademark not being owned and the opposite side having a lot of money. They could easily hire some professional people to the defend themselves, while Bitcoin is depends upon volunteers.

the bilateral split was not consensus.
if blockstream/bloq did not do the bilateral split. then core would still be at 35%

thats the whole point..

it was not a consensus challenge
it was a contentious bilateral FORK where both sides went separate ways

again you are still pretending that core are the original and sole holder of "bitcoin" brand by saying what you are saying

Wrong.  I'm saying consensus decides what is and isn't Bitcoin.  Individual dev teams don't even enter into the equation.  

The network with the greatest economic majority and accumulated proof of work is Bitcoin and anything else is an altcoin (but are free to call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever" if they like).  

I've always argued emphatically against the ridiculous notion that forks are somehow an "attack" on Bitcoin, much to the consternation of the fanboys (see here, here and most significantly here).  You should know this because you were right there doing it with me, heh.  We agreed on that.  But now you've gone off on your own ridiculous tangent saying that everyone has to stop calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin" just because some people forked away.  Literally never going to happen.  Give it up.  

FTFY

the real funny part is most of the sheep dont even realise.. the bilateral split was actually instigated by the core/blockstream/bloq guys that are all funded by the same power house DCG.co
cores roadmap only had 35%.. if it was not for samson mow(blockstream USAF) and jgarzic(bloq bitcoinABC) .. both funded by DCG.co.. to do the bilateral split. thr would not have been a split.

and the funnier part is no one is attacking the blog or blockstream guy for causing it all.

all the sheep seem to be doing is regurgitatiing the chewed up grass fed to them from reddit fields to attack cores opposition simply to give core more centralised power. and yet the sheep cant even see it. they too busy chewing the grass to see the length of the field they are stood in

you are all soo stuck into wanting core to be your monarchy. but then pretend having a monarchy makes you freemen.. (facepalm)

he doesnt care about ethics he wants communal currency for which people are continously selling their time for,

and he interprets his personal oppinion in a way that he can market in a way that suits him best.

I am not sure a lawsuit is the best way forward but Ver really should think about ethics and morals and he should use bitcoin.com domain in a clearer manner

thanks

in this thread i exposed roger vers behavior as systematic to this industry, which will suffer for quite a long time and it will gain a lot of hatred form the population because of it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3494514.20

you dont think as far as i do,

but second world war and holocaust  mid 20th century was highly about financial system.

we might see something similar again.

al nonproject coins will be forced to constantly fight for attention and surpress the other empty encription systems(coins)

this will drive people mad sooner or later, and the industry as a whole will get seriously hated.

the banking system as its now evolved its features for certain reasons.

they will continue to exist. as they did over centuries.

It is very important to take him to court and penalized to ward off others who are just in the business of defrauding people. If newbies are always having fraud issues, then it'll eventually affect the general adoption of bitcoin.

yes you are right i think roger ver want to take over the name of bitcoin and put the name of bitcoin cash into bitcoin, to be honest it could be detrimental for new players, and i look like roger ver trying very hard to be able to replace bitcoin to bitcoin cash.

you cant compare state currencies, with private cryptocurrencies, this is a complete falacity.

state currencies are supposed to be highly regulated they are supposed to benefit the communal wellbeing not enrich individuals like private marketed cryptocurrencies do.

states then mutually define each currencies territory of usage. they are like instruments and tools of governance, cryptocurrencies arent that (some are a bit that but most arent)

regards

Thank you for your comment about trashing reasoning down the toilet and all your other logic, it all makes sense now

btc is maintained by the core team
and if you want to play the population game then youll see why i am comparing it to america in the fiat analogies.. oh look america has the higher population of a country that uses the dollar brand.
but the brand "dollar" is not owned by one country!!

but the brand "bitcoin" is not owned by one team!!

so every argument you can say about australia can also be said about america
so every argument you can say about cash can also be said about core

BTC=USD
BCH=AUD

bitcoin core = U.S dollar
bitcoin cash = A.U dollar

core=america
cash=australia

bitcoin=dollar

yes in a decentralised world core would not own BTC. but the thing is even you think that cores rules and cores protocol and cores bips and cores roadmap that made up the fork that is known as BTC should be the only currency called "bitcoin".
you keep on repeating the scentiment that the network maintained by core is bitcoin and anything else is an attack / alt.

you have to take 2 steps back and realise that
you may not even realise you are doing it, but you are...
you are defending core as the sole maintainer of btc(usd) and wanting the btc(usd) currency to be the only currency that uses bitcoiin(dollar)

again take off the core(america) defence hat. stop pretending that its about attacking the opposition. and think about bitcoin(dollar).. not core(america) not cash(australia). but only think about bitcoin(dollar). not btc(USD) not bch(AUD)..  just open your mind and think about the ownership of bitcoin(dollar)

then and only then will you see the hypocrisy of trying to defend one side(country) as the sole brand owner

btc(usd) and bch(aud) both equally split in different directions. so niether have sole claim of "bitcoin" so if you really truly and honestly want to say core(america) are not "the bitcoin" then you should also be lobbying to get bitcoin.org(dollar.america) to stop promoting btc(USD) and core(america) as the only bitcoin(dollar)

sincerely.. take 3 steps back from your loyalty. have a proper strong cup of coffee and have a real hard deep think about it. and i mean really think about it without defending core(america)
because it really seems all this drama is about is giving "bitcoin" brand to the core(america) team

you can trash all your "reasoning" down the toilet

there is something called "freedom of oppinion"

Ver simply says Bitcoincash is the legitimate bitcoin not bitcoin core, this way he pushes to sell his premine.

Ver uses a simple marketing slogan, that is empty and untrue but did bitcoin do that? they also called bitcoin decentral, but its not decentral. just for pushing for marketing.

you can't do anything about that, you would have to sue him basically everywhere in the world. and he will constantly defend himself with "freedom of oppinion"

states and judges dont have an interest actually to be fair on this trial since its about marketing money, not some product.

regards

Very nicely put, great post DooMAD. I have never called "Bitcoin" anything other than Bitcoin, I have never called it Bitcoin Core.

The idea that Bitcoin Cash is the "real" bitcoin is something touted about by Ver hoping it will catch on but simply has not. Even if it were possible for BCH to exceed Bitcoin it will always be known as Bitcoin Cash (the fork that some angry and upset whales created because they could not own or control the path for Bitcoin) and as for Bitcoin, well it will be known as Bitcoin.

We've been through this.  Chains aren't named after dev teams.  BTC is not the "core chain", so stop trying to claim otherwise.  People aren't going to erroneously start calling it "Bitcoin Core" just because the bitcoin.com website has engaged in dishonest marketing practices.  "Bitcoin Core" is a dev team, a repository and a client.  It is not a chain.  Altcoins can call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever", but "Bitcoin" will continue to be whichever one has the largest economic majority and most accumulated proof of work.  In case you hadn't noticed, BCH does not fit that criteria.  That means it isn't Bitcoin.  It's a different entity.  Something apart.  

The bitcoin.org website is under no obligation to advertise forked chains if they don't wish to.  Likewise, the bitcoin.com website is under no obligation to advertise the BTC chain, but, due to their transgressions, they now need to make it clear that their chain is something entirely separate and incompatible.

The bitcoinunlimited.info website is an acceptable example.  They maintain both a BTC and BCH version of their client and the download page clearly distinguishes between the two, even though they ardently express their opinion that the BCH chain is a "better bitcoin".  That's fine by me.  Any newbies who install the wrong one clearly weren't paying attention.  

If usdollar.org was asking customers to use their VISA/Mastercard/Paypal to send to them in order to receive US Dollar bills through the snail-mail post but instead customers received Australian Dollars then THAT is a problem even if the owner of the usdollar.org website states that his dollar version is the real dollar in the vision George Washington had hoped the currency would be.

What Ver is doing on bitcoin.com is not that different

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.

Excellent post. I agree with you something needs to be done. If the lawsuit organisers had raised enough funds then they would have started legal action but they raised just a few thousand US$. The community staying silent and sitting idle is considered by many to be complicit in the whole thing.