Topic: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. - page 8. (Read 3146 times)
There was a documentary on TV in my country about Bitcoin and the millionaire people and Ver R. was speaking for a few minutes. It was enough now we call this guy a "guignol"
Yes. And it was Ver who make a complete cock-up of that and made people think BCH was BTC. He failed to make the distinction correctly, despite the fact that he's the one who needs to make it clear because he wants to discuss both chains. He made people lose out because he made them think they were getting something they weren't. His mistake, not ours. But now, you're making the argument that, because of his mistake, we are somehow under some sort of obligation to rename our entire chain to "Bitcoin Core" even when we aren't talking about BCH? Get a damn clue already.
I'm done with trying to be polite about this. Fuck off. And I mean right off. That's not how it works. You don't get to muddy the waters by confusing newbies and then tell us it's our job to fix it. That's completely asinine. It's not our job to stop other people on the internet doing stupid shit. There are ways to make a distinction without trying to rename a chain that doesn't belong to you. We have a distinction already, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, or BTC and BCH. If I need to make it clear to someone what chain I'm talking about, those are the names I'll be using.
Again, I don't own "Bitcoin Core" because that's a dev team. If you try telling other people that I do own "Bitcoin Core", I'm going to tell you you're wrong. Because you are. I own some BTC and some BCH. I can tell them apart because they each have their own unique names. I can explain the difference to other people without changing those names. I don't own a dev team, so stop telling me I do.
Now, is there any more completely unrelated drivel about decentralisation and defence caps you'd like to throw in to try and deflect from the fact that your efforts are completely futile? If you have to keep pissing into the wind, don't spray other people in the process. That's what your actions here amount to and people don't appreciate it. You're only encouraging more people to take shots at Ver for causing this whole mess. Let it go already.
I'm done with trying to be polite about this. Fuck off. And I mean right off. That's not how it works. You don't get to muddy the waters by confusing newbies and then tell us it's our job to fix it. That's completely asinine. It's not our job to stop other people on the internet doing stupid shit. There are ways to make a distinction without trying to rename a chain that doesn't belong to you. We have a distinction already, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, or BTC and BCH. If I need to make it clear to someone what chain I'm talking about, those are the names I'll be using.
Again, I don't own "Bitcoin Core" because that's a dev team. If you try telling other people that I do own "Bitcoin Core", I'm going to tell you you're wrong. Because you are. I own some BTC and some BCH. I can tell them apart because they each have their own unique names. I can explain the difference to other people without changing those names. I don't own a dev team, so stop telling me I do.
Now, is there any more completely unrelated drivel about decentralisation and defence caps you'd like to throw in to try and deflect from the fact that your efforts are completely futile? If you have to keep pissing into the wind, don't spray other people in the process. That's what your actions here amount to and people don't appreciate it. You're only encouraging more people to take shots at Ver for causing this whole mess. Let it go already.
Well then... that settles that
That very strong-worded statement from DooMAD highlighted clear distinctions between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. He rightly pointed out to everyone that the onus is upon Ver to provide information to people visiting his website that his Bitcoin Cash is basically Bitcoin Cash. Simple.
so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.38627146
The lawsuit will not go ahead because of lack of funding
so many bitcoin enthusiasts say that Roger Ver is one of the main characters who will damage the crypto world because his greed and such misleading actions, I hope they will have success with this lawsuit.
There's a double standard involved here, too. Could you imagine if bitcoin.org did promote both chains,
im not even talking about both chains at this point.. im highlighting the hypocrisy of "core" how those that point fingers to pretend bitcoin is decentralised and no team own it by saying somone needs to be sued.. yet when the debate is flipped.. they then defend how they want bitcoin to b centralised and owned by one team. and that include (the mega hypocritical and even worse part) letting one person say its just one team "core" that are the project
And I'm highlighting the hypocrisy that Ver thinks it's okay to rename Bitcoin when he doesn't like other people renaming Bitcoin Cash. Selective quoting much? You left that point out entirely and decided to make an entirely unrelated point.
The full quote was as follows:
There's a double standard involved here, too. Could you imagine if bitcoin.org did promote both chains, but insisted on calling the BCH chain "bcash" on their site? Just visualise the total meltdown Roger Ver would have then. That would be poor form on the part of bitcoin.org, because that chain isn't called "bcash" and BCH users generally don't want it to be called that. The same applies in reverse, so bitcoin.com shouldn't be calling the BTC chain "bitcoin core" against the wishes of BTC users because that's equally poor form.
There's nothing stopping you from calling it Bitcoin Core if that's how you want to distinguish it from Bitcoin Cash, but you're going to need to accept the fact that all the BTC users who have literally zero interest in buying or spending BCH don't need to make that distinction. It's inevitable they're going to keep calling the two chains "Bitcoin" and "Bitcoin Cash". And that's literally your best case scenario here, because if you piss the BTC users off by trying to change their chain's name without their consent, they're all going to start calling Bitcoin Cash "bcash" instead. I haven't so far, but if you keep forcing this utter futility of yours, I just might start.
You call it what you want, we're calling it Bitcoin. End of.
There's nothing stopping you from calling it Bitcoin Core if that's how you want to distinguish it from Bitcoin Cash, but you're going to need to accept the fact that all the BTC users who have literally zero interest in buying or spending BCH don't need to make that distinction. It's inevitable they're going to keep calling the two chains "Bitcoin" and "Bitcoin Cash". And that's literally your best case scenario here, because if you piss the BTC users off by trying to change their chain's name without their consent, they're all going to start calling Bitcoin Cash "bcash" instead. I haven't so far, but if you keep forcing this utter futility of yours, I just might start.
You call it what you want, we're calling it Bitcoin. End of.
Don't skirt the real issue here. You don't get to tell other people what to call their chain. I literally could not care less about how centralised you think Bitcoin is, or how much you think that one developer is in total control, or that you don't like the way in which bitcoin.org promote the BTC chain. None of that means you get to tell anyone what their chain is called. That's not how it works.
I don't own "Bitcoin Core" because that's a dev team. If you try telling other people that I do own "Bitcoin Core", I'm going to tell you you're wrong. Because you are. I own some BTC and some BCH. I can tell them apart because they each have their own unique names. I can explain the difference to other people without changing those names. I don't own a dev team, so stop telling me I do.
And back to the point you raised while selectively quoting, people only started talking about suing Ver when he started making people lose money by failing to make it clear what they were buying. Now that they've changed the website, I'd only support suing him for those who have already lost money because of his actions. There's no need to sue for future unless more people are ripped off because they were misled. The situation should be resolved going forward, though. Again, there's no need to keep arguing about this (aside from your moronic insistence that we need to rename Bitcoin because Ver mislead people through his own incompetence. Keep arguing about that all you want, but you won't get anywhere), because they've now taken steps to remedy it. Problem solved. They've changed the website. It's better now. Drop it already, we aren't renaming shit. You call it whatever you want.
so to reword your question to clarify my point..
could you imagine if bitcoin.org DID promote core, btcd, knots, unlimited, xt, classic (all clients of the SAME chain) EQUALLY?
OMG mind blowing thought.
could you imagine if people stopped defending core and stopped attacking any node that is running on the same network as core..
OMG mind blowing thought again
just imagine it. no more directing people to think that core is the master, king, controller.
could you imagine if bitcoin.org DID promote core, btcd, knots, unlimited, xt, classic (all clients of the SAME chain) EQUALLY?
OMG mind blowing thought.
could you imagine if people stopped defending core and stopped attacking any node that is running on the same network as core..
OMG mind blowing thought again
just imagine it. no more directing people to think that core is the master, king, controller.
Yeah, because that would definitely clear things up to people who haven't got the slightest clue how crypto works yet.
"Welcome to Bitcoin, here are over a dozen coins that are completely incompatible with each other, but we'll leave to your completely inexperienced guesswork to figure out which one you need".
I don't see anything going wrong there. Nope. Not a thing.
If certain websites have enough trouble making the distinction between just two coins, I don't think it's wise to risk the multitude of others.
On a more serious note, perhaps people should be taught that Core aren't a centralised authority that controls Bitcoin. Maybe that message is getting lost along the way somewhere. I don't have any arguments with that point. You are correct that many people here on the forum seem to be under the mistaken impression that only one dev team are permitted to decide what the rules should be. People who think that are wrong. No ifs or buts about it. Core submit code and if the users like it they run that code. Other developers submit code, if users prefer that code, they'll run that instead. That's the beauty of it. However, no one is under any obligation to promote code they might not agree with. Not least due to the fact it would make the learning curve much more steep for newcomers.
to me its jsut far easier to avoid any debate, argument, misinterpretation and issues by saying when someone asks for bitcoin. you reply cash or core
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian
Do you walk into your local British shops and ask "Is that the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian or British Pound?"
Of course you fucking don't. You'd only ask about those pounds if you specifically wanted to use those particular currencies. If we're not transacting in BCH, we don't need to make any distinction. So give up with the bullshit already. You call it what you want. We'll call it what we want. And I assure you we won't be calling it anything other than Bitcoin or BTC.
in america talking to americans, yea just call the dollar the dollar.
in england talking other brits, yea just call the pound the pound
but ovr the internet.. (sorry to open your mind to this) where the walls expand beyond the room your computer sits. where anyone can be anywhere in the world. when someone mentions dollar sometimes its prudant and easy to ask if they mean US dollar or australian dollar. especially if that person is asking for some
EG imagine i was australian and you were american. i say i will give you $20,000, but have you got a $ acepting bank account
soon enough we find out that i cant give you australian dollar because you have an american bank account.. so you lose
Yes. And it was Ver who make a complete cock-up of that and made people think BCH was BTC. He failed to make the distinction correctly, despite the fact that he's the one who needs to make it clear because he wants to discuss both chains. He made people lose out because he made them think they were getting something they weren't. His mistake, not ours. But now, you're making the argument that, because of his mistake, we are somehow under some sort of obligation to rename our entire chain to "Bitcoin Core" even when we aren't talking about BCH? Get a damn clue already.
I'm done with trying to be polite about this. Fuck off. And I mean right off. That's not how it works. You don't get to muddy the waters by confusing newbies and then tell us it's our job to fix it. That's completely asinine. It's not our job to stop other people on the internet doing stupid shit. There are ways to make a distinction without trying to rename a chain that doesn't belong to you. We have a distinction already, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, or BTC and BCH. If I need to make it clear to someone what chain I'm talking about, those are the names I'll be using.
Again, I don't own "Bitcoin Core" because that's a dev team. If you try telling other people that I do own "Bitcoin Core", I'm going to tell you you're wrong. Because you are. I own some BTC and some BCH. I can tell them apart because they each have their own unique names. I can explain the difference to other people without changing those names. I don't own a dev team, so stop telling me I do.
Now, is there any more completely unrelated drivel about decentralisation and defence caps you'd like to throw in to try and deflect from the fact that your efforts are completely futile? If you have to keep pissing into the wind, don't spray other people in the process. That's what your actions here amount to and people don't appreciate it. You're only encouraging more people to take shots at Ver for causing this whole mess. Let it go already.
People with weird characters like Roger don't deserve freedom, they should instead be locked in a cell, never to see the daylight ever,. Its unfortunate that a man in his position could stoop so low and make such decisions to misguide innocents into buying currency they had no intention of buying, The newbies are also however at fault, you just don't commit your money somewhere you have no proper idea of, that's why its encouraged that before you invest, do your research well
Say it straight forward 
I am not afraid. I am avoiding to argue over your useless, fake, lies, big blocker propaganda and your tinfoil hat conspiracies.
Bitcoin is in good hands. The big blockers should be happy with their fork Bitcoin Cash.
Bitcoin is in good hands. The big blockers should be happy with their fork Bitcoin Cash.
here you go again with the "big-blocker" buzzword,
it is like a certain time of the day where you sit back and down a gallon of the core reddit script koolaid?
firstly the COMMUNITY majority said 2mb
core said no..
core then propagandised the "gigabyte block" as "big blockers"
core then said 2mb was bad, for technical reasons.. but kept up the gigabyte block propaganda
.. and then. the laughing part
core backtracked the technical problems for 2mb and then said 4mb weight is fine.. all because they realised THEY needed 4mb for thieir segwit transaction types.. but still didnt want to give the community the 2mb for the legacy transaction types. even though technical details showed 2mb was not a problem anyway.
they decided to split the network to get rid of core opposers, so that core could go in one direction away from the rules of 2009-2016. and the rest go in another direction.. yep core diverted directions too.. thats why even core said its a bilateral split and not a unilateral split.
P.S
try not to wear the core defense cap. because by saying the protocol is safe in thier hands is you giving up your own hands(dcentralisation) and handing bitcoin to core.
and try not to get too addicted to the reddit script koolaid. it becomes too obvious when you start using certain buzzwords but lack the full picture of understanding.
There's a double standard involved here, too. Could you imagine if bitcoin.org did promote both chains,
im not even talking about both chains at this point.. im highlighting the hypocrisy of "core" how those that point fingers to pretend bitcoin is decentralised and no team own it by saying somone needs to be sued.. yet when the debate is flipped.. they then defend how they want bitcoin to b centralised and owned by one team. and that include (the mega hypocritical and even worse part) letting one person say its just one team "core" that are the project
so to reword your question to clarify my point..
could you imagine if bitcoin.org DID promote core, btcd, knots, unlimited, xt, classic (all clients of the SAME chain) EQUALLY?
OMG mind blowing thought.
could you imagine if people stopped defending core and stopped attacking any node that is running on the same network as core..
OMG mind blowing thought again
just imagine it. no more directing people to think that core is the master, king, controller.
this is why i keep telling people if they really believed in bitcoin decentralisation.. first they must take off the core defense hat, to atleast give themselves purspective.
to me its jsut far easier to avoid any debate, argument, misinterpretation and issues by saying when someone asks for bitcoin. you reply cash or core
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian
Do you walk into your local British shops and ask "Is that the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian or British Pound?"
Of course you fucking don't. You'd only ask about those pounds if you specifically wanted to use those particular currencies. If we're not transacting in BCH, we don't need to make any distinction. So give up with the bullshit already. You call it what you want. We'll call it what we want. And I assure you we won't be calling it anything other than Bitcoin or BTC.
in america talking to americans, yea just call the dollar the dollar.
in england talking other brits, yea just call the pound the pound
but ovr the internet.. (sorry to open your mind to this) where the walls expand beyond the room your computer sits. where anyone can be anywhere in the world. when someone mentions dollar sometimes its prudant and easy to ask if they mean US dollar or australian dollar. especially if that person is asking for some
EG imagine i was australian and you were american. i say i will give you $20,000, but have you got a $ acepting bank account
soon enough we find out that i cant give you australian dollar because you have an american bank account.. so you lose
you should have clarifed it was a US bank.. or i should have asked if it was a US or AU.. . thats all im saying.
over the internet. you cant just assume. so its simpler to just ask which they are talking about because the brand should not be owned by anyone
..
but anyway. it seems the people i debate with are not bitcoin defenders.. but core defenders. and they cant see the hypocrisy of the difference. even whn highlighting the reverse psychology thats being played out
the point of calling it bitcoin core instead of bitcoin is this..
if i call it bitcoin core. core defenders pretend and try to say no its bitcoin because core dont own it... 2 seconds later defend that core do
People with weird characters like Roger don't deserve freedom, they should instead be locked in a cell, never to see the daylight ever,. Its unfortunate that a man in his position could stoop so low and make such decisions to misguide innocents into buying currency they had no intention of buying, The newbies are also however at fault, you just don't commit your money somewhere you have no proper idea of, that's why its encouraged that before you invest, do your research well
But they did want to take over as the "developers the community should follow". But we saw that it did not work because their arguments about scaling was not truly and argument at all. 1mb block sizes to regulate the network in terms of the blockchain's size, block propagation and transaction propagation should always be there for now.
no they did not want to take over.
they wanted to use consensus and hope the other teams ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD included nw features so that EVERYONE on the network was on the same level.
Yes I was wrong. They should play on a level playing field if they wanted for the community to run their software and be followed in developing the real Bitcoin.
But they can also do a hard fork and continue on in their road map.
Quote
it has only been core that refuse to be on an even playing field.
core literally called themselves core because they want to be at the centre. they want to be the engine that drives the protocol. its why they chose the name
core wanted any other dev team that wanted different features to fork off
core and core partners then instigated a contentious bilateral split to then say.. opposers.. you to to the left by using bloqs new fork while core go to the right with blockstreams new fork
core literally called themselves core because they want to be at the centre. they want to be the engine that drives the protocol. its why they chose the name
core wanted any other dev team that wanted different features to fork off
core and core partners then instigated a contentious bilateral split to then say.. opposers.. you to to the left by using bloqs new fork while core go to the right with blockstreams new fork
Ok. Believe it however you like. Hahaha.
Quote
xt, classic, unlimited wanted to keep a united single network.. but wanted features on that single network that core devs didnt want as it would cause issues for the cor devs sponsors who wanted bitcoins blockchain to stagnate to drive desires for LN to rise.
LN will be a corporate network worth billions. hense why silbert set out to pay blockstream/bloq devs hundreds of millions upfront to pave th way for it.
LN will be a corporate network worth billions. hense why silbert set out to pay blockstream/bloq devs hundreds of millions upfront to pave th way for it.
Bitcoins will stagnate because of smaller blocks you mean? That is not true. They were technical reasons, not the propaganda that big blockers wanted everyone to believe.
Mike Hearn also said Bitcoin will die by now if the Core developers maintained the 1mb block size, didn't he? Haha.
Quote
but im still laughing at how your trying to sway the attention back towards it all being about ver. even though the bitcoin cash code is BLOQ written and barry silber funded.
why are you so afraid to even mention BLOQ/barry silbert/blockstream
why are you so afraid to even mention BLOQ/barry silbert/blockstream
I am not afraid. I am avoiding to argue over your useless, fake, lies, big blocker propaganda and your tinfoil hat conspiracies.
Bitcoin is in good hands. The big blockers should be happy with their fork Bitcoin Cash.
It seems to me that no one will prove anything. those people who are going to invest in bitcoin or even crypto currencies should carefully study everything and understand everything even a little, and not listen to some pseudo-experts.
Dude , they canceled that weeks ago, shame no one here mentions it.
They could not raise enough money to pay a lawyer. Kinda Lame really, that this topic outlived their pitiful attempt at a lawsuit.
They could not raise enough money to pay a lawyer. Kinda Lame really, that this topic outlived their pitiful attempt at a lawsuit.
Now this I have to agree with. Zin-Zang you are right, it is kind of lame that this thread outlived the pitiful attempt at taking Ver to court. Had they planned it better I am sure they would have made progress towards litigation (regardless of the outcome) but it was not to be.
In future if somebody makes a concerted effort to get a team together and put forward a plan to "try" to take Ver to court it might work out better as long as there is super-clarity about exactly who is the team behind the lawsuit action.
Maybe if somebody living in the US directly complained to their relevant agency about the confusion "bitcoin.com" is causing along with proof of their losses and how they incurred them then maybe there would not be a need for a lawsuit, maybe the relevant authorities will be happy to continue alone "if" they deem a crime has taken place.
A group of crypto-currency enthusiasts is considering the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com owner Roger Vera. According to them, it deliberately misleads novice investors, using confusion among the newcomers between bitcoin and bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash), which in August 2017 appeared in the framework of Bitcoin's bitterness. A possible class action is organized by @MoneyTrigz, a Twitter user who is co-owner of Coindaily.co. The lawsuit is discussed in a Telegram chat called "Bitcoin.com - lawsuit / victims" (Bitcoin.com lawsuit / victims), to which any user can join. The chat already has more than 444 participants, but it is not clear how many of them plan to join the suit.
Dude , they canceled that weeks ago, shame no one here mentions it.
They could not raise enough money to pay a lawyer. Kinda Lame really, that this topic outlived their pitiful attempt at a lawsuit.
Quote
Scam Lawsuit got canceled.
https://twitter.com/moneytrigz?lang=en
*I looked at Bitcoin.com before the scam lawsuit and just now, Looks exactly the same! *
*MoneyTrigz seems like a confused soul, you donators might want to check and make sure he does not keep your donations.*
https://twitter.com/moneytrigz?lang=en
Quote
MoneyTrigz@moneytrigz
We appreciate the 31 people that donated to the initiative
But $3700 wont be enough to do much, so we decided to cancel the initiative and refund the 31 transactions (total 0.39btc)
im happy were able to atleast get bitcoincom make 90% changes on its fraude and dis-information
We appreciate the 31 people that donated to the initiative
But $3700 wont be enough to do much, so we decided to cancel the initiative and refund the 31 transactions (total 0.39btc)
im happy were able to atleast get bitcoincom make 90% changes on its fraude and dis-information
*I looked at Bitcoin.com before the scam lawsuit and just now, Looks exactly the same! *
*MoneyTrigz seems like a confused soul, you donators might want to check and make sure he does not keep your donations.*
Misleading the new comers into believing that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin is tantamount to fraud since he would make pecuniary gains from it. It is good to frown at such act to serve as deterrent to any one who may want to engage in such act in future.
Such a sad state of affairs our crypto community is in because Roger Ver threw his toys out of the pram and created Bitcoin Cash knowing it could only have any real value if connected to his already owned bitcoin.com domain name
A group of crypto-currency enthusiasts is considering the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com owner Roger Vera. According to them, it deliberately misleads novice investors, using confusion among the newcomers between bitcoin and bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash), which in August 2017 appeared in the framework of Bitcoin's bitterness. A possible class action is organized by @MoneyTrigz, a Twitter user who is co-owner of Coindaily.co. The lawsuit is discussed in a Telegram chat called "Bitcoin.com - lawsuit / victims" (Bitcoin.com lawsuit / victims), to which any user can join. The chat already has more than 444 participants, but it is not clear how many of them plan to join the suit.
Bcore is the Segwit/LN fork, dropped the itcoin as the slang term is quicker to type.
Much the same as bcash is quicker to type.
With over 17 coins using the name bitcoin, adding the 2nd part assure no confusion, which is the whole point , to not confuse the newbies.
BTC=BCORE=Bitcoin Core
BCH=BCASH=Bitcoin Cash
Much the same as bcash is quicker to type.
With over 17 coins using the name bitcoin, adding the 2nd part assure no confusion, which is the whole point , to not confuse the newbies.
BTC=BCORE=Bitcoin Core
BCH=BCASH=Bitcoin Cash
There is only one "Bitcoin" and the others are forks of "Bitcoin". Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin Z. None of the "Bitcoin" forks are "Bitcoin", there is only one "Bitcoin"
Sorry using bitcoin by itself is too vague , and may confuse newbies, if someone forgets to add the 2nd part.
I will stick with including the 2nd name BCore or BCash or BAtom or BGold or BZ.
If you want to confuse newbies by leaving off the 2nd part , your call.
Misleading the new comers into believing that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin is tantamount to fraud since he would make pecuniary gains from it. It is good to frown at such act to serve as deterrent to any one who may want to engage in such act in future.
Wow i never heard about this before. Good thing that i find this thread so i get a new information.
But that's terrible. How can he do that for his own good? I don't understand people like this. I've heard the debate about what's the original bitcoin, bitcoin or bitcoin cash, but i never know there's a complicated case like this.
I'm sorry for those who feel scammed, but i hope you all don't think bad about bitcoin, and i really agree, he should be sued. Don't let him escape or else the same thing might happen again in the future.
But that's terrible. How can he do that for his own good? I don't understand people like this. I've heard the debate about what's the original bitcoin, bitcoin or bitcoin cash, but i never know there's a complicated case like this.
I'm sorry for those who feel scammed, but i hope you all don't think bad about bitcoin, and i really agree, he should be sued. Don't let him escape or else the same thing might happen again in the future.
Bcore is the Segwit/LN fork, dropped the itcoin as the slang term is quicker to type.
Much the same as bcash is quicker to type.
With over 17 coins using the name bitcoin, adding the 2nd part assure no confusion, which is the whole point , to not confuse the newbies.
BTC=BCORE=Bitcoin Core
BCH=BCASH=Bitcoin Cash
Much the same as bcash is quicker to type.
With over 17 coins using the name bitcoin, adding the 2nd part assure no confusion, which is the whole point , to not confuse the newbies.
BTC=BCORE=Bitcoin Core
BCH=BCASH=Bitcoin Cash
There is only one "Bitcoin" and the others are forks of "Bitcoin". Bitcoin Atom is not Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin Z. None of the "Bitcoin" forks are "Bitcoin", there is only one "Bitcoin"
I never heard of "Bitcoin Core" or "Bcore" before, I only heard of "Bitcoin".
I have heard of "Bcash" and "Bitcoin Cash" and that is a low level derivative forked from "Bitcoin"
I have heard of "Bcash" and "Bitcoin Cash" and that is a low level derivative forked from "Bitcoin"
Bcore is the Segwit/LN fork promoted by G.Maxwell & Blockstream, dropped the itcoin as the slang term is quicker to type.
Much the same as bcash is quicker to type.
With over 17 coins using the name bitcoin, adding the 2nd part assure no confusion, which is the whole point , to not confuse the newbies.
BTC=BCORE=Bitcoin Core
BCH=BCASH=Bitcoin Cash
Jump to: