Topic: Roger Ver why is he red trusted? - page 2. (Read 1828 times)

What it comes down to is this:

Bitcoin is still a nascent technology and much of the world has little to no understanding of it. They find the idea of cryptocurrency to be confusing, and introducing multiple "Bitcoins" into the marketplace only makes it more so.

Continuing to insist that Bitcoin (BTC) is not Bitcoin and some other coin is is a tactic used by scammers to sell their own coin. Its deception. It does not matter what one's philosophical motivation behind doing so is, the end result is the same: people get duped into buying something other than what they intended to buy, and the "duper" benefits.

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.

There is no competition between the two. There is Bitcoin, and then there are a few altcoins piggybacking on its good name.

Of course there might be room for BCH to carve out a niche for itself in the future. It would probably go a lot further in this regard if Roger didn't keep insisting it was the Bitcoin.

Let me know when BCH processes half the average number of transactions that Bitcoin does, and then we'll talk. Right now this number is 15%. Let's talk again when its 50%.

LoL he was fooled again!

I lost the count how many times he got fooled?






GOOGLE FOOLED ME!!!

Sorry for claiming a persons points deserve objective debate and not to be written off on the basis of some " tag" applied by proven scammers.
That is clearly our central point.

People only need read our words and then independently verify them. If they are untrue then you can dismiss them. If they are true though......

We ask for no trust or belief. Check each statement independently and then if it is true = accept  if it is false = dismiss.

This is how each members should be treated here. It is the only fair way.

Same for roger ver or theymos. Each persons words need to be analysed and objectively verified.

We would ask some more "objective" and "non scamming" DT members to comment on the situation.  Let's bring some semi credible people to the conversation.

Roger should take NOTE that theymos is opposing his flag. This is a measure of theymos's character even after being attacked. Although he seemingly only really gets involved with members he feels are important. Others he leaves to the wolves he has unintentionally birthed via the merit and trust systems.

Members should note we are not opposing or supporting at this time. Only that he deserves to have his points debated and debunked not just dismissed on the basis of what some proven scammers have labelled him.

^ My bad, sorry. I thought you were talking about the recent deletion from the Russian section.

---

Roger Galileo - sounds nice 🤪

I mean this:


I wasn't aware that Roger Galileo is holding a grudge for something as petty as this and is using it as a crutch for his ailing totally-not-a-copy-pasta-shitcoin.

In bitcointalk (FTFY)

And it is well known what Judas did when he realized his mistake.

Good thing that he apologized to theymos however I see his attitude never changed. He changed his direction to the flag warning visible from the guest profile.

Now Google takes the hit. He made Google the culprit because they did not give him the right topic in his search 🤪

By the way Roger, use incognito from now on. Lesson learnt, isn't it?

---

Our!
You mean you and Ver made a joint venture to create another shitcoin?

TOAA, in the early time I really wanted to help you but it seems all my try wasted. Sorry brother, people do not take your words seriously at all.

Wait, so all this butthurt because theymos deleted something from Reddit?

Holy shit, that's some next level cryptocuntery.

Thanks for proving our points.

You do not present a central point of ours that was debunked via a debate?

You rather rely on a bunch of debunked statements that a bunch of PROVEN SCAMMERS and their supporters have plastered on our profile in the form of red trust.

This is  sub optimal and to be honest it is completely net negative and damaging to this movement. It only serves to mask the truth.

This is why you can not possibly rely on the trust score (on this old system) and that is why we entirely understand and sympathize with roger vers points. The people here are not interested in the TRUTH they are interested only in pushing the narrative that supports their own selfish gain.

You do not have the technical understanding to objectively demonstrate BCH does not hold to the original satoshi principles more than BTC does. Or do you? then why not offer RV a chance for you to debunk his points in public?

That is speculation however probable you believe that is. We speculate most holding BTC are only waiting to sell for 100k usd levels and will unload in droves when that happens. That again is speculation.

Let roger present his points in debate. If you can clearly debunk them then that is fine. Screaming scammer does not invalidate ALL of his points. You need to objectively debunk each one. If he repeats his points that you have debunked as being true then only at that point can you call him untrustworthy.

Yes that video termed "theymos is the worst thing to happen to bitcoin" is indeed ill advised and inflamatory.  This kind of thing benefits nobody. Theymos has political views that we mostly support and seems reasonably fair. To try to brand him as the worst thing ever for bitcoin is certainly going to prevent people from treating you fairly. This needs to be addressed by Roger. Theymos also seems to be a person that is not hostile in an aggressive manner and not overly emotional. Better to have a measured and civil public debate. Then if no clear winner and no agreement just go separate ways and focus on the success of your own projects and leave the other to get on with theirs.

Our point of coming to this thread is only to say that each person must have fair chance of objective debate. Not instantly be dismissed just because a tiny proportion of members (some proven scammers) want to fix a certain label to your account.

Get some FAIR AND HONEST people on DT then we can start to perhaps have some faith in their statements and judgement. Even then each person should investigate for themselves.

Where are mikey, eddie, actymyname, dark_star, and some of the others we have previously noticed actually care to give some thought before arriving at judgement? although we disagree with some of their points we find they will offer some attempt to justify their decisions. What do these members say about the situation?

Certainly though roger should change that video title. That is pretty bad considering theymos has provided or watched over this forum for many years and given millions of people the chance to learn and benefit from the projects here.  I'm sure if theymos was really this bad he would have lost a lot more support by now. Most people here feel he seems a fair and decent person.
I suspect any unfair treatment you have had here roger would not be directly at the hands of theymos. Indirectly though theymos is guilty of allowing innocent members punished, this he certainly need to improve on.

Come on though roger you can't expect objectively fair treatment here if you make a video like that about theymos it is going to inflame the entire thing. Rather just present observable instances you believe are wrong that theymos or this board has done towards you or bitcoin and leave it at that. Keep though to what you can prove is true. Saying he is the worst thing ever for bitcoin is certainly not sensible. If possible though just focus on your own project and not waste energy on being negative about btc.

I'm sure I have seen theymos defend you roger when people have made extreme negative remarks about you. I could be wrong but I think he tries to be balanced about the entire disagreement.

Then again I thought roger already said sorry about that video? so why we bringing it up again?

He still thinks the same, as he explained himself

Did he (Roger) admit yet that he was talking about wrong topic and apologized to theymos for spreading a lie?


Watch it from here: https://youtu.be/hU7343Ji8GI?t=233

His couple moments were not enough or it was just a part of all those lies.

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

 

Yape! Demonstration is very clear looking at your profile reputation 🤪

Sorry TOAA, you have nothing left to prove here. In fact, this topic is not about you at all.

Ver does not have a ground to argue here with valid logic. The false impression he gives about the support and stuffs about his altcoin (BCH), is all lie. Not many people care much about BCH. If anyone is holding it then they are holding it with the hope that some day the price will spike and they will sell it for Bitcoin.

Excuse me, how can you debate with a compulsive liar?

LOL

There is nothing to debate.

Nominated by the same crew that are trying to defame and give one of bitcoins earliest proponents misleading and over stated red trust in branding him a scammer.

Nominated by the same people that when challenged CAN NOT present 1 post where I have presented a central point that they can debunk nor demonstrate is incorrect. That is their trolling.

Nominated by the same crew of people that are guilty themselves of scamming and willing to facilitate scamming for a price.

Nominated by the same crew of people that have manipulated and gamed theymos's broken systems of control to try and create and echo chamber here, that they use for their own personal gain.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-the-official-dirty-turds-poll-which-dt-needs-flushing-first-5170789


How can memory dealers be agreeing with a set of questions?? he is giving his opinion. We are merely suggesting reasons some may use to validate the need for leaving him a warning on his account.  

It is apparent that Roger Ver has a STRONG POINT in that any person that seeks to have a fair debate on "CERTAIN TOPICS" even if they bring observable instances and hard evidence to support their claims, are at times, censored and shouted down by a bunch of rabble. If the rabble can not defeat your arguments or look to have had their own arguments debunked they will then seek to:

1/ give you red trust
2/ seek to have you banned
3/ claim you are a troll
4/ get their moderator pals to delete your posts
5/ enlist hoards of mornic noobs (like you) to scream support for their debunked arguments


If pushed and pushed on a point until the above tactics fail they will

1/ claim the opinions they spout in opposition to your views require no reasoning or to be substantiated in anyway
2/ claim they are no longer interested
3/ claim the truth does not interest them
4/ claim it is good when the innocent are punished
5/ change the very definition of words to their opposite meanings


In light of the above points. We are saying that Roger Ver aka memory dealers may have some VALID POINTS that can not be dismissed out of hand just because you happen to believe BTC is the real bitcoin  ( that could or could not be true and does not impinge on the validity of his other points).

The people currently leaving him red trust are PROVEN scammers and have displayed multiple instances of financially dangerous behaviors.
You are siding with PROVEN SCAMMERS - this is an accurate statement but still does not null you other points (although you are obviously unable to process information at a level we could even think of being able to rely on)


I think his comments have demonstrated he is following his beliefs based on principles he truly believes in. That to us in this instance does NOT warrant him having a message screaming he is a scammer. If NON SCAMMING members here believe he needs a warning on his account it should be accurate.
I don't think a person with a huge amount of bitcoin or crypto wealth would be deliberately trying to scam people. The returns on such behaviors would be net negative.

We also think calling every alt a shitcoin is quite foolish. Some projects have developers that have created some very interesting designs. We tend to stick to developers that are also trustworthy and honest. That is one area for improvement for roger in the future. Although again investing in projects without doing your DD can not perhaps be reason for a scam tag.

Let him present his views and then  analyse them by objective standards and through fair debate. No more branding people with some bullshit term like TROLL or SCAMMER and trying to invalidate their statements and points without objective analysis. That is bogus and sub optimal for the entire movement.

Try learning what a debate is.

This board operates more like an uneducated mob than a community of individuals looking to collaborate and contribute to building an end to end decentralized trustless arena.

Every argument and point should be analysed and debated on its own merits. Not dismissed out of hand on the basis of some title that "some" members feel appropriate.

We have been as fair as possible. Better not to have war between the 2 projects. He should stop perhaps being so negative about theymos and we should stop screaming scammer at him and rather engage in sensible debate. To those claiming we are negative about theymos himself, you are wrong.

Would be better if theymos and roger have a sensible open discussion on the amicable route forwards for both projects. No point having further debate on the designs since that has been thrashed out and there seems no agreement. Just better to discuss how both projects can move forward without causing friction that hampers both sides. A treaty if you want to call it that.

bch says we appreciate btc believes they can make some changes to improve in certain areas we wish them well
btc says we appreciate that bch believes they should stick more to the original design we wish them well

more highlighting the positives of your own approach rather than focusing on the negatives of the other approach.

People will likely end up holding a bit of both and using them RATHER than fiat eventually (along with a few of their fav alts)- what's the problem?  Let's co-operate. We hold several alts and never feel the need to drum up fighting over the different design ideas. It is counter productive for the entire sphere.

I don't think being so hostile to roger on this board is productive when looking at the bigger picture for BTC. People tend to become negative about you when you attack them as visa versa.

We still trust in theymos to a large degree, even if he is in our opinion fucking up this board with merit and other experimental designs. Still we look at his individual assessment of other issues and topics here and find we are often in strong agreement with him, and especially his political views. He seems on a personal level a "fair person" so roger needs to keep in mind theymos is doing what he feels is correct also. People simply will disagree at times.

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

Ver,
Just accept that BCH is an altcoin and brand it that way, leave Bitcoin alone. No one will have any problem with you.

You ain't winning shit.



This is your lead dev.

Hey Roger, you do realize that you are in agreement with the No1 nominated troll bitcointalk has ever seen, right?
Not that it would matter to your - already - self destroyed reputation, just saying.

When BCH ATL? When zero satoshi?