Topic: Roger Ver why is he red trusted? - page 3. (Read 1828 times)

This argument goes both ways.  What about the people who buy BTC thinking that it is the Bitcoin that was described in the white paper and became popular to begin with?  In my opinion they are clearly being duped, and I've put for strong factual arguments that that is the case, while the BTC camp has mainly resorted to censorship and name calling to support their case that BTC is Bitcoin.

Agreed!  That would have been the case if Segwit 2X or any of the other block size increases hadn't been blocked by censorship and social media attacks.



Of course!

Agreed again!
Let's grow the size of the crypto pie, not fight over the percentage of the current sized crypto pie.
Unfortunately drastically changing the roadmap of BTC and limiting the block size set back all of crypto currency adoption by nearly half a decade![/quote]

Sounds accurate, and a good plan to me, but it also seems clear which one of those two coins have a stronger claim to the word Bitcoin in the name.

As do I.  Any smart businessman would.

If the name had ended up being Bitcoin Original, I think the pro BTC camp would complain even more than they do about the name Bitcoin Cash,  and they would complain an equal amount if it was called Bitcoin Classic.   I think the real reason they complain so loudly about Bitcoin Cash is that they know it has a real chance of surpassing BTC's market share, and merchant adoption.  There are already more physical shops around the world accepting BCH than BTC.  They fight against it because they fear it will hurt their investment in BTC.

Thanks for such a level headed post! We need more of those on the internet, and less name calling.

That is an often repeated lie.  Take a look at the site.  There are basically ZERO successful double spends taking place.

This is another often repeated lie.  I have ZERO problem with multiple layers.  In fact, I think it is a good idea.
I just happen to think that it was an incredibly stupid and reckless idea to strangle the base layer before any of those second layer solutions are ready.
That's why BTC has such low market share today, and going lower.

I have zero problem with this.  Just don't strangle the base layer before the secondary layers are ready.



This is absolutely an argument worth having!  The big blockers were objectively winning that argument in terms of online debate, and hash rate on the network when Theymos decided to censor all discussion of it.  If the small blocker arguments are correct, Theymos resorting to censorship has severely undermined them.

https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
https://news.bitcoin.com/former-mod-explains-r-bitcoin-censorship-and-why-he-was-removed/

Then you got bamboozled again.

Nice. Very nice. This is even better than my theory.

First Karpeles, then Craig and who knows whoever else fooled you in the past.

Not just that somebody outbid you, he also fooled the owner. (and you) This is what happens when you go to war against a much bigger community than yours. Now you know, no trade you'll ever do is gonna be safe.

That is exactly what happened.  He did offer it to me. I thought, and still think the price was too high, so he sold it to someone else who lied to him about his views on myself and Bitcoin Cash.

Most smart people refer to BCH as bcash.  It saves ambiguity.  Sure, bcash forked off from bitcoin on August 1, 2017, and since the bitcoin community did not follow bcash, therefore bcash became an altcoin, also known as shitcoin and also known as an attack vector against bitcoin.  Yes, bcash had goals to supplant bitcoin and to be recognized as bitcoin, but that did not happen... yet you continue on with your support of bcash as if it were bitcoin..

You seem to be living in a fantasy if you either believe that bcash is bitcoin because there is no fucking way that is true, even based on your conclusory assertions that you made in your above inserted video from March 2018.  Furthermore, bcash is NOT going to become bitcoin by luring bitcoin's network effects over to it.  It seems that too many people recognize bcash as a scam and even  centralized in various ways with a small number of supporters (leaders) like you, so it seems to be a very pie in the sky endeavor to believe that bitcoin's network effects are going to migrate over to bcash, absent some kind of cataclysmic happening.  And, none of us should be employing our investment (or support) strategies based on cataclysmic happenings that are quite unlikely to happen.

We entirely agree. This forum and your own forum must not prevent people from presenting their views if they can support them with a credible argument. We agree this forum is actually starting to become an echo chamber on certain issues. I do not think you should be prevented from presenting your case. It is unlikely theymos is directly censoring you since he seems open to allowing any one to present output that does not break the rules. Other admin although are certainly not as open to free speech and we have witnessed this greatly of late. Theymos himself seems to just be interested in keeping the peace and if that means sub layers of control get to abuse their positions he is willing to look the other way UNTIL it gets too blatant or effects some members he does care about.

I think the problem is as we stated. You "may"  be correct that bch upholds more firmly satoshis original principles.  However, because the majority (even if they are wrong) consider bitcoin to be BTC at this point,  then it is important not to add any confusion when they are first becoming involved with the decentralized trustless movement. Confusion could and has contributed to new investors losing money and feeling  (rightly or wrongly is certainly up for debate) betrayed . That is why there are these accusations and red marks on your account.

It could just be that you believe (perhaps correctly) that bitcoin (the original set of principles) lives on truly as BCH and not BTC,  so when you called BCH bitcoin, and called BTC bitcoin core... then you were not being dishonest at all. You believe this to be the case. So that on it's own does not require red trust.

I think the issue is that new members unaware were duped into buying bch believing it was BITCOIN as the majority see it ( even if they are wrong) which has financial consequences.

So as we said.

1. the warnings should correctly state what happened NOT brand you as an intentional scammer.
2. The red trust should certainly not be from those themselves that have scammed here in the past or tried to facilitate scamming for a price.

Now that you have made things more clear as to prevent new members not being confused. I think in future the red marks and red flags should be perhaps revisited to perhaps a low warning level.

I don't think it looks good for one of the most famous bitcoin proponents should have THIS PERSON IS A SCAMMER warning on his threads. The true story should be there and people can make up their own minds about your actions.

Honestly though, the people leaving you red tags are either proven scammers or scam facilitators. These should not even have positions on this boards trust system.

It is sad that the project the majority consider bitcoin lost one it's more vocal and famous supporters. One could wonder where  a single project called bitcoin could have been if all the fragmentation of the original supporting group had not taken place.

Then again in life one must do what one thinks is correct.

Surely though you must still consider btc > fiat

Even if you consider bch > btc

?

Perhaps there is room for both projects anyway. I certainly don't think that either side should be sniping at the other. Fighting against each other is not the way.

Sort of like "hey we are bitcoin original, since we feel it essential to hold closer to the original design of satoshi for these reasons..", or "Hey we are BTC we feel we can improve the design in a few ways".

We support bitcoin and hold BTC and some BCH.  We also hold a few other projects that seem to have great developers and very interesting potential.

It is perhaps not a case " of there can be only one".

Bitcoin cash does not seem to get your message across as much as if you had called it bitcoin classic or bitcoin original... or something like that to demonstrate what distinguishes it from btc and why it is essential people read and understand this before they decide if they want to go for one or the other or get a bit of both of them.

Anyway hope you get fair treatment from members that have any business being in positions of trust here.

A sensible and accurate message if they feel you must have red trust not screaming scammer. What can you expect from these morons (real scammers) that have taken over the systems of control of this board.

  I can assure you that NO ONE is jealous of "losing you" to your scammy bcash shitcoin.  However, I guess believe whatever makes you happy Ver.

If bitcoin.com was honest about its belief in a 'better' Bitcoin and advocated for BCH whilst acknowledging that most others do not feel that way that would be fine.

It's the weasel words and trickery that justifies the kicking it gets.

There's a decent chance someone's very first introduction to Bitcoin will result in confusion and deception because of bitcoin.com. That is the definition of untrustworthy.

There is no such thing as safe 0-conf transactions. Satoshi made that clear from the beginning:


I know that block size is a delicate subject for BCH users but you are making serious trade-offs by increasing it. Everybody should be able to run their own node. Not just 'to help the network' but to be able to verify your own transactions (instead of depending on a third party explorer), increase your personal privacy and giving you a choice when it comes to development updates.  You continuously mention how much you value economic freedom and yet you are completely missing the bigger picture by merely focussing on fast and cheap payments. There are dozen of altcoins that are faster and cheaper than Bitcoin (and BCH) yet they are hardly being used. They are (including BCH) all lacking the components that truly matter.

Anyway theymos you better start censoring all this unseemly guff.

You are not Galileo.

You took a pre-existing concept, slightly tweaked it, and now go around insisting it is the original thing.

Nobody has a problem with you starting an altcoin. Its the whole pretending its the "Original Bitcoin" thing that we don't care for. Its not working for Craig Wright. Its not going to work for you either.

We don't care about your particular definition of the word "cash," which is entirely subjective. Galileo's beliefs were rooted in scientific principle. Yours are rooted in ego.

Something is off. He didn't sell it to you, strangely.

That's strange. Way too strange. Knowing you, I am pretty sure you are lying again.

If the original pro-bcash owner needed money... he should have come to you first. You would pay the most buck for that account. But for some strange reason, he sold it to a pro-bitcoin guy. Nope. It didn't happen like that. Doesn't make sense.

The other possibility which makes more sense is...

That original owner was you and the shit is falling apart on your side. You had to let it go. Is this a Bingo?



You are cornered Roger. Your 2nd lesson is about to blow up in your face.

The original owner had been involved in Bitcoin since 2009, and agrees that Bitcoin Cash is the version of Bitcoin he got involved in.
Unfortunately he needed money for other things, and the new owner of the ID clearly has a different opinion.

Historically the majority have believed all sorts of stupid and wrong things.  The majority previously thought the sun goes around the earth, and they literally forbade Galileo from pointing out the truth.  This sounds a lot like the censored Bitcoin forums today.


I don't think anyone is confused by this point.  We have entire articles on the site explaining exactly what the history is, and where we are today on this topic.


But we do know:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

Just imagine how frustrated Galileo must have felt.

Good job believing and spreading the government's character assassination tactics.  If there had been pipe bombs, they surely would have charged me with it.

I've never sold a single domain name in my life.  I've only purchased them, and then used them.

That shows just how little you know about the situation.  I didn't create Bitcoin Cash.  In fact,  I didn't start promoting it until many months later, after a bunch of economic illiterates managed block segwit 2X.  I openly stated that if Segwit 2x was blocked,  I would devote all of my time and resources to promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Now the BTC maxis are just jealous because BTC lost one of its very first and best proponents when I started working on Bitcoin Cash.

  I'm sorry you have been tricked into thinking that BTC is "Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system".
Please consider reading the white paper again and ask yourself what it is describing.
I'm still supporting the very same coin I got involved with in 2011.  The BTC camp are working on something else.  They have managed to keep the Bitcoin name as used in popular culture,  but it doesn't have the same characteristics as the Bitcoin I started working on in 2011.  That Bitcoin is now called Bitcoin Cash.

I originally read it in the late 90's, and read it again just now.
It has everything to do with safe 0-conf transactions and things like the Silk Road.
The very things I've been very supportive from day one.  I even helped fund and implement the very first wide spread privacy tool for BTC (Cash Shuffle inside the blockchain.info wallet that was eventually destroyed by the full blocks), and that's why I'm now busy funding and implementing things like cashshuffle.com for BCH today.

I too am curious if the account was sold or seized.

I have a question for MemoryDealers.

What's the deal with the @bitcoin twitter account? Why did it recently go from supporting BCH to supporting BTC?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Roger, that you have not sold this account or the account has not been taken over by someone else, so in that regard, I understand that you have been around these parts quite longer than me, and even that you have been in bitcoin and promoting it longer than me, even though you got all pissy in around 2014 or 2015 or so when you could not get along with core developers and you began to both take matters too fucking personal and you started to assert that you deserved some kind of bigger voice and respect than you really did deserve.  So who knows what the fuck was going on with you - if you were always broken or if you became broken (and then more broken with the passage of time). 

Your situation is NOT really that much different from Vitalik or other whiners who felt that they could not get their way with bitcoin and then went into attack mode.  Sure, you are one of the famous disgruntled fucks, and you seem smart enough to be able to figure out ways to protect yourself (at least financially), even though you are likely pissing away a whole lot of value in your pursuits to attack bitcoin - and probably at the same time attempting to profit (or at least not lose value) and to maintain your psychological soundness (to the extent that is even possible anymore, because you do seem like you are morphing more and more into a BIGGER nutjob with the passage of time.

I understand, Roger, that you have a lot of people here bashing on you, and I really don't like to devolve into personal attacks, unless either I have been attacked personally, or maybe the person on the other side has really devolved into such personal peacocking or made these kinds of topics about them.  You surely have become guilty of this second part over the years, and you seem to have little to no couth when it comes to a devolving morality while rationalizing away regarding your behavior(s).   

Probably, the best that any of us can hope is that you do not mislead, deceive or damage too many innocent folks along the way.  Surely, there are some of your followers who deserve to be hurt because of either their greed, dumbness, vindictiveness and lack of refinement.   Some folks will learn along the way, yet like I mentioned, I remain concerned, moreso, about the innocent ones that you are luring into your nonsensical "baby saving" propaganda.