Topic: Roger Ver why is he red trusted? - page 4. (Read 1833 times)

Doesn't look that bad when he isn't jesus anymore. The look fits perfectly for a scammer he is.

Most people here likely do not have the tech chops to know whether BTC or BCH keeps more strictly to satoshis principles or not.

Either way it would have been sensible and correct when one was trading at 10x the price to make sure people understood that the majority of people considered BTC as just bitcoin and never attempted to confuse by  calling any other variant bitcoin alone.  Even if you believed the majority were wrong to support BTC as bitcoin since it could result in losses for those that were not familiar with the entire debacle.

I think if it is claimed that bch keeps more to satoshi principles than btc it should have just been called bitcoinclassic.

If people believe his intention was to mislead others into believing the majority considered bch as the original bitcoin and the one with the most abundant support then that could be seen as red trust worthy.

I do not think it looks good for bitcoin though that one of the most avid and original supporters of bitcoin has glowing red trust with such over blown terminology it looks very negative for the entire movement. A better wording could be something like.

Roger believes that bch holds more true to satoshis original principles and in his exuberance showed extreme lack of care that lead other people to understand that this was a view held by the majority which is was not. So caution is adviced when dealing with roger.

I think a big scam warning header on his threads looks pretty fucking bad for bitcoin jesus too.

Going forward it is important to recognize that the majority consider btc to be bitcoin. If that were ever to change in the future then there could be argument for revisiting this but I think bitcoinclassic is a better name. Looking at the support for both that looks unlikely to happen any time soon anyway.

There is certainly a case to argue this board is losing its free speech if you dare to approach the wrong set of people or topics. That should not be the case and this must be closely observed.

There is also possible cause for concern regarding some of the other projects roger has supported. This may be due to lack of research but even so you leave yourself open to criticism if you openly support projects where there is strong evidence the project is scammy or that any scammers are part of the leadership.

Since the influence and scale of roger is considerable then it is likely his actions were perhaps scrutinized and the reaction was stronger than if it had been an average member, on a personal level his actions seem LESS deliberately untrustworthy than many of the people choosing to leave him red trust. This statement can be validated by carefully reading this thread and looking for the names of those insisting they paint him red.

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


I think bitcoin.com can be used to promote bch, but it should make clear the majority of people consider BTC to be BITCOIN and both are clearly mentioned.

We don't like the projects (alts) he became involved with, but he was obviously once a very big force behind bitcoin and contributed to bringing a lot of attention to the trustless decentralized arena we are trying to develop. It is sad to see him given red tags by documented deliberate scammers. At least have some people with zero instances of observable financially motivated wrong doing leave the red . This is bitcoin jesus we are dealing with. He should only be nailed up by those with clean hands if it must be done.

We don't know if bch or btc holds more closely to satoshis principles. It seems there is strong argument for both sides. If objectively from a more trained and capable point of view roger is correct then we understand your frustration. Still it is important to make others aware this is not the view held by the majority of investors or miners at this time even if you can prove it is true. Since the new influx of crypto supporters should be protected from any misconceptions, we don't want them instantly put off if they feel they have been lead into making a mistake.

Surely either variant is way better than what the mainstream currently use.

It is all fun and games until you get punched in the mouth.

That jail time was his first lesson but guys like Roger ain't fast learners.

Nice find... and an interesting read.  Seems he got off reasonably lightly given what he'd done.  Also seems the thought he had a history of issues that meant he doesn't think rules should apply to him. 

It all fits.

Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers.

I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay.  I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.

Deep breaths Roger...is this really worth your mental health?

Sure you did.
Core is all over the place, including:



I see both shitforks share the same narrative - we are better than our daddy the king.
Pfff, if it wasn't for daddy BTC, you wouldn't exist in the first place.
You owe everything that you are to BTC - never ever forget that - have some respect or just:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlmsK59ncHs

It's Christopher Williams, relax..

There is nothing fair and square about this.

You bought the domain through an opportunity and instead of selling the domain back at a higher price - which most 2nd grade domain resellers like yourself do - you cashed in big time by creating your own shitcoin.

Okay, maybe there is nothing "wrong" in what you decide to do with your property. But you are never going to not be a thieving immoral opportunistic scumbag.

And all those folks that you dupe into buying your shitcoin instead of BTC itself, they will come back to dump your shitcoin by the masses and with it, your ass as well.

Quoting myself, would love to hear Roger answer.

Me: Why isn't BTC bitcoin then?

You: Because it has high fees that prohibit it from truly acting as "cash."

Me: But BCH also has fees.

You: Yes but they are very low.

Me: But it still has fees. They both have fees. Just because one coin has lower fees than the other does not mean that one is cash while the other is not. You are making an arbitrary distinction and using it as a semantics-based talking point which fails to detract from the fact that the broader community (users, merchants, exchanges and miners) has decided Bitcoin (BTC) is Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is an altcoin.

If you wanted to appear more honest you would concede the fact that the community does not accept your premise, nor is it likely to in the future, and you would rename your coin so it is no longer possible for others to accuse you of engaging in deceptive practices.

Do you realize that BCH has no white paper as well, then, by your own definition ?
And you forgot the piece of software (which contains the BTC ticker) that came with the white paper.
But ... This is barely an omission.

BTC isn't "Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" by your definition of "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system".
This is subjective.

Stating the obvious won't obfuscate the fact that you try to blur the lines as much as you can, so uneducated newcomers end up buying BCH thinking they are buying "Bitcoin".

Look in the mirror.  BTC isn't Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system.
The Bitcoin white paper doesn't specify a ticker symbol.
BTC has no white paper.

I know the trick you're relying on is using your personal definition of cash to suit your end goal. The fact that BCH has smaller transaction fees does not render it fitting of the definition of "cash" while BTC is thereby rendered "not cash." Either they are both "cash", or they both aren't.

You lost your battle in the hearts and the minds of the community a long time ago, as well as on paper.

Please do the right thing and change the name of your coin.

Exactly. Even if this wasn't you (and we can only take his word for it), this is just an example of your entire ethos - pretend your coin is something it isn't. Whoever did do it obviously thought you would approve, because the rest of your site is littered with the exact same nonsense of deliberately muddying the waters, using the word "bitcoin" to refer to either just your coin or to both coins (but never to actual bitcoin), and bitcoin core (which isn't a coin and doesn't exist outside the mind of BCHers) to refer to actual bitcoin.

If your coin is so much better, why do you need to leech off bitcoin's success? If you truly believe bitcoin is a scam, why are you so eager to steal its name?

Owe you some merit there. Can someone favor me please. Thanks

It might be Ethereum's future tho, given the backlash on BSV.

Bitcoin is what miners and the community say it is.

Which one do bcash have? Neither. Then what is bcash?

Yep, keep avoiding the important questions.

This is what I just posted in WO LOL

---

In your point, BCH is a scam too?

But you are still using the fame of Bitcoin (BTC) to promote your altcoin (BCH).
Isn't it ironic?

My point is that BTC is no longer Bitcoin.


No.  I bought the domain name fair and square and will use it to promote "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", BTC isn't that.