I have no particular love for Roger Ver. His biases always outsized his intellect. He supported Craig the Grifter during the BSV fork. He was a cheerleader for Ripple. Lots of things this guy did make me very distrustful of him.
However, none of that justifies the US government using weaponized tax policies to go after him. He gave up his US citizenship, and several years later they come after him for specious claims that he was really the beneficial owner of crypto coins he didn't declare on his exit filing. That is not "bank fraud" in my opinion.
So, whatever my personal distrust is for him, this witch hunt by the IRS is unacceptable. Let the guy live in peace. He followed the rules based on the best legal advice available at the time.
If the government has some actual evidence of a crime, then present it. Otherwise, this kind of treatment isn't acceptable even for the enemy.
I listened to that too. This guy forked Bitcoin to make BitcoinCash. As Badlanders would say - it looks like he is trying to seed the narrative by going on Tucker.
I listened to a great interview on Mike Adam’s about Roger Ver and they said Vers was a strong supporter of Bitcoincash to facilitate using bitcoin as a payment method for person-to-person transactions—as bitcoin was originally intended.
It is fascinating the non-profit organizations he has founded, that he rarely ever mentions, such as the Brownstone Institute that Mr Vers was the founding donor, to research medical freedom (ie MAHA).
I guess the nickname for Mr Ver is Bitcoin Jesus for all the donations he has made to organizations that support freedom of choice.
Brighteon interview: https://www.brighteon.com/e29fcd79-6c8d-498e-bb7c-7b7afcf423fe
Your welcome. As someone who’s is just recently really starting to research crypto and how institutions are trying to hijack the crypto community I see the potential but don’t really understand the process. There is a funny video on how crypto is viewed by many people I associate with:
He didn't even really support BCH either until after the SegWit2x agreement fell thru due to the commie faction reneging on their deal as u/lash described in another comment.
I think Roger like many others at the time had little insight into how coordinated the Marxists actually were at the time.
Not saying I agree on everything Roger have done, but he have been treated very similar to how Trump have been and I have enormous respect for him pushing through.
Spez: that being said I think Adam Back and others have been compromised by Epstein Crew.
Yes, Roger and other BCH people have said they were naive back then about the power of censorship and how subversive the attacks on Bitcoin would be. The BCH Podcast has an episode from a while back where they talked about the history and forks that happened later, BSV and XEC, and how those were likely attempts to divide the community further, but ended up weeding out the bad actors, and now it looks like smooth sailing ahead for BCH.
Earlier this year BCH solved the block size problem for good. Its now an algorithmic block size determined purely by network demand.
The way understand it, the group of people that took over BTC when Satoshi left (supposedly bankers) influenced the stalling of packet size scaling. Transaction packets were suppose to scale up in proportion to the size of the user base but this was stalled. This slowed BTC transactions down greatly. This group instead created the lightning network to solve the transaction rate issue. The lightning network may solve the problem but increases transaction costs as well. And will continue increasing them. Apparently these costs lessen the motivation of miners.
BTC Cash (BCH?) is a redesigned BTC that includes the upscale packet size and is supposedly far superior to BTC with regard to transaction rate.
It seems BTC is now better for wealth storage as where BCH is better as currency for transactions.
tl/dr bankers’ altering motives killed BTC as a currency and now BCH is better as currency.
Edit: FYI, I wrote to G-Money from Badlands about this asking for his thoughts on this since he is a HUGE BTC guy but instead of converse with me he cursed me up and down and told me not to come back.
BTC Cash (BCH?) is a redesigned BTC that includes the upscale packet size and is supposedly far superior to BTC with regard to transaction rate.
BTC was the only version in the beginning, but this split after the bankers took over the codebase via a company called BlockStream (get it? Block the Stream of transactions), added replace by fee (destroying trust in the payments on the merchant side) added something called segregated witness to manipulate the storage use per transaction and capped the amount of transactions possible to ~7 per second effectively making BTC useless as "Peer to peer electronic cash system" as described in the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
So then when BTC commies broke their agreement (like all commies do) the codebase was split/forked into Bitcoin Core (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) right before the segregated withess code crippled the code with overcomplexity even more.
So BCH is closer to the original Bitcoin and follows the incentive structure for ideal money as noted in the whitepaper.
But since barely anybody cares about principles compared to profits, everyone started to hype BTC as a "Store of Value" and the narrative have been going ever since, especially now with corrupt Wall Street pumping their now neutered financial replacement of the dollar that they control.
Edit: FYI, I wrote to G-Money from Badlands about this asking for his thoughts on this since he is a HUGE BTC guy but instead of converse with me he cursed me up and down and told me not to come back.
That's what they all do because they sold out Liberty for a lambo-hype. Corrupt as fuck.
SPEZ:
Obligatory link to the main commie fucktard that killed the expansion of peer to peer electronic cash.
He looks exactly like you would expect..
Nickname is One-meg Gregg:
I have this theory that the 1MB limit is actually a poison pill that will eventually destroy BTC once the block reward is not enough to sustain miners and fees are so high no one can afford to transact. If its not worth it to mine and hashrate drops significantly, it could cause a crisis like in 2017 where no blocks get mined for a long time and confidence drops, but this time much bigger and now institutional money is the only thing propping it up. If the crash happens at the right moment it could bring down all of the institutions that are deeply invested.
I suspect BlockStream would try to solve this crisis by forking BTC to a proof of stake model like they did with ETH and cut out miners completely, but if they did that the miners would just switch to mine BCH and BTC maxis would have to grapple with that.
Ouf, that's a take I have not thought of before. I like the way you think. There have been increased shilling towards POS over the past and they also have the mentality that miners should just bend the knee to perceived authority anyway.
Lightning also need a certain amount of blocksize to function also as described in its technical paper, so it being a big factor in the self destruction is just very fitting. That would really explode BCH in every way. It would definitely handle it with the usage based block size adjustment in place.
My pleasure. I have been in this community since the Donald days on Reddit and in the Bitcoin community since 2013 so have learned a lot in both areas, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
I had no idea about how strong the financial powers would be towards Bitcoin in terms of all the fraud perpetuated against Bitcoin Cash community to preserve their own narrative though. Principles over Profit I stuck with what actually worked as Bitcoin when they crippled BTC. Little did I know then of their massive coordinated subversion. Club of Marx/Satan is widespread and have a firm grip on more things that I expected when first entering into the space.
Like with Trump, we will win in the end though.
Peer to peer electronic cash will prevail.
Michael Sailor and Max Keiser are the Eye patch McCains of Crypto
Thanks for your input on BCH. I always thought it was superior & it already looks like it's days of losing value against BTC are in the past. I am betting on it rallying hard against BTC in the next year & possibly replacing it. If & when Trump pardon's Ver I would bet it get's even better traction.
i just hope that Team Trump are able to look beyond the price hype and analyze the actual technical functionality, because then it is a no-brainer.
But if they aim for number go up-hype, they will have a bad time when the tech break apart and it becomes even more impossible to use for normal transactions and commerce. Like, just try to use BTC like normal and send to each other and find how different it is and how it is nothing like peer to peer electronic cash.
I recommend you read the Bitcoin Whitepaper and Rogers book Hijacking Bitcoin and you will find what happened and why BCH is the only long term technical solution for peer to peer electronic cash
Satoshi is a fictional character. This idea that crypto leads to financial freedom is a trap, just like how the internet used to be free before they clamped down and weaponized it.
I was so frustrated listening to that segment I posted a comment to correct some of their points and BurningBright mocked me as he read it. I met him at one of their GART events a few months ago and tried to explain the Bitcoin Cash thing to him to his face and even then he just mocked me and couldn't get it. Almost everyone at Badlands has bought into the BTC maximalist narrative and label anyone who talks about other coins a "shitcoiner." GMoney can do nothing but insult people who try to point out BTC's flaws. Whenever I catch his show he rarely talks about anything interesting or teaches anything about the actual tech. Its just a big BTC circlejerk.
Same. This is good discussion though I appreciate everyone’s inpu. I’ll need to listen to the DPH part again then Tucker again and see where things go. 72 day rule.
Some good reads + a amazing video made from the book "Hijacking Bitcoin" you should go through before you take anything G-Money/DPH have to say on the subject as truth:
I have been arguing with ignorant people like you since 2015.
Opinion bros like badlands and yourself that have not even read the Bitcoin Whitepaper are doing themselves and everyone they talk with an enormous disfavor when they accuse prominent liberty-pushing people like Roger Ver.
Talk like that is cheap, while RV have been putting his money where his mouth is for decades.
People like RV have been fighting Marxists forever and then instead of doing their due diligence of verifying info they are smearing their closest ally.
Thank you. I couldn't believe they (on DPH) would actually support the government going after someone for TAXES of all things! Just because they heard from GMoney that he was a shady guy.
For how much they talk about psyops and narrative warfare its amazing they can't grasp this one. I usually say imagine the censorship that went on during covid but applied toward Bitcoin, and for a technical niche community about a topic almost no one understood or cared about. And we didn't have too many alternative platforms back then.
It's been the exact same tactics, so in that sense I already went through the massive propaganda push when they used them on the Bitcoin community.
With Mises, Ron Paul and the likes as the foundation for resisting the propaganda towards Bitcoin, I was able to quickly spot the similarities when the plandemic came around.
BTC maxies that hate on BCH are the same type of low info individuals that would get all the boosters and go out of their way to discredit people that resisted the deathjab.
Board is unfortunately full of rubes distracted by shitcoin scams like Ripple and probably Rogers fork coin... Meme stonks, and even gold ugh, which is such awful money it always creates fiat
The only thing I should need to point out is the refusal to expand the block size as recommended by Satoshi, BlockStream actually adding REPLACE BY FEE. and now the need for a trusted third party with the Lighntning network (aka Central banking 2.0) where you need someone elses funds to even be able to send transactions) but for the others readers I will also add this:
Roger Ver is legit. He has been promoting economic Liberty since way back, funded antiwar.com and funded Assange as well, and promoted Bitcoin since before marxists/CIA hijacked and crippled it.
People here that give him shit saying he is a criminal is an absolute fucking moron.
Ver gets props for being big on Bitcoin very early on, but at the same time he's so smooth brained he didn't understand Bitcoin and still doesn't. Of course then Tucker gets these kinds of guys on, Tucker's been on a disinfo roll all year ("But we're just having conversations!" lol)
The biggest tell is Ver's claim Bitcoin has been "hijacked". This is nonsense since the hijacking concept literally requires there being some existing centralized controlling entity, which is then forcibly or unexpectedly replaced by some other entity. Only an attention seeking moron would claim something like that.
You are not using your brain, or you are being deceitful on purpose.
They took over the codebase. That was/is the only central part of Bitcoin. and threatened the (mainly) Chinese miners with perceived authority as Chinese are well known to be pretty submissive to "the party". Marxists know their tactics work very well as they have been using them for decades.
They even did a wrap-up smear on Gavin (the one that was the lead maintainer) after Satoshi "dissapeared" and a blue haired edgy commie faggot took over and kicked him off.
Roger Ver has been way too emotional about this. It's not like increasing the blocksize was going make Bitcoin a worldwide payment system. The blocks are still confirmed on average every 10 minutes. That's not quick enough to facilitate a worldwide payment system.
Bitcoin needs a 2nd layer on top of the base layer to facilitate this and this is what's being worked on right now in the form of the lightning network.
The people behind "real" Bitcoin have found other solutions to put more transactions in one block without increasing the blocksize.
The argument against increasing the blocksize to facilitate more transactions per block, is that it makes the blockchain much larger and this can cause the network to be less decentralized.
The good thing is that Bitcoin can be forked again if needed. If in the future it becomes apparent that a certain crowd is trying to steer Bitcoin in the wrong direction, we the people can decide against it and steer Bitcion in another direction.
This is also what makes Bitcoin so amazing. The system itself is very democratic. We've had multiple Bitcoin forks (Bitcoin cash, Bitcoin diamond and 1 or 2 other ones). It's the community that decided that current Bitcoin is still good enough and the developers behind it still have the trust of the community.
Roger Ver has been way too emotional about this. It's not like increasing the blocksize was going make Bitcoin a worldwide payment system. The blocks are still confirmed on average every 10 minutes. That's not quick enough to facilitate a worldwide payment system.
What do you expect from someone that have been persecuted by the arbitrary force of the US swamp government for decades and jailed twice now..?
Did you know that originally there was not block size limit? it was supposed to be a temporary addin that was implemented later to supposedly avoid spam on the network in the start. Temporary measure for what have now become a hot political problem. sounds familiar?
You are missing the core feature that was in the Bitcoin technology since the beginning and that is 0-conf where you for smaller every-day payments should not need to wait for a transaction to be confirmed into a block.
This got taken away from BTC by Block Stream with the implementation of REPLACE BY FEE that made it possible for buyers to send a transaction to a merchant, receive the good and then replace the original transaction with another one to for example themselves again using a higher fee for the same transaction and thus defraud the merchant, making the tech useless for merchants to use.
This is one of the main reasons that STEAM and Microsoft stopped accepting Bitcoin way back when.
Bitcoin needs a 2nd layer on top of the base layer to facilitate this and this is what's being worked on right now in the form of the lightning network.
Not the case. Lightning even requires others peoples funds to be able to send from one to another and is thus not a peer to peer tech without the need for trusted third party, but instead heavily relies on funding by what will become consentrated liquidity hubs. also known as banks today.
Satoshi even laid out the path for increasing the blocksize over time on a steady manner to accommodate expanding usage:
"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete."
- Satoshi
The argument against increasing the blocksize to facilitate more transactions per block, is that it makes the blockchain much larger and this can cause the network to be less decentralized.
This is a commie fallacy. Just look at the exponential increases of harddrives since forever and from when Bitcoin was launched.
How much does a 10TB drive cost today? basically nothing for serious actors. but it is not the disk size that is important. it is the hash. nobody can mine with computers now anyway and specialized hardware is needed..
On DPH wed night they were saying this was shady. The guy was committing bank fraud and knew about being investigated or indicted as far back as 2017. I’ll have to find the timestamp https://rumble.com/v5y70fe-devolution-power-hour-ep.-309-1030-pm-et-.html?e9s=src_v1_blp
I have no particular love for Roger Ver. His biases always outsized his intellect. He supported Craig the Grifter during the BSV fork. He was a cheerleader for Ripple. Lots of things this guy did make me very distrustful of him.
However, none of that justifies the US government using weaponized tax policies to go after him. He gave up his US citizenship, and several years later they come after him for specious claims that he was really the beneficial owner of crypto coins he didn't declare on his exit filing. That is not "bank fraud" in my opinion.
So, whatever my personal distrust is for him, this witch hunt by the IRS is unacceptable. Let the guy live in peace. He followed the rules based on the best legal advice available at the time.
If the government has some actual evidence of a crime, then present it. Otherwise, this kind of treatment isn't acceptable even for the enemy.
I listened to that too. This guy forked Bitcoin to make BitcoinCash. As Badlanders would say - it looks like he is trying to seed the narrative by going on Tucker.
I listened to a great interview on Mike Adam’s about Roger Ver and they said Vers was a strong supporter of Bitcoincash to facilitate using bitcoin as a payment method for person-to-person transactions—as bitcoin was originally intended.
It is fascinating the non-profit organizations he has founded, that he rarely ever mentions, such as the Brownstone Institute that Mr Vers was the founding donor, to research medical freedom (ie MAHA). I guess the nickname for Mr Ver is Bitcoin Jesus for all the donations he has made to organizations that support freedom of choice. Brighteon interview: https://www.brighteon.com/e29fcd79-6c8d-498e-bb7c-7b7afcf423fe
Thanks for that link.
Your welcome. As someone who’s is just recently really starting to research crypto and how institutions are trying to hijack the crypto community I see the potential but don’t really understand the process. There is a funny video on how crypto is viewed by many people I associate with:
https://fb.watch/ws5vKBRXgP/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
I would absolutely love to have a system that stops, or wakes people up to, the fractionalized banking system and imo coming banking collapse.
According to Grok, Roger Ver had no involvement in the forking of Bitcoin to BCH. However, was a supporter of it.
He didn't even really support BCH either until after the SegWit2x agreement fell thru due to the commie faction reneging on their deal as u/lash described in another comment.
I think Roger like many others at the time had little insight into how coordinated the Marxists actually were at the time.
Not saying I agree on everything Roger have done, but he have been treated very similar to how Trump have been and I have enormous respect for him pushing through.
Spez: that being said I think Adam Back and others have been compromised by Epstein Crew.
Yes, Roger and other BCH people have said they were naive back then about the power of censorship and how subversive the attacks on Bitcoin would be. The BCH Podcast has an episode from a while back where they talked about the history and forks that happened later, BSV and XEC, and how those were likely attempts to divide the community further, but ended up weeding out the bad actors, and now it looks like smooth sailing ahead for BCH.
Earlier this year BCH solved the block size problem for good. Its now an algorithmic block size determined purely by network demand.
The way understand it, the group of people that took over BTC when Satoshi left (supposedly bankers) influenced the stalling of packet size scaling. Transaction packets were suppose to scale up in proportion to the size of the user base but this was stalled. This slowed BTC transactions down greatly. This group instead created the lightning network to solve the transaction rate issue. The lightning network may solve the problem but increases transaction costs as well. And will continue increasing them. Apparently these costs lessen the motivation of miners.
BTC Cash (BCH?) is a redesigned BTC that includes the upscale packet size and is supposedly far superior to BTC with regard to transaction rate.
It seems BTC is now better for wealth storage as where BCH is better as currency for transactions.
tl/dr bankers’ altering motives killed BTC as a currency and now BCH is better as currency.
Edit: FYI, I wrote to G-Money from Badlands about this asking for his thoughts on this since he is a HUGE BTC guy but instead of converse with me he cursed me up and down and told me not to come back.
BTC was the only version in the beginning, but this split after the bankers took over the codebase via a company called BlockStream (get it? Block the Stream of transactions), added replace by fee (destroying trust in the payments on the merchant side) added something called segregated witness to manipulate the storage use per transaction and capped the amount of transactions possible to ~7 per second effectively making BTC useless as "Peer to peer electronic cash system" as described in the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
So then when BTC commies broke their agreement (like all commies do) the codebase was split/forked into Bitcoin Core (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) right before the segregated withess code crippled the code with overcomplexity even more.
So BCH is closer to the original Bitcoin and follows the incentive structure for ideal money as noted in the whitepaper.
But since barely anybody cares about principles compared to profits, everyone started to hype BTC as a "Store of Value" and the narrative have been going ever since, especially now with corrupt Wall Street pumping their now neutered financial replacement of the dollar that they control.
That's what they all do because they sold out Liberty for a lambo-hype. Corrupt as fuck.
SPEZ: Obligatory link to the main commie fucktard that killed the expansion of peer to peer electronic cash. He looks exactly like you would expect.. Nickname is One-meg Gregg:
https://www.weusecoins.com/images/gregory-maxwell.png
"...broke their agreement (like all commies do)" So, they're no different than US as far as foreign relations go, at least.
It's the same picture.
The same people behind the scenes.
Edit: I just hope that Trump don't fall for it, but they seem heavy invested into the BTC pump now.
I have this theory that the 1MB limit is actually a poison pill that will eventually destroy BTC once the block reward is not enough to sustain miners and fees are so high no one can afford to transact. If its not worth it to mine and hashrate drops significantly, it could cause a crisis like in 2017 where no blocks get mined for a long time and confidence drops, but this time much bigger and now institutional money is the only thing propping it up. If the crash happens at the right moment it could bring down all of the institutions that are deeply invested.
I suspect BlockStream would try to solve this crisis by forking BTC to a proof of stake model like they did with ETH and cut out miners completely, but if they did that the miners would just switch to mine BCH and BTC maxis would have to grapple with that.
Ouf, that's a take I have not thought of before. I like the way you think. There have been increased shilling towards POS over the past and they also have the mentality that miners should just bend the knee to perceived authority anyway.
Lightning also need a certain amount of blocksize to function also as described in its technical paper, so it being a big factor in the self destruction is just very fitting. That would really explode BCH in every way. It would definitely handle it with the usage based block size adjustment in place.
Thank you for adding insight.
My pleasure. I have been in this community since the Donald days on Reddit and in the Bitcoin community since 2013 so have learned a lot in both areas, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
I had no idea about how strong the financial powers would be towards Bitcoin in terms of all the fraud perpetuated against Bitcoin Cash community to preserve their own narrative though. Principles over Profit I stuck with what actually worked as Bitcoin when they crippled BTC. Little did I know then of their massive coordinated subversion. Club of Marx/Satan is widespread and have a firm grip on more things that I expected when first entering into the space.
Like with Trump, we will win in the end though.
Peer to peer electronic cash will prevail.
Michael Sailor and Max Keiser are the Eye patch McCains of Crypto
Thanks for your input on BCH. I always thought it was superior & it already looks like it's days of losing value against BTC are in the past. I am betting on it rallying hard against BTC in the next year & possibly replacing it. If & when Trump pardon's Ver I would bet it get's even better traction.
i just hope that Team Trump are able to look beyond the price hype and analyze the actual technical functionality, because then it is a no-brainer.
But if they aim for number go up-hype, they will have a bad time when the tech break apart and it becomes even more impossible to use for normal transactions and commerce. Like, just try to use BTC like normal and send to each other and find how different it is and how it is nothing like peer to peer electronic cash.
Thanks for those comments, There is always so much more to learn about crypto. I just accumulate BTC right now.
I recommend you read the Bitcoin Whitepaper and Rogers book Hijacking Bitcoin and you will find what happened and why BCH is the only long term technical solution for peer to peer electronic cash
Satoshi is a fictional character. This idea that crypto leads to financial freedom is a trap, just like how the internet used to be free before they clamped down and weaponized it.
Have the internet not increased the global level of liberty? Truth shall set you free and where are we today?
Trump would NEVER have won without the internet.
True or not it has no relevance to this conversation. You’re most likely right but I don’t really care either way.
Not true. The fork happened independent of Roger.
RTFM && STFU
Roger wants more economic Liberty for the entire world and you can't even get the story straight.
The dude is facing 100+ years in jail and you think this interview is for him to pump his bags?
Do everyone a favor and don't be a low info retard.
I just posted what Badlands said. I didn't come up with that myself. I never heard of the guy before.
I was so frustrated listening to that segment I posted a comment to correct some of their points and BurningBright mocked me as he read it. I met him at one of their GART events a few months ago and tried to explain the Bitcoin Cash thing to him to his face and even then he just mocked me and couldn't get it. Almost everyone at Badlands has bought into the BTC maximalist narrative and label anyone who talks about other coins a "shitcoiner." GMoney can do nothing but insult people who try to point out BTC's flaws. Whenever I catch his show he rarely talks about anything interesting or teaches anything about the actual tech. Its just a big BTC circlejerk.
Same. This is good discussion though I appreciate everyone’s inpu. I’ll need to listen to the DPH part again then Tucker again and see where things go. 72 day rule.
Some good reads + a amazing video made from the book "Hijacking Bitcoin" you should go through before you take anything G-Money/DPH have to say on the subject as truth:
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
https://medium.com/the-crypto-kiosk/how-the-banks-hijacked-bitcoin-using-blockstream-as-a-trojan-horse-why-bitcoin-cash-1ea347de5d70
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETp7oyzDbmo
Why so emo bro? Get a grip. Nothing said in that tone will ever be taken seriously.
I have been arguing with ignorant people like you since 2015.
Opinion bros like badlands and yourself that have not even read the Bitcoin Whitepaper are doing themselves and everyone they talk with an enormous disfavor when they accuse prominent liberty-pushing people like Roger Ver.
Talk like that is cheap, while RV have been putting his money where his mouth is for decades.
People like RV have been fighting Marxists forever and then instead of doing their due diligence of verifying info they are smearing their closest ally.
Thank you. I couldn't believe they (on DPH) would actually support the government going after someone for TAXES of all things! Just because they heard from GMoney that he was a shady guy.
For how much they talk about psyops and narrative warfare its amazing they can't grasp this one. I usually say imagine the censorship that went on during covid but applied toward Bitcoin, and for a technical niche community about a topic almost no one understood or cared about. And we didn't have too many alternative platforms back then.
Exactly!!
It's been the exact same tactics, so in that sense I already went through the massive propaganda push when they used them on the Bitcoin community.
With Mises, Ron Paul and the likes as the foundation for resisting the propaganda towards Bitcoin, I was able to quickly spot the similarities when the plandemic came around.
BTC maxies that hate on BCH are the same type of low info individuals that would get all the boosters and go out of their way to discredit people that resisted the deathjab.
Bitcoin might be the biggest element of "The Plan" imo. Definitely tied to Q and Space Force. Wish this board would research it more
Board is unfortunately full of rubes distracted by shitcoin scams like Ripple and probably Rogers fork coin... Meme stonks, and even gold ugh, which is such awful money it always creates fiat
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=78WxRxbAM6c
The only thing I should need to point out is the refusal to expand the block size as recommended by Satoshi, BlockStream actually adding REPLACE BY FEE. and now the need for a trusted third party with the Lighntning network (aka Central banking 2.0) where you need someone elses funds to even be able to send transactions) but for the others readers I will also add this:
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
https://medium.com/the-crypto-kiosk/how-the-banks-hijacked-bitcoin-using-blockstream-as-a-trojan-horse-why-bitcoin-cash-1ea347de5d70
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETp7oyzDbmo
Roger Ver is legit. He has been promoting economic Liberty since way back, funded antiwar.com and funded Assange as well, and promoted Bitcoin since before marxists/CIA hijacked and crippled it.
People here that give him shit saying he is a criminal is an absolute fucking moron.
Ver gets props for being big on Bitcoin very early on, but at the same time he's so smooth brained he didn't understand Bitcoin and still doesn't. Of course then Tucker gets these kinds of guys on, Tucker's been on a disinfo roll all year ("But we're just having conversations!" lol)
The biggest tell is Ver's claim Bitcoin has been "hijacked". This is nonsense since the hijacking concept literally requires there being some existing centralized controlling entity, which is then forcibly or unexpectedly replaced by some other entity. Only an attention seeking moron would claim something like that.
You are not using your brain, or you are being deceitful on purpose.
They took over the codebase. That was/is the only central part of Bitcoin. and threatened the (mainly) Chinese miners with perceived authority as Chinese are well known to be pretty submissive to "the party". Marxists know their tactics work very well as they have been using them for decades.
They even did a wrap-up smear on Gavin (the one that was the lead maintainer) after Satoshi "dissapeared" and a blue haired edgy commie faggot took over and kicked him off.
You should change your username to dumbbaum.
Roger Ver has been way too emotional about this. It's not like increasing the blocksize was going make Bitcoin a worldwide payment system. The blocks are still confirmed on average every 10 minutes. That's not quick enough to facilitate a worldwide payment system.
Bitcoin needs a 2nd layer on top of the base layer to facilitate this and this is what's being worked on right now in the form of the lightning network.
The people behind "real" Bitcoin have found other solutions to put more transactions in one block without increasing the blocksize.
The argument against increasing the blocksize to facilitate more transactions per block, is that it makes the blockchain much larger and this can cause the network to be less decentralized.
The good thing is that Bitcoin can be forked again if needed. If in the future it becomes apparent that a certain crowd is trying to steer Bitcoin in the wrong direction, we the people can decide against it and steer Bitcion in another direction.
This is also what makes Bitcoin so amazing. The system itself is very democratic. We've had multiple Bitcoin forks (Bitcoin cash, Bitcoin diamond and 1 or 2 other ones). It's the community that decided that current Bitcoin is still good enough and the developers behind it still have the trust of the community.
What do you expect from someone that have been persecuted by the arbitrary force of the US swamp government for decades and jailed twice now..?
Did you know that originally there was not block size limit? it was supposed to be a temporary addin that was implemented later to supposedly avoid spam on the network in the start. Temporary measure for what have now become a hot political problem. sounds familiar?
You are missing the core feature that was in the Bitcoin technology since the beginning and that is 0-conf where you for smaller every-day payments should not need to wait for a transaction to be confirmed into a block.
This got taken away from BTC by Block Stream with the implementation of REPLACE BY FEE that made it possible for buyers to send a transaction to a merchant, receive the good and then replace the original transaction with another one to for example themselves again using a higher fee for the same transaction and thus defraud the merchant, making the tech useless for merchants to use.
This is one of the main reasons that STEAM and Microsoft stopped accepting Bitcoin way back when.
Not the case. Lightning even requires others peoples funds to be able to send from one to another and is thus not a peer to peer tech without the need for trusted third party, but instead heavily relies on funding by what will become consentrated liquidity hubs. also known as banks today.
Satoshi even laid out the path for increasing the blocksize over time on a steady manner to accommodate expanding usage:
"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete." - Satoshi
This is a commie fallacy. Just look at the exponential increases of harddrives since forever and from when Bitcoin was launched.
How much does a 10TB drive cost today? basically nothing for serious actors. but it is not the disk size that is important. it is the hash. nobody can mine with computers now anyway and specialized hardware is needed..