Roger Ver deposits 25,000 BTC to Bitfinex to manipulate the market

He did not make BCH. he was not involved in that project at all. He has become one of its biggest supporers.
Why does he want to support it? I cant speak for him, but based on what he has said on youtube and twitter he thinks that bitcoin cash more closely resembles the original bitcoin whitepaper and solves the scaling issues.
I also dont see how this is a “hostile takeover” they are simply moving their investments and mining rom bitcoin to bitcoin cash. thats free market, not a hostile takeover. a hostile takeover would be attacking the bitcoin nodes or a 51% attack
 
What do you think of spam Txs attack to clog the original blockchain, so that fees go trough the roof and BCH could sell itself?
 
everyone should be asking themselves, if roger is so idealistic about bch taking over, why does he still have way more than 25,000 btc? he will never sell his btc. That should tell you everything you need to know about what’s going on. Hope you guys got cheap btc last night.
 
If that was directed towards me, I personally would say that those actions are not “moral”. I agree with some of the sentiments from above. There are people out there (a very small minority BTW) who are using bitcoin as a defense against fiat currency and evil governments.
 
We have gone form SegWit2x, to BCH, before that, it was the ICOs, before that it was China.
We can move from topic to topic, but every time there will be a divide, we need to accept this.
But we do not need to take a debate away into broken down conversations with no factual context.
 
Guys,
I am calling a restoration of peace and respect to this thread please.
Lets bring it back to a debate, and not a squabble
 
I just want to say I respect everyones viewpoints here and I am a noob to this space but guess what. Look at the price over the last 6 months… Half of the people in bitcoin now are noobs, and in 6 months MORE than half of the people in bitcoin will be noobs… But that is only if noobs don’t approach a bitcoin that is burning itself down.
 
LOl calm down son, if you werent so deranged and upset you could have made amazing profit.
 
Yes you are emotional and mad at BCH. Don’t you see how fked up that is? What you witnessed was the biggest pump in crypto history. But it was more than that, it was a trial run. Those 3000 BTc buy walls that appeared on the exchanges at 0.5 BTc just before the crash were intentional and probably were Roger Ver and his pals. They basically let everyone out. It was an amazing thing i witnessed and tells me the pump was all about putting BCH on the map and testing the waters.
https://twitter.com/x/status/929733945733926912
 
Last edited:
No, that question wasn’t towards you, but rather to @JasonMasterNET. He was talking about the hostile attack on BTC. But thanks for you inquiry on this topic. Of course, it is not “moral”.


But seriously, tho… Increasing the block sizes is the only one solution. What if the massive spam TX attack would fill these blocks again? There must be another way. BCH is the relatively new coin. And in the end, in case of the (very unlikely) takeover, BCH would have to deal with the same problems.


BTC can’t scale, so does the Internet, right?😀
 
But seriously, tho… Increasing the block sizes is the only one solution. What if the massive spam TX attack would fill these blocks again? There must be another way. BCH is the relatively new coin. And in the end, in case of the (very unlikely) takeover, BCH would have to deal with the same problems.


This is a good way to debate it out bro. :)
 
BCH really isnt all that new since it is a fork. It is basically a hybrid of bitconi genesis and bitcoin segwit1X
 
Sure. But if it’s to reach the mass adoption (or at least VISA-like capacity and speeds), do you really think that bigger blocks would help? I don’t think so. It’s just temporal solution…
Segwit was not even a thing when Satoshi was around.
Noob question, tho: why do people so against to the Segwit? What makes Segwit so UN-Satoshi, if the Segwit was not there as an idea at the time of the whitepaper was published? I just don’t understand this particular thing…
The consensus decided that it needs Segwit for scaling. What’s wrong with that?
 
It is the technical issues with node signalling, wallets recognising the transaction and what chain, also, there are some issues with exchanges and compatibility.
The miners would have to change over source coding, and hardware.
A lot of cost
 
segwit is necessary. there is no way to have the amount of transactions needed for daily spending mass adoption with big blocks. The blockchain will become to big and difficult for nodes to be run, except by centralized powers. segwit is the foundation for lightning and also gets rid of the mining exploit the miners are fighting so hard to keep and misdirect everyone from
 
What we need, and i have said this in a previous thread;
Instead of hard forking into different coins; we need a sister-coin which is not actually a coin to be traded, but more a latency token, whereby it is fundamentally the bitcoin entirely, except, it is there for when latency increases on the blockchain, so it could detect difficulty ratio, recognise that the hash rate is dropping, and alleviate strain on one chain, by splitting a transaction into two parts, with a unique identifier, and at the end, having a protocol which amalgamates the two separate transactions, but this would be easy if the sister-coin was a replica of BTC with the same node signalling, and essentially the same blockchain, but with a change in source coding to recognise overload on the 1mb blocks, and then duplicate into its own 1mb blocks, on a different chain, but one that is parallel to bitcoin. So no free coins, no dumping free cash, as it would not be engineered in this way.
I strongly believe BTC can be scaled up, with a clone of the legacy chain, and a data exchange analysing node between the two to detect parameters, and then execute orders to the legacy chain, mark it in the ledger, generate the keys and signatures, validate it with a protocol to verify it, thus maintaining replay protection.
Guys, I have a new idea!
Much like a TCP protocl
 
This is exactly what I was saying all the time when this “Segwit-NOSegwit” was started. Thanks for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top