You're going to want to read this!

As you can likely see, this isn't going to be a formal article, but the points I make are a strong push about an important point that plagues the cryptocurrency industry.

So, you're brand new to cryptocurrencies. You are convinced that you should invest heavily in Bitcoin. You see a variation of the following next to the coin you are about to buy:

Before I launch off on my well-defined, slightly organized diatribe, I want to state something some may find confusing:

I really like and admire Roger Ver. To make things worse, I actually feel a bit of pity on behalf of Craig Wright. There, I said it. So, taking a nod from the Apostle Paul, I want to start with something encouraging and thoughtful towards both, before I dig in with some Al Gore-like inconvenient truths, though mine may actually hold much more water than that which melts off of icebergs. A great big, fat, climate-bashing L-O-L.

Roger Ver: he is a smart, well-studied, seemingly decent guy. He says a LOT of things that I have agreed with over the years. He has held his own better than some when discussing his beliefs and understanding of technical economics. He is the face and voice for Bitcoin Cash and I find his loyalty towards an ideal not only admirable, but sincere.

Roger has also been deeply wronged by the government of a country that he loved in the past, and this is not that article where I tell you all of his story. Google is your friend. But, for many in the crypto space who simply do not understand a single thing based in reality about politics or economics, Roger Ver has some unquestionably valid reasons to be an aggressively Libertarian-leaning cryptocurrency leader. It doesn't make him extremely correct in his positions, but it certainly gives him a reason for his perspective, and it angers me that he has been given such a reason for bitterness and mistrust. People like Ver deserve better.

Why would I pity Wright? Craig Wright seems to have one thing going for him in his life, and that is the curiosity of whether the 'next time' he sues someone or gives a drunken rant on someone's video feed, that he will provide a convincing reason that he is the actual Satoshi Nakamoto. I am always saddened for someone who's claim to fame in viral social media is that everyone thinks they are a fake.

Wright does actually understand the reasoning behind his arguments, and has good reason for why SV, Satoshi's Vision, is a better version of Bitcoin, honoring it's original design and intentions. His coin could actually end up being the better version of Bitcoin out of all three; the actual real Bitcoin, the not real real Bitcoin (Cash), and SV... a better the real not real original Bitcoin.

When I do my rant on cryptocurrency companies and why they are personally responsible for all of us suffering a lack of honest volume, it will include the damage that these hardforks have done to the industry. Whenever I have spoken to this in the past, I have been challenged for proof, and I love the freedom I have, that I am NOT Craig Wright, nor do I feel any responsibility to prove to someone else I am right about something that I know in my gut. I'm going to state the facts as I see them, with whatever evidence or instinct I so wish. That's the United States of the Blockchain that I am a citizen of, thank you Ver-much! (intended).

Now, the purpose of this rant.

Bitcoin Core is the original, unaltered, yet largely altered Bitcoin. It has changed hands of developers and decision makers over the ebb and flow of Bitcoinery evolution. But, it is recognized by all as going to the full lineage of the blockchain and it's origin address and block. Whether it perfectly adheres to Satoshi's full vision and stays on course, or whether programmers make some absolutely wretched decisions in the future, there is no debate that Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Period. End of story.

There is no other variant of Bitcoin fighting for 60%+ dominance. Nothing comes close. Ether is next in line, and it doesn't come close. Roger Ver and Wright both forked because of ideological issues with the direction of the original Bitcoin. In a jealous bout of rebellion, they forked for Bitcoin Cash, so that they could produce a better alternative to Bitcoin, that was more true to the original Bitcoin. In this case, for the betterment of crypto, it should have been a coin project given its own name. I agree with Richard Heart who has stated to Ver time and time again, they should have named it BCash, which not only has a better marketing ring to it, but would be more honest to hearken to the early days of Bitcoin without claiming to actually BE Bitcoin.

Since neither Ver nor Wright could trust their other partner, and because they couldn't stand each other, Wright did what he does best; stuck it to all of his previous partners, bad-talked everyone, threatened a string of lawsuits and made a donkey of himself, bathing in a bubble bath of self-pride that would make Enron Executives look like heart donors. Wright created the Bitcoin Cash Satoshi's vision fork, which in turn caused a war, ON the blockchain, for who could outperform the other. The honor for the winner, would receive the prize of the title "Bitcoin Cash". Despite popular opinion, I watched this hash war live hour by hour, and SV won, it was the largest rigged fixed load of bologna anyone could see with their own eyes, but not a single person recognized it for themselves. No, I do not care about proving it. I'm right, not Wright. I am NOT Satoshi, but I know what I observed and this is about something else. Also, I don't care for that particular wrong to be Wrighted, as CSW swore to burn the whole blockchain to the expletive ground. So much for "whichever coin gets mass adoption, we all stand behind."

:-)

So, now we have Bitcoin, which is the real Bitcoin with some new people, finally better programmers, and some wishy washy decision makers that could blow things up, but it would still be Bitcoin, and we have Bitcoin Cash, which I prefer to call Bitcoin Crash because their stupid little contest almost wrecked the entire market, again I know what I know and what I saw and have proof, and will write a post about it, but I will not waste a second of my time trying to prove what I know to be true, because that is how I roll, AND... to continue full-paragraph run-on-sentence that I am actually proud of, we have Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision, which is Wright's wrong.

Bitcoin Cash uses a fake version of the original Bitcoin logo, and calls itself Bitcoin, marketing that it is the real Bitcoin. If this were a battle of soft drink formulas, there would have been a lawsuit and the name would have been forced to change, and there would have been payments in the millions of dollars in damages. But, this is crypto, so people allow the tainted reputations of the entire industry to make a gripe and stick out their childish tongues. Remember, the irony is I really like and admire Ver, so to this, I can simply state that it is beneath him to hold on to his roots with Bitcoin and pretend he is still prosthelytizing the real Bitcoin. Using the Bitcoin.com website to only allow the use of Bitcoin Cash is not only deceptive, it should be criminal. Why is it not? So, while Ver out of anyone, deserves a bit of honor for his loyalty to Bitcoin, and what I believe is a true desire to promote what he considers the best version of it, he is knowingly and without any hesitation, lying to every person in the crypto sector, and misleading every single person who has just heard of Bitcoin and wants to ride it to a new all time high. Imagine some newbie buying $100,000 of Bitcoin, watching it do a halving, expecting it to turn their investment into $10,000,000 and rightfully so, unless China blows the whole thing up, and then when they go to sell at the top for a massive profit, they find they have the WRONG ONE! That just is not right!

The same can be said for Wright's wrong, and what goes for SV goes the same for Bitcoin Cash and vice versa.

Two more important points, and truly, I could make 100 others (you want me to? I will just donate some Hive and I will honor that!):

Both Ver and Wright both make the same statement I have also heard from Justin Sun (I am SO glad people are starting to see him for the Circus Ring promoter that he is) and many others, that they just want the best coin to win mass adoption for the betterment of crypto and the world. They stand behind their coin, but if any coin in particular wins the minds and hearts of the masses, they would all get behind that. This makes them massive hypocrites of the worst order, since their battle to win the title which all of us should simply call Fake Bitcoin, both Ver and Wright in blind vision were willing to bankrupt the entire Bitcoin blockchain ecosystem to prove they are better. This was not good for crypto in any sense of the concept. Coinbase stepped back from Bitcoin Cash completely during that month, while volume dropped from the market in multiple directions with the warranted FUD of what might happen. We saw a drop in the REAL Bitcoin's value to 1/3, and it took more than $100 Billion of value out of altcoins that were on a track to succeed.

Someone tell me, Ver, Wright, how was that helping the best coin win towards mass adoption? It took more than a year for some to even consider re-entering the space, and others were completely rekkt. You did just the opposite of helping the crypto ecosystem and you came darn close to ruining what took a decade to build. Both of you should be ashamed of your dishonesty, under-handedness and selfish actions. But, again, for whatever reason, That's just crypto being crypto.

I reiterate that I do like and respect Roger Ver, but that is only in contrast to what he is choosing to represent. In the end, I don't actually mind either coin project at all. They had reasonable ideas to explore and good reasons to be concerned about the original Bitcoin. So, once again, my complaint is not about a fork, civil disagreements in ideology, nor about the second fork forking again. These are all things that happen. The issue is dishonesty in labeling, logo, marketing, promotion, website branding and sales, and no one in their (W)right minds would disagree.

The second final point, is that if you despise what something represents, or are saddened that a project is being handled in a manner you are certain is wrong, you do not go and name your project the same name! This is proof that you are piggy-backing a project that you disagree with, speak negatively about, and simultaneously, hypocritically lie to people to think that you ARE that project! How does this make any sense? Because of greed. Dishonesty and deception is okay, because you know dominance is dominance. The greatest thing either fake Bitcoin project has going for it, is the belief that it is, in fact, Bitcoin. Most people who buy Bitcoin will never fully understand what it is about Bitcoin that makes it work. They might learn the ideals, the Satoshi paper, something about blockchain. But, most people are going to buy Bitcoin because it is Bitcoin. If you claim to be Bitcoin, it's like hating Ford and pretending to be Fjord with a really tiny "j". It's like selling your brand as Cokee or Pepshi, a Lamberghini or a Ferrerri. It is deception, and it is something to be ashamed of. If you dislike the handling of a project, you make something unique that you are proud of. You do not steal the color, the logo, the branding and the inspired concept of the project you attack and compete against. An honest person does not sleep well using that method.

And now, from the honorable internet-savvy reasoning that I hide behind my beloved avatar or video-game greatness...

Gordon Freeman Out.

Topics