⭐ Merited by Wind_FURY (3)
but hey. instead of talking about "bitcoin" decentralisation you seem to only want to defend core team members
Before you start repeating your "dollar argument" for the hundredth time, you have what you want. You've got your Bitcoin decentralisation. No one is saying you can't have your BCH version of Bitcoin. The problem people have is when there isn't a clear enough distinction made between the BTC and BCH versions. Stop twisting the narrative to claim we don't want you to have your BCH version. You've got it. We can't take it away from you. You're free to call it Bitcoin Cash. But the BTC and BCH networks are not compatible and the bitcoin.com website was doing a piss-poor job of explaining that. Many here believe it was intentional and clearly dishonest.
And if you truly wanted decentralisation, why are you not arguing for bitcoin.com to list all the other multitude of bitcoin forks? I don't see any mention on their website of Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Private, etc.
theymos is claiming core is the only "bitcoin".. check out bitcoin.org.
again the hypocrisy of arguing about team B applies to team A
again the hypocrisy of arguing about team B applies to team A
The bitcoin.org website is under no obligation to market your preferred chain. They choose to only publicise one consensus protocol. That's within their right to do.
The bitcoin.com website chooses to publicise two, which is within their right to do. All we ask is that they do it responsibly so that new users are not disenfranchised or left out of pocket.
actually roger ver is not claiming bch is btc
roger is claiming cash is "bitcoin"
roger is claiming cash is "bitcoin"
Which is confusing to newbies. He's well within his rights to claim that the BCH chain is better, but he needs to state clearly that it's not compatible with the BTC chain. Some of the visitors to the bitcoin.com website were looking for BTC and they're leaving with the wrong coin. The fault of that lies primarily with the bitcoin.com website. There's no defending it.
Plus, they clearly know it was wrong because they've now updated their website to change it.
Emphasised, as that point probably shouldn't be lost in the discussion because it's quite important. Yes, bitcoin.com now looks radically different and somewhat clearer as to which chain is which. So we can probably stop arguing about it now. I'm sure we won't, though.
Although, even on the new version they've made, I do wish they'd stop calling it "Bitcoin Core", because they're not the sole developer. BIP91, for example, was not a product of Core's repo. It was merged in after another client (that wasn't Core) adopted it first. Core are not the owner and don't make all the decisions. You can't (honestly) argue they do because we can see empirically with BIP91 that they don't. Also, that's not a "fanboy" argument, because it's an argument that seriously annoys certain fanboys who do mistakenly believe Core make all the decisions.