Quote from: MemoryDealers on September 18, 2019, 06:32:04 AM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 17, 2019, 05:42:28 PM

Going forward it is important to recognize that the majority consider btc to be bitcoin.

Historically the majority have believed all sorts of stupid and wrong things. The majority previously thought the sun goes around the earth, and they literally forbade Galileo from pointing out the truth. This sounds a lot like the censored Bitcoin forums today.

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 17, 2019, 05:42:28 PM

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.

I don't think anyone is confused by this point. We have entire articles on the site explaining exactly what the history is, and where we are today on this topic.

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 17, 2019, 05:42:28 PM

We don't know if bch or btc holds more closely to satoshis principles.

But we do know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 17, 2019, 05:42:28 PM

If objectively from a more trained and capable point of view roger is correct then we understand your frustration.

Just imagine how frustrated Galileo must have felt.

We entirely agree. This forum and your own forum must not prevent people from presenting their views if they can support them with a credible argument. We agree this forum is actually starting to become an echo chamber on certain issues. I do not think you should be prevented from presenting your case. It is unlikely theymos is directly censoring you since he seems open to allowing any one to present output that does not break the rules. Other admin although are certainly not as open to free speech and we have witnessed this greatly of late. Theymos himself seems to just be interested in keeping the peace and if that means sub layers of control get to abuse their positions he is willing to look the other way UNTIL it gets too blatant or effects some members he does care about.

I think the problem is as we stated. You "may" be correct that bch upholds more firmly satoshis original principles. However, because the majority (even if they are wrong) consider bitcoin to be BTC at this point, then it is important not to add any confusion when they are first becoming involved with the decentralized trustless movement. Confusion could and has contributed to new investors losing money and feeling (rightly or wrongly is certainly up for debate) betrayed . That is why there are these accusations and red marks on your account.

It could just be that you believe (perhaps correctly) that bitcoin (the original set of principles) lives on truly as BCH and not BTC, so when you called BCH bitcoin, and called BTC bitcoin core... then you were not being dishonest at all. You believe this to be the case. So that on it's own does not require red trust.

I think the issue is that new members unaware were duped into buying bch believing it was BITCOIN as the majority see it ( even if they are wrong) which has financial consequences.

So as we said.

1. the warnings should correctly state what happened NOT brand you as an intentional scammer.
2. The red trust should certainly not be from those themselves that have scammed here in the past or tried to facilitate scamming for a price.

Now that you have made things more clear as to prevent new members not being confused. I think in future the red marks and red flags should be perhaps revisited to perhaps a low warning level.

I don't think it looks good for one of the most famous bitcoin proponents should have THIS PERSON IS A SCAMMER warning on his threads. The true story should be there and people can make up their own minds about your actions.

Honestly though, the people leaving you red tags are either proven scammers or scam facilitators. These should not even have positions on this boards trust system.

It is sad that the project the majority consider bitcoin lost one it's more vocal and famous supporters. One could wonder where a single project called bitcoin could have been if all the fragmentation of the original supporting group had not taken place.

Then again in life one must do what one thinks is correct.

Surely though you must still consider btc > fiat

Even if you consider bch > btc

?

Perhaps there is room for both projects anyway. I certainly don't think that either side should be sniping at the other. Fighting against each other is not the way.

Sort of like "hey we are bitcoin original, since we feel it essential to hold closer to the original design of satoshi for these reasons..", or "Hey we are BTC we feel we can improve the design in a few ways".

We support bitcoin and hold BTC and some BCH. We also hold a few other projects that seem to have great developers and very interesting potential.

It is perhaps not a case " of there can be only one".

Bitcoin cash does not seem to get your message across as much as if you had called it bitcoin classic or bitcoin original... or something like that to demonstrate what distinguishes it from btc and why it is essential people read and understand this before they decide if they want to go for one or the other or get a bit of both of them.

Anyway hope you get fair treatment from members that have any business being in positions of trust here.

A sensible and accurate message if they feel you must have red trust not screaming scammer. What can you expect from these morons (real scammers) that have taken over the systems of control of this board.