The myth that is Roger Ver’s belief system.

I recently watched this interview with Roger Ver and John Carvalho (Bitcoin Error Log), it sparked me to write this article.

I’ll explain,

He wants Bitcoin to have 99% market share and is gravely terrified by altcoins and the entire cryptocurrency space. In order for the crypto-ecosystem to evolve and push out the best ideas, bitcoin has to lose majority share.
Anyone that is a fan of Bitcoin is still a fan of bitcoin and is also a fan of alts and the entire crypto space. Roger thinks in black and white, it’s all or nothing, 0 or 1.

There’s a segment at the very beginning where he gets quite sensitive over the term ‘bcash’. Just hearing the word ‘bcash’ sends him into a rage, akin to being called a rude four-letter word.He claims that words have meanings and that Bitcoin Cash should be only called ‘Bitcoin Cash’ because the dev team said so.

Words are given meaning, they don’t have inherent meaning; ‘bcash’ is what the people have given to mean Bitcoin Cash.

He claims to believe in socialism but is all for being the elite, the 1% who own 99% of the wealth. His entire belief structure is full of cracks, he’s incoherent and a compulsive liar.
His deflection of tough questioning followed by mocking John Carvalho when he doesn’t elaborate or change topic. He twists his belief into a loaded question, these questions sometimes using very vague anecdotes from “people”, often in order to try proving a lie or using misdirection to fog the conversation.

He disagrees frequently on John’s points but fails to explain why he disagrees, instead pulls the conversation into what he wants to talk about, aiming to control the conversation.
When he begins to lose control, he argues using weak talking points, trying to look like he cares about the new people or those who can’t afford it, using a class of people he has no idea about, as a weight behind the agenda.

Below I took an excerpt from the video, 16m30s to 18m00s, on the block size limit:

JC = John Carvalho | RV = Roger Ver

RV: “The block size limit should have never been put in, in the first place. Should have been kept in place.”
JC: “So you disagree with Satoshi?”
RV: “No (panicked) even Satoshi – You’re saying that Satoshi didn’t want the block limit size to be increased?”
JC: “He put the block limit there.”
RV: “Because ‘other people’ advocated that he do that as a temporary, temporary – that’s the key word there, temporary, temporary measure to prevent uh, people from from flooding the network.”
JC: “Okay, let’s move on for a little bit, we talked about temporary”
RV: “No no no, we should finish each subject one at a time until we have it done.”

The above conversation was the most bizarre few minutes of my life, just listening to this conversation made me feel like I’m listening to Donald Trump.
When Roger was challenged on something which contradicted something he claimed, he tried to back out and then throw John off by using misdirection to buy himself time to think about what he needs to say.
When he gets the chance to unload what he conjured up, he uses the vague ‘other people’, not specifying who these people are.
They’d be very important people too as he’s claiming that these other people told Satoshi directly to do it, wouldn’t he have a source for this? He could just say their name, unless he’s making it up.
At the end, he wants to stay on topic, unlike previous topics which he lost control of to John.

While listening to Roger talk about Bitcoin being prepped and ready to fork, I started to have a think about his full throttled switch into BCash when the agreement was broken.
Bitcoin2x was the best bet at Bitcoin becoming worth a very large value in a short space of time due to the ability to regulate the system. This is of a capitalist agenda not a socialist one, it would completely kill bitcoin and it’s 180 degrees from what Roger publicly believes.
He claims to be a voluntarist, he’s completely willing to remove powers from government.

Currently, I am working full time to make the world a better, less violent place by promoting the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin totally strips away the State’s control over money. It takes away the vast majority of its power to tax, regulate, or control the economy in any way. If you care about liberty, the nonaggression principle, or economic freedom in general you should do everything you can to use Bitcoin as often as possible in your daily life.

Complete anarchistic libertarian principles seem like a strange fit to a person who resembles a psychopath that’s willing to let regulators touch Bitcoin.
Something is completely off with Ver.
His personality, nature and belief system don’t fit together, I wouldn’t trust him.
You can’t trust someone who goes into a narcissistic rage when they can’t control others around them.

There’s also an article written by WhalePanda on Roger Ver and his fraudulent activity with other members in the BCash team and the history of how long this opportunisitic shit has been going on.


£5 paper note will cease to be legal tender by May 2017.

  • Trade in your paper £5.
  • Polymer over paper is progress.

Last year, September 13th, the Bank of England issued the polymer £5 note, however they’ll cease acknowledging use of the paper £5 as legal tender by Friday, 5th May 2017.
Shortly after they refuse allowing the paper £5 note to be legal tender, they will begin to issue the polymer £10 note in the summer of 2017 then the £20 note sometime in 2020.

It would be in the best interest of those holding any paper notes to trade them in at your nearest bank. Whenever you’re given a paper note, a quick exchange at the bank before the cut off date will keep your funds fresh, plus you could get a crisp low serial note in return.


The change from paper to polymer was the due to a multitude of reasons from environmental factors, to security and cost of maintenance.

These new notes are very durable, they don’t discolour and fade once washed, they don’t absorb liquids, so they won’t be stained by acidic, tannin or sugar based products.They are however less heat resistant, more likely to shrink and melt compared to cotton based paper tender.
Polymer notes also survive circulation much longer than their paper counterparts, at least 2.5 times longer, due to environmental and material reasons (much, much more durable) according to research conducted by the Bank of England.

They claim that the environmental impacts are much larger for paper notes due to the harvesting, processing, manufacturing and transportation of the raw materials in order to produce them. The environmental damage caused by producing, maintaining and circulating paper notes, as evident in the Life Cycle Analysis of Paper and Polymer Bank Notes is astounding. The prime culprit being water usage with an astounding 1922 liters during a 2 year lifetime compared to 103 liters for the same period for the polymer counterpart (p101).

They showed data for the impact on Global Warming, Acidification, Eutrophication, Photochemical Ozone Creation, Abiotic Depletion, Human Toxicity and Ecotoxicity. In essence, their research is thorough and encompassing. Every avenue of environmental impact has been accounted for, analysed and calculated to determine the level of damage reduction to humans and the ecosystem.

Any improvement into the efficiency and efficacy of our actions should be reflective, no matter how minor the impact it may seem.

All source links open in a new window.