The Daily Owl Ep. 30: The Great Bitcoin Debate (Roger Ver flagged on Steemit, and the poor debate tactics employed by many of his detractors)
Yo!
Back again.
On today's show we'll be talking about the ongoing and certainly "heated" Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Cash debate.
Roger Ver (@rogerkver here on Steemit) catches a lot of criticism for leading the charge away from Bitcoin Core and encouraging the fork of the Bitcoin Blockchain to create a new coin called Bitcoin Cash. There is now a raging, and very polarized debate about this course of action, with some of Ver's detractors arguing, among other things, that he is trying to "re-brand" Bitcoin and make it his own.
The criticisms don't stop here, and the heat from this conflict is even felt on this platform, with Ver's recent post receiving significantly weighted flags.
My personal view on all of this? Well, I support BCH (Bitcoin Cash) and am excited about it. Most of the criticisms I have heard about the coin are not about BCH at al, but fluffy-vitriolic, personal attacks against Roger Ver. I have heard very little substantiation of claims, and mostly just juvenile name calling. Hell, check out his latest post where someone from the media in Korea tries to set up an informal talk between Ver and Samson Mow. Samson takes a few shitty little verbal jabs and runs away.
What's the point.
The point is that no matter what the topic, whether it be Bitcoin Cash of bluebirds, when you debate, you gotta be fucking pertinent, man! Bringing facts and logical, substantiated/evidentiated arguments to the table. Calling someone a "silly face" alone does not prove anything.
As such I am currently in the process of trying to set up a debate between the individual flagging Ver, and Ver himself. This is my little proposed market solution to settling this, which I think is a better one than making someone's posts invisible.
Join the LIVE CHAT to let me know what you think!
LET'S GO!
UPDATE: Roger has agreed to debate!
My live stream is at DLive
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
The culture people have today is not based on logic. People use emotions as facts instead. So they will attack you or argue your case and present a opposing position based on how your position makes them feel. They will use those emotions and that will be reflected in how they speak to you. Then when you ask for more concrete arguments, they can't come up with them and they truly believe that their feelings are the legit argument.
For example: 'I like apples, I think they taste great!' 'You're wrong, apples are disgusting.' 'Well, I like them, and many other people do too. They are vitamins and are great for the body.' 'No, apples are bad for you!' 'Okay, well when I eat an apple I feel good after. Especially those that are a bit more sour. It get a good fruit, nutrition and not too much sugar intake at the same time, which is ideal for my diet.' 'Your diet is wrong! I know so.' 'Well that diet was determined by my nutritionist and me.' 'You should change nutritionists, she doesn't know what she's talking about.' 'Well then tell me, why apples are bad for the body.' 'They're bad, and you just can't accept it. You are full of bs and you are spreading apple misinformation. You should just stop.'
Now don't ask why I used the apple, it's just the first thing that came to mind, but that's how people argue and debate these days. They get angry, they swear at you, they use emotions as legit arguments and become defensive when you ask for something more concrete. And I'm repeating myself :D
Yes. I feel like this comment could almost be a post in and of itself. Personally, I don't mind if someone swears at me or gets emotional (it's not preferred, really, but still) as long as they can present an actual argument as to why I am wrong.
The difference between a logical debater and an "emotional jabber" is that the logical person is seeking to understand, ultimately (even if that means they must alter or change their position), and the "jabber" is just seeking to "feel right."
Yes, you hit a good point. The debater might get angry based on personal experience regarding said situation, but will explain such emotions or will dive into why this is his or her stance and be open to listening, even if he disagrees completely, to at least listen and hear you out and ask questions for you to clarify some things you are saying and be engaged in the debate.
The jabber as you call it, they don't just seek to "feel right" they are those who do not have self-empowerment, who cannot validate themselves. They are seeking external validation at every turn. Someone who can validate themselves, do not need others to tell them they are right or that even if their point of view is wrong, that it does not mean they are wrong or in the wrong or a bad person for thinking that way. Someone who can validate themselves, does not need to be always right or told that they are right.
Sadly too many people these days externalise and seek validation from external sources and not from within. I myself struggle with the validation part but for more personal things when it comes to respecting my needs and such given the old thought patterns I sometimes fall into. I've started actually making Rosie talk for me in certain moments and in her voice tell myself "It's ok."
When I spend too much time on social media (Facebook, Twitter) I start feeling the need for people, strangers, to validate every one of my thoughts, while typically, I can be in my thoughts and I just do my things, create what I want to create, without anyone validating it. I just do it because it brings me a sense of fulfillment, joy and purpose. THAT should be the validation that people seek to receive from the Universe.
Thank you very much for all your information, did you know that there is a social network similar to Steemit but based on the crypto-bitcoin cash?
Yours.org
It is new and not so popular.
Thanks for share And hace a Nice day (:
I did not know this. Thank you! Will check it out ASAP!
Hmm. I just tried to sign up, but do not have an invitation code...
Hmm. I just tried to
Sign up, but do not have an
Invitation code...
- kafkanarchy84
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
I had no idea I registered many months ago, let me see if I get information about the code, if I get it I'll send it to you.
That would be great. Thank you.
hi there, Sorry I have not found any information, send an email and I wait for the answer, in the same way I found another social network, very similar to steemit, take a look.
https://deals.weku.io/
Have a nice day.
Thanks so much for taking the time.
I will check it out.
Dont worry, thanks to you, for your good post (:
I don’t understand the technical aspects enough to know which of the two is better, but it sure seems like the haters are worried about BTC losing value, not about technical superiority. And that Samson guy seems really arrogant and condescending, while Roger seems sincere but a bit overly excited and defensive (which is understandable, given all the hate directed at him).
I have nothing against BCH and actually own some, but I wish Roger would put a little of his energy into promoting Steem as well, given he’s using it to promote BCH. But he seems to be worried about altcoins taking market share.
Which tokens have the biggest market share is something I think should be worried about later, once crypto has gone so mainstream that there’s not much space for new coins. But at present, there’s plenty of space for all useful tokens to grow, as I see it.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Yep. That Mow cat is definitely smug.
I wish he'd promote Steem, too, but he's a man on a very clear mission, it seems. I've never gotten the impression he is worried about altcoins taking market share, though. If anything, he seems to be totally focused on BCH and could care less. Just from my vantage point, at least.
Coins mentioned in post: