Jump to content

Talk:Roger Ver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gobbleblotchit (talk | contribs) at 01:29, 18 November 2017 (→Recent changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

lack of close enough ties to new country

in 2015 he was denied a visa to reenter the United States by the U.S. State Department, because the he lacked close enough ties to his new country, Saint Kitts and Nevis, causing fears he might become an illegal immigrant.

Does this sentence mean his citizenship of Saint Kitts and Nevis is in doubt? Did the US accept his renouncement of US citizernship? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For background, see Visa_requirements_for_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_citizens and Renunciation_of_citizenship. Renouncing US citizenship means giving up the right to enter the US. Entry as a visitor may be allowed, but the State Department doesn't have to allow it. Many people want to get into the US and can't. John Nagle (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely inaccurate. I was denied a visa according to the embassy because I hadn't shown ties outside of the USA to ANY country that would motivate me to leave the USA at the end of my trip. The law doesn't require that the ties be to any specific country, including the country of citizenship. The embassy workers had the audacity to do this while refusing to even look at the evidence provided. (They disallowed me from even sliding my evidence through the interview slot for them to review) Subsequently my visa was approved on the first try at the US embassy in Tokyo. (Source for all this is me, Roger Ver) http://pastebin.com/iUS72J9ERogerver (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerver (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explosives vs firecrackers

One man's firecracker is another man's explosives. The Federal charges were about selling explosives, and this shouldn't be downplayed or removed (the Boston Marathon bombs used black powder from fireworks too). Let's not introduce POV over this. Right now the Bloomberg source says the "firecracker" characterization is Ver's own. Do we have anything else authoritative to go on? — Brianhe (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Department of Justice press release.[1] * According to the plea agreement, Mr. Ver admitted to engaging in the business of selling explosives without a license from January 1999 through August 2000. According to the information and plea agreement, Mr. Ver sold explosive devices described as “Pest Control Report 2000” on the online auction site eBay. He purchased approximately 49 pounds of the devices from a supplier in South Carolina, and sold at least 14 pounds of the devices to bidders on eBay. While engaging in the business of selling explosive devices, Mr. Ver stored the explosives in a residential apartment building and mailed the devices via the United States Mail in a manner contrary to Postal Service regulations. Judge Fogel sentenced the Defendant to 10 months in federal prison, a fine of $2,000, as well as a three-year period of supervised release." The manufacturer was also shut down, along with some other dealers.[2] The manufacturer's owner, KENNETH SHEARER, was convicted and went to prison in 2002.[3] The Bureau of Prisons inmate locator [4] (he's #06822-027) shows Shearer released in 2009.
As for fireworks vs explosives, the current limit on firecracker size in the US is 50mg of flash powder. The "Pest Control Report 2000" was 1000mg, or 1g. Current limits are rather conservative; firecrackers with 2G of gunpowder were widely available through the 1960s. With gunpowder, explosive power is more about containment than powder quantity. See pipe bomb. John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My previous reference was poorly cited as it was indeed repeating a claim by Ver himself so I agree with its removal. However since it is not only Ver who refers to them as firecrackers we should add the clarification. The Consumer Product Safety Commission refers to them as agricultural firecrackers numerous times at this page. If they do, then shouldn't we be making such a distinction as well? Without a one-sentence clarification it seems to be adding bias, because the word explosive carries significantly more weight on its own without the extra detail. Before I proceed with this addition is there any opposition to this clarification using the CPSC as a source? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. In this context of an "explosive device" charge (multiple charges actually) referring to out-of-context consumer safety regulations is just misleading. Nagle what think you? - Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The addition expands the context. We have a clear heading and sentence about the explosives. If you want to add some details about them, go ahead, like I am suggesting. The article needs to be comprehensive. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
49 pounds of black powder firecrackers puts you into serious explosive territory. John Nagle (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think as always we ought to follow the sources. Sources that specifically mention Ver and these materials, whatever they are. So far they are described in independent sources as 'explosives' and that's what Wikipedia should repeat. Going back and saying e.g. for farm use they are also called 'reports' or 'firecrackers' is non germane and amounts to either OR or wikiwashing and I would object to it. - Brianhe (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not misleading if that it is how the Consumer Product Safety Commission refers to them. This is the responsible authority. In their press release it refers to them primarily as firecrackers (6 times) over explosives (twice). This is the point I raise which you both have ignored. The word explosive is currently mentioned three times in the article. The penalty applied and criminal category explain the seriousness. I am not asking for that to change or for anything to be whitewashed. Such a description, regarding the nature and use of this kind of explosive is an important distinction we should be making. If you want to add a detail regarding quantity to provide balance or context then go for it. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

I'm not familiar with how to edit anything on Wikipedia, but for anyone who is interested I think people would find my involvement with these other events interesting:

Founder of both Memorydealers.com, and Agilestar.com Memorydealers.com was the first mainstream business in the world to start accepting Bitcoin. (April 2011) [1]
Creator of Bitcoinstore.com, the first website in the world to accept Bitcoin for hundreds of thousands of items.[2]
Donated over $170K USD to the defense of Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road: [3]
Donated over $1M USD to Fee.org as a result of my $10K USD Bitcoin Bet in 2011[4]
Current owner of Bitcoin.com
Creator of Bitcoinbountyhunter.com and placed a $20K USD bounty to catch a hacker.[5]
Avid competitor in Brazilian Jujitsu (Purple Belt, 3rd degree)[6] Rogerver (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Roger Ver[reply]

Apologist for Mt. Gox, assuring customers that there was no liquidity problem.[5] Should that go into the article? John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfydIbhduu0
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20121105211509/http://www.bitcoinstore.com/
  3. ^ Ver Donation
  4. ^ Bitcoin Bet
  5. ^ http://www.wired.com/2014/05/dfwtbj/
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E73lM84AmAw

Too much "he said"?

Please check this big expansion in the article.[6]. This may be too much "what article subject said", rather than "what others said about article subject". John Nagle (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. What I suggest you do is add two or three {{citation needed}} next the most egregious of statements. That will allow other editors to address your concerns. If no sources can be found in a week or two any problematic sentence can be adjusted or removed. I've been mindful of your criticism as I edit an article for a person who has created debate about a particular area of concern. Knowing that and not wanting the time I spend working on it to be for nothing means that I have been sure to add only what has been repeatedly said on the public record. Sometimes people themselves are the best source for specific things. Certain things which can't be readily verified have not been included. If you are going to remove stuff please give a valid justification on this discussion page first. Thanks and please expand the article to include anything you think is relevant. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"CEO of Bitcoin.com"?

Article says subject is "CEO of Bitcoin.com". Is "Bitcoin.com" a real company? It doesn't seem to be. The "about" link says it's run by "St. Bitts LLC".[7] Ver may own that. The "bitcoin.com" site is basically links to other sites, with some ads and a forum. Maybe "CEO of St. Bitts LLC" instead? John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Why was the word "contentious" removed from the description of the aborted Segwit2X hard fork of bitcoin? It was contentious for various reasons, too detailed for the Ver biography? Also, why was the lack of consensus changed to support? Consensus in this instance a technical term. With the majority of nodes on the network configured to reject the proposed changes, those changes would not be considered the consensus rules. The lack of support from the community is second reason for the changes being dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbleblotchit (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reliable sources supporting the statements that because of Ver's "actions against Bitcoin" he was also called 'Bitcoin Judas' or 'Bitcoin Antichrist'. The sources don't claim that label was widely used, unlike the Bitcoin Jesus moniker which has now been removed from the infobox. I am not sure why Ver's statements about Mt Gox are included. Ver attempted to enter politics as the article states but I don't think he is a former politician. Parts of the early life section have been removed without reason. WhalePanda's blog is not a reliable, independent source. I think some editors are bringing their bias to this article. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
«Ver attempted to enter politics as the article states but I don't think he is a former politician.«
Agreed, that can bias the article by the general distrust in politicians that many people have in certain (many?) countries.
Tuxayo (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Why was the word "contentious" removed from the description of the aborted Segwit2X hard fork of bitcoin?" - I did not remove the word "contentious". What I did change was the wording using vague "contentious fork" instead of specific "SegWit2x". See WP:NPOV for the suggestions.
"Also, why was the lack of consensus changed to support?" - I replaced the "consensus" by "support" to neutrally reflect the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I replaced the 'consensus' by 'support' to neutrally reflect the source." 'Consensus' is not a biased term. As explained, it is a technical term. Bitcoin nodes impose the consensus rules. With most nodes configured to reject Segwit2x, it failed to achieve consensusGobbleblotchit (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Ver&oldid=810880088"