because if you notice there is a war between bitcoin.com and bitcoin.org
they don't put each others domains on each others website,
they each have their own agenda,
at least this is what my private investigator told me, and he is the best in my town, so i believe him
Theymos owns the bitcoin wiki
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Theymos, he owns Bitcoin.org, in conjunction with cobra-bitcoin and r/bitcoin
https://github.com/theymos https://github.com/cobra-bitcoin
while bitcoin.org claims to be an open project it is far from it. it is run by a bunch of cronies who push very narrow and political addenda.
Anyone who does not support their vision, arguably one that is not
consistent with the white paper or how bitcoin works given the support for UASF - is rejected. Bitcoin.org being one of the website most new comers would associate with bitcoin an open source project, new users are presented with am extremest view, that abuses power for political gain, such as changing the white paper and some examples below.
- Bitcoin XT was removed from from bitcoin.org for not being bitcoin because they supported the idea of a higher transaction volume if 75% of the network supported the idea.
So bitcoin.org is controlled by an open model of cronies lead by theymos and cobra, who project abuse of power for a political position that is consistent with the limiting of bitcoin transaction volume.
bitcoin.com was registered by Roger, he leased it to a company in Hong Kong
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-evangelist-roger-ver-is-suing-a-hong-kong-firm-over-bitcoin-com-revenues/ the domain name was not effectively used, Roger took it back and put it to use creating a mining pool and a bitcoin forum to protect the bitcoin described in the bitcoin white paper.
Bitcoin.org only lists companies associated with their political objectives (manly supporting limited bitcoin transaction capacity and using other layer 2 transaction networks) the cronies use political threats to remove companies from public view on r/bitcoin bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.org if they support the a transaction limit that is not in alignment with the Blockstream/Core, and their vision for bitcoin.
Bitcoin.com lists only companies that pay for a listing or benefit the larger community. Bitcoin.com runs an open forum and a mining pool, Roger uses this website to promote the bitcoin that is described in the white paper and has over 8 years of empirical history.
Bitcoi.in landing page is still rather unconsidered, Bitcoin Core is not listed because they no longer represent the original bitcoin and have succumbed to centralized control. bitco.in was started on a budget and I believe run on advertising revenue alone.
The war is not about domain names or websites, it's about preserving bitcoin, one group say it's broken, we need to change the white paper and follow the lead of Blockstream to improve it, and the other group say no bitcoin is not broken, we just need to remove the transaction limit using the existing consensus mechanism described in the white paper. The war is about Blockstreams segwit, and removing the transaction limit.
also i always knew this forum favored bitcoin unlimited, because they dont have a bitcoin core section, even tho bloomie said it was for another reason, but i wasn't going to back down so easily
Bitcoin Unlimited was born on this forum. bitcoi.in came first then Bitcoin Unlimited - everything about BU was started here. before any code was released, we discussed how to govern changes in the code.
If you read the GCBU thread on this forum you will see how it came about and why. If you are interested in the history of bitcoin it's my opinion that the 2 predecessors to this thread hold the most comprehensive history of all events and happenings that have made bitcoin what it is today. (it goes back to 2011 when I first started reading about bitcoin.)
The bottom line is many aspects of bitcoin require decentralized control, many aspects of bitcoin have fallen under centralized control. public opinion managed through public forums, and development.
the GCBU thread was started by
@cypherdoc as with the 2 predecessors on bitcointalk.org, he is also responsible for creating this forum with
@Bloomie he dispersal form public a while ago after being heavily harassed by social media marketers employed by Blockstream - we don't actually know why he left. Cypherdoc insight and understandings have proved to be very accurate. He also advocated to remove the bitcoin transaction limit.
The GCPU thread on bitcointalk.org was a very popular thread with over 1000,000 views. it had attracted a huge viewership at the time it was shut down. the numbers shocked me and I remember verifying them. they have since been deleted from bitcointalk.org. we have yet to see that viewership return.
