i hope you realize that your title is wrong because you are asking about effects of a website (bitcoin.com) on a full node client (bitcoin core)!

as for bitcoin.com, unfortunately they have been scamming people for some time now. ever since they created their centralized token called bitcoin-cash they have been selling it to newbies in the name of bitcoin. there even have been cases where a newbie bought what they told him was "bitcoin" and waited to receive it in their wallets but they never received anything because they actually bought an altcoin (BCH) and were waiting to receive it in their bitcoin wallet.
you can see dozens of this type of issue in the tech support board, specially in 2017 when there were a large number of new newbies coming in.

Roger Ver is recognized to be one of the leading figure in the world of cryptocurrency but for many he has lost his good reputation when he started Bitcoin Cash and made a war with those who continue to support the real bitcoin. In my opinion, too much greed has gone into his head that he don't care too much even if his many actions can affect bitcoin. People who have been here in this industry are already aware of who Roger Ver is and what he tried to do with the bitcoin ecosystem.

Well I think it's the newbies fault here. I am not a BCH supporter but the site clearly says that BTC and BCH are two separate things. Even when you go to buy bitcoin it has 2 options: BCH and BTC.
So that must easily explain that person has to make a choice to buy between two separate coins. If the person doesn't understand the difference between the two then google can help easily solve this.
Even after this if the user is buying BCH thinking it as BTC then it is clearly the user's fault in this.

And no "bitcoin.com" doesn't seem like a set back to me. The thing is not many know the difference between the .com and .org versions.
If they get to know why Satoshi had bought .org then it must be pretty clear that why .org was necessary for bitcoin and not the .com

As mentioned previously, the largest problem the new investors face while buying through bitcoin.com is they send the bitcoincash to their bitcoin address. This as is impossible would make the very first transaction of the new user a failure, a scam. It would not only make him/her distrust bitcoin but also every cryptocurrency. If they want to advertise bitcoincash, they should do that in an ethical way. Just say why bitcoincash is better bitcoin and don't confuse people with the addresses.

It is indeed they make the site has an option, and force a newbie to choose. But You should realize who backed the website. It is clearly stated in the footer that Rover Ver is the (CEO). We all know how awful he is, and because the site owned by him, he could easily spread false and biased information, to make newbs things BTRASH is the real Bitcoin. A brand new user shouldn't be blamed when they bought the wrong coin since they got biased information.

Most people don't know the differences between those domains, but I believe the .com domain sound more legitimate for a non-techie person. Which I believe it has a high chance to mislead mainstream.

put your social drama aside. its got nothing to do with faming up cash or faming down core. its about understanding that there is not one. even your own words 'all other forked bitcoins' shows you deep down beneath the social drama still show linkage of 'bitcoin' towards the forks.
by knowing they are forks of. and yes even segwit is a fork of 'bitcoin' 2009-2017. again you know they are forks. and its not to suggest btc is any less popular. its just saying there is not just one.

yes they are altcoins.
analogy: yes canadian dollar is a alt currency of US dollar. yes australian dollar is an alt currency of us dollar. its not suggesting canadian/australian is any better or worse. its just clarifying that the US is not the sole controller of 'dollar'.

you pretending something doesnt exist/didnt happen may help your core loyalty, but doesnt help the millions of people in the world to understand the complexity of the issue

the simplest analogy is the 'bitcoin/dollar' comparison

"UASF" was just a buzzword and a hat logo. the code/implementation method of it didnt actually need community consensus opt-in to activate it. it was a mandatory activation that used/abused 'compatible nodes' and also controlled features like DNS and Fibre. if you really want to get involved in how things technically happened atleast look into it before assuming.


again the mulit community of bitcoin would be a different scenario if things were as a unified consensus network of keeping the commUNITY together (research byzantine generals theory) whereby real consensus is used by making real commUNITY decisions. rather than social drama of 'if you dont like A's rule proposal heres a mandatory aparthied campaign to kick you out' controversial forks

My social drama? Nothing to do with faming down Bitcoin - BTC? Let me quote you.


You live for the social drama, admit it.


That's disingenuous of you to brand Segwit like it was a fork the same as Bitcoin Cash. Segwit is a backwards compatible feature that was a soft fork. It didn't split into another chain, and became an altcoin like Bitcoin Cash.


Thanks, no analogy required.


Newbies, DYOR on the UASF. Learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/


What are you even talking about? Haha.