|
Title: --- deleted by OP --- Post by: Trade Runner on September 07, 2020, 01:50:29 PM --- deleted by OP ---
Title: Re: ☠ Scam-alert: Coinsbit/BTCU project ☠ Post by: bitbottrader on September 07, 2020, 02:26:30 PM Most likely another exit scam will happen soon, the heads of the Estonian exchange Coinsbit created a fake campaign announcing a fake Bitcoin I would like to note that their scam team is based in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Team, responsible for exchanges like coinsbit.io, p2pb2b.io, exrates.me, whitebit.com, direBit, LiquidXBit, BitcoinexMarket, NetCurrencyIndex, xcrypt.pro Title: Re: ☠ Scam-alert: Coinsbit/BTCU project ☠ Post by: bitbottrader on September 07, 2020, 02:45:53 PM I took the publicly known infos (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Estonian+exchange+Coinsbit). If you have another address please post it! I will send you in PM a lot of personal info about them, check your messages please. Title: Re: ☠ Scam-alert: Coinsbit/BTCU project ☠ Post by: OpenEcoClub on September 16, 2020, 10:20:42 PM Any News?
Isn't Veisman joining Buytex now? Which actually thrives with heaps of new members in their network. Exponentional growth to be expected. Maybe they succeed in creating a real exchange? Though the exchange only allows trading Bux <-> USD(T) and links are not clickable. i.e. no impressum. I hope they fix it soon. Sounds promising. Title: Re: ☠ Scam-alert: Coinsbit/BTCU project ☠ Post by: OpenEcoClub on September 17, 2020, 11:05:10 AM Trader_Runner: I have no problem with my identity getting disclosed (though I am not Sinbad I'm afraid, but I like the name). I have no involvement whatsoever (just customer if anything). I am coder and open, kind to people and try to mediate. If somehow innocent people get damaged then of course I am not so happy.
On the other hand it is not so that every statistic the Buytex Network gives is invented and I think it is not so much "unteachable sock puppets" but rather (at least some) real people who are longing for "Success they deserve". In this world scamming is more lucrative than having a job as WireCard, low-ethics-Grenke, Steinhoff, black market and whatnot else clearly shows. As long as governments do not change the fact that work does not pay off (enough, at least in Germany where you are a fool if you work due to up to 80% taxes in total), people will get poorer and more divided, stressed and frustrated. Opening doors for terrorism and making them more approachable by all kinds of business models - and not so well behaving. See all the crowds in the streets that police has to deal with. As well as ever growing cyber crime. People, governments have to unite. A real world union. (no I am not an anarchist - I am a fan of the universe, and we are not alone, not the only civilization. But we are not so smart yet as Einstein might put it) Difficult times for middle class citizens (entrepreneurs and workers alike) all across the globe. A pity. Everyone should have enough to buy the food and drinks they wish. As long as it doesn't harm others. I wish you all the best. And I hope customer support cases are resolved! Have a good day Title: Re: Notification: Coinsbit/BTCU project Post by: JollyGood on September 22, 2020, 10:01:21 AM This BTCU trash project looks just like another attempt at making money from thin air for the people behind the so-called project.
It would not surprise me if they will allegedly fork Bitcoin then give out BTCU on a 1:1 ratio and will probably try to convert their BTCU to Bitcoin as fast as they can in order to make as much money as possible for themselves during a pump they orchestrate... maybe they have other plans. Recently a project team was created out of former and active heads from the Estonian crypto exchange Coinsbit, website coinsbit.io, announcing a fork called “Bitcoin Ultimatum / BTCU”, registered as “Profit Foundation LTD.” in Singapore, website btcu.io. They announced their project on all known social media platforms and at an investor’s conference on Monaco as well, including an inactive repository on GitHub (https://github.com/bitcoin-ultimatum/btcu). Here on Bitcointalk they maintained a thread that nobody was interested in (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5262676.msg54809905#msg54809905). Therefore they created a whole armada of sock puppets which made here and there some alibi edits in other threads to draw attention and so suggest a public interest. The creator of this thread was called “BTCU_Ultimate”. It seems so that the project should be called “Bitcoin Ultimate” at first, but due to a lack of language skills they called it “Bitcoin Ultimatum”. Who shall issue whom an ultimatum? Already for the Coinsbit exchange they had taken a free vector graphic template from freepik.com, just modified a little bit with Adobe Illustrator. The same template has been used for the BTCU project, just with some modifications. The creator of the thread was then notified that there were inconsistencies in their announcement compared with their whitepaper from their website. One time the Quark algorithm should have been the basis, what is a mix out of six different encryption algorithms, another time Bitcoin’s SHA256 algorithm. The creator apologized that this might have been just a typo in the announcement and that the Quark would be implemented for sure. After he was made aware of the fact, that Bitcoin’s SHA256 algorithm was pronounced in their whitepaper to be the algorithm, he came up with the explanation that the whitepaper would be the correct version, where you find an undefined mix of the Quark and the SHA256 algorithm. When he came up with technological explanations nearly 100 % was revealed as plagiarism from different sources. Pronounced was further a Bitcoin hard fork, means, that there would be made a change in the Bitcoin consensus rules as it had been done e.g. when forking Bitcoin Cash: The fork of Bitcoin Cash increased the blocksize from 1 MB to 8 MB so that more transactions could be written in one block, therefore an attempt to optimize the scalability of the blockchain. Further, as consequence, SegWit was removed again, a method of handling the signatures, introduced with a previous Bitcoin soft fork with the goal to increase the possible number of transactions per block, what was no longer necessary for Bitcoin Cash due to the increased blocksize. So Bitcoin Cash can be called a real Bitcoin fork, secured by the known proof of work consensus mechanism (PoW) the miners have to fulfill. The proof of work consensus mechanism was defined under the assumption, that the majority of the mining community would have the higher hashing power than potential fraudsters, verifying the transactions in an honest way without manipulating the transaction history. Further a blocktime of 10 minutes was defined by the creator of Bitcoin with the goal to avoid inflation, because else all 21 million Bitcoins would have been mined all at once. To keep the blocktime at the target of 10 minutes on average the difficulty of the cryptographic puzzle is adjusted automatically by the Bitcoin network according to the Bitcoin consensus rules. Bitcoin’s consensus rules define, that the blockhash calculated by the miners has to start with a defined number of leading zeros. Therefore the miners get a separate data field called the nonce, where a 4 Byte random string has to be added until the blockhash gets the demanded number of leading zeros. According to the available total hashing power the difficulty of the proof of work consensus mechanism is adjusted from time to time (each 2016 blocks) in demanding once another leading zero for the blockhash in case of an increasing difficulty (or one zero less in case of the decrease of the difficulty). At the moment a Bitcoin hash has 19 leading zeros. Now we look back at the “BTCU”-project. Announced is here a Bitcoin hard fork, but the consensus mechanism would no longer be the proof of work consensus mechanism (PoW). Instead they announced the proof of authority consensus (PoA) originally designed for internal company blockchains, controlled by their own master nodes that decide which transactions are valid and which are not, further which community nodes would be accepted as trustworthy additional nodes, what could easily be just some sock puppets' nodes. Even the undefined mix of encryption algorithms has nothing to do any longer with Bitcoin. For the case they ever would get their controlled and thus in best manner centralized blockchain running it would be a complete new and different blockchain on top of the nearly 300 GB Bitcoin blockchain just for acquiring investors and marketing purposes, urging especially their exchange's members to buy Bitcoin for getting the promised legendary airdrop and thus creating an hype and manipulating the market! After the creator of the announcement was confronted with hundreds of claims of members coming from the Coinsbit exchange he repeatedly defamed them as mentally ill which would need psychiatric treatment. I started then a cyber war against Coinsbit and the BTCU project team over all social media platforms. Meanwhile iGO_Tech's case got resolved thanks to the outside consultant whose name appeared on the BTCU website and at the BTCU announcement on Bitcointalk as well. His appearance was misinterpreted as he would somehow be related to Coinsbit and their Bitcointalk account, but this is definitely not the case. Moreover, the consultant helped iGO_Tech to resolve his issue with Coinsbit and they paid him back his original fee of 1 BTC for getting his token listed, worth around 10,500 USD at the moment. Bitbottrader's case will be resolved as well and his list of other member's open issues will be submitted as well for getting a constructive solution. Therefore I don't see any need to keep any scam alert. I've not filed any complaints in front of the authorities or the domain registrars as I was waiting to get the accusations resolved. My technological considerations remain untouched from this and thus I'll keep them as this notification together with one or another comment as an expression of freedom of speech. For details see the quotations below: What is the Hash Algo now? SHA-256 or Quark? Thanks for your question. I will clarify in the technical department. Perhaps a typo in the thread.Because here are you mentioned SHA-256 but in the whitepaper Quark. A “spelling mistake” between SHA-256 and Quark while creating an announcement on Bitcointalk for the crypto community! Nice explanation! With other words: The one who wrote the announcement has no idea what he's talking about! Including your whole fake department which is checking the announcement! You surely will come up with a similar explanation how you'll handle the deep hard fork in implementing a complete other algorithm in the blockchain as consensus rule, better to say: a mix of different encodings? There's absolutely no sense to build a complete new and different blockchain connected to a blockchain from a complete another encoding. Everyone who has a little knowledge in crypto related stuff knows that. Even implementing the last Bitcoin hash to the next blockheader would give a problem. You should finally reveal who's the author of this social experiment and how many potential victims you caught with this ridiculous campaign! Or is it a ridiculous attempt of crypto market manipulation in insisting the people to buy Bitcoins? PS: See my rating here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2824182)! Shall we ask Nataly Simson from Coinsbit if she got informed that you use her profile pic for your fake campaign? And why don't you try to create an Ethereum fork on top of the Bitcoin chain? I'm sure your "special department" would find a solution... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D What I found is this posting on Telegram (https://t.me/coinsbit_chat/1184428) from an admin of the Coinsbit Telegram group. There a low quality video is linked in 240 p. I was falling several times asleep when Nataly Simson finally started to talk about “BTCU” at 16 min 28 sec (https://youtu.be/-LlQMcIkamA?t=988). Indeed she seems to be part of the game (well, I stopped the video a few seconds later). So I summarize: You're notifying about the idea of your “coin”, which you haven't gotten to run practical ever. Therefore you want to make a “fork” of the SHA 256 encoded Bitcoin blockchain (for which reason ever) and building a new blockchain with the Quark algorithm (together with a mix of other algorithms) on top of the SHA 256 encoded part from the previous Bitcoin chain. For that announcement you present a video on YouTube in the quality of the last century, and here on Bitcointalk you're advertising your idea, not your running chain, with logos from Forbes etc, hosted on a Russian picture platform (normally used from individuals to post the usual Facebook crap as the daily lunch and so on). But Forbes shall be one of hundreds other international clients. Further your “developing department” hired a marketing manager who confuses the algorithm of Bitcoin with the algorithm you want to build on top of Bitcoin. The reason for the nonsense fork isn't explained (of course the only reason is catching the Bitcoin users attention). I still have no idea about the real goal of the whole theater, but it's clear that you're selling unlaid eggs, dreaming from the reinvention of the wheel and therefore trying to plant a cactus on a sawn-off tree stump. It's simply ridiculous and the whole thing was for sure the worst advertisement for the Estonian trading platform Coinsbit. Most likely you just want to manipulate the market and stir up the Bitcoin trades on your trading platform in initiating an hype. This is exactly the way how the market is being manipulated. I stand by my assessment of a fake campaign! I really wish you all the luck in the world, but please not in the crypto area! You forgot to mention in your announcement what shall be the benefit in leasing your stakes to mining nodes (LPoS) instead of just forging yourself. Further you forgot to mention that proof of authority (PoA), where the authority nodes get determined and so controlled in best centralized manner by yourself, is primarily a concept for internal blockchains within a company. And here it's irrelevant, if this “network is still under development”. In the end you still have forgotten to explain the sense of implementing a proof-of-stake-concept combined with a centralized concept of authority nodes of your choice building on top of the proof-of-work-concept of the most trusted Bitcoin blockchain, which will be cut off in the moment of the fork, while you still forgot to mention how this ever shall be technically possible. You’re just throwing around with already known, but never established terms, while you have not even a basic knowledge of what you're talking about. But go ahead, I'm waiting for the next amusement... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Please don't interpret too much! I just want to disillusion the community after you came up with a nice graphic containing some basic terms and bold underlined letters in red color spread over the whole screen size. It would have been your turn to “substantively explain your technology and methods of implementation” when you came up with it in a network of developers and end users. With the combination of PoS and PoA you're announcing a public permissioned blockchain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3098192.0), which is originally designed for internal business blockchains as provided e.g. by the Corda Network (https://corda.network/). So nothing new at all. If your goal is not just a market manipulation over the Telegram channel of your connected exchange you're trying to open this concept now for the common crypto community. What you didn't mention of course is the fact, that such concept is just a trap as everyone who invests in the project would get immediately dependent from the grace of your authority nodes. In other words: You're trying to create a giant company network without revealing the real nature of your concept, like the rat catcher from Hameln in the crypto community. As I said I was waiting for the next amusement - what comes next? ;D ;D ;D Ok, so here once again in clear words: Even if you would get it running from the technical side to create a complete different algorithm on top of the Bitcoin chain - it still would be a fake fork! You could also create a database with the balances of the BTC holders in the moment of creating your genesis block, and then giving all BTC holders their proportional airdrop. But what is the whole thing worth without any ICO? And just for getting the Bitcoin users attention creating a complete new blockchain on top of an existing, nearly 300 GB large chain what would have to be distributed as ballast for nothing within your new network? Who would be willing to participate in such nonsense? And the clear clarification of the implemented encryption method of SHA-256 on page 34 of your whitepaper was also just “a typo” of your marketing manager? Further at your website you're linking e.g. to Forbes with the note, they would write about your project. Looking at the linked site on Forbes Nikolai Udianskyi, mentioned as “CEO of BTCU and co-founder of Coinsbit Exchange”, is just talking about Bitcoin halfing. No word about “Bitcoin Ultimatum”. I call this a fake, as the whole whitepaper with website and (pre-) announcement is a fake, including the pretended Bitcoin fork. Hopefully this was now clear enough. EOD from my side. Im sorry sir. Indeed, I should have read the first page of your announcement more carefully. It looks like you are about to release something really big: a Bitcoin fork with smart contracts, anonymity and atomic swap. @BTCU_ULTIMATE: How many further sock puppets you'll let dance here to give the impression anyone would be interested in your fake campaign? Always just repeating your promotion slang in the end. Did your attempt of market manipulation (insisting to buy Bitcoins for getting the promised airdrop) still not reach the scheduled goal? What kind of software wallets you'll provide which would need to get the whole 300 GB Bitcoin blockchain downloaded for absolutely nothing? Why did you fork the original Bitcoin code on Github based on the SHA 256 algorithm (of course without declaration of the source) which you won't use any longer according to your pre-announcement here on the one hand, but what you'll use for sure according to your whitepaper on the other hand? Of course I won't get an answer again, just that I should wait for the unbelievable, revolutionary end result. But I'm just waiting until this thread get's finally flagged as scam! Readers who are wondering about this "revolutionary new coin" should start reading here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5262676.msg55066207#msg55066207)! According to their website they're located in Hong Kong, so nothing more than a typical attempt of Chinese market manipulation. Perhaps the involved Estonian crypto exchange Coinsbit is in financial trouble and made a deal with a Chinese fake campaign creator. I'm getting sick of the whole fake thread here, kept alive just with a whole armada of sock puppets!This would mean that you take a full operating Bitcoin code, at least keeping the functions to read out the whole previous chain, which will rise up to 300 GB shortly. This 300 GB data would have to be distributed within your network forever, just for sharing the proportional airdrop in the moment of the fork. This airdrop could also easily be done by just providing the airdrop to the Bitcoin holders on the most common crypto exchanges as it's done usually. Even if it was really just a communication error and the SHA256 algorithm would be used generally after all: Who would download and care a 300 GB data corpse for life time just for your initial promotion? When BCH was forked "just" the blocksize had been increased from 1 to 8 MB and SegWit has been removed, the algorithm remained the same. The goal to increase the number of transactions per block was never reached. Actual BCH blocks remain generally around 120 kB as can be seen at the comparison of the statistics (https://bitinfocharts.com/en/comparison/size-btc-bch.html), while Bitcoin blocks have a multiple of transactions per block compared with Bitcoin Cash. One couldn't call this a real breakout. Let's take a look at the most successful implementation of the Proof of Stake concept: NXT, created back in 2013 and called the Next Generation of Cryptocurrency, one of the most trusted and serious crypto currencies on the market based on the PoS algorithm. Three years later (https://www.jelurida.com/ardor/roadmap)the Jelurida team came to the conclusion, that the size of their blockchain would be too large for a modern crypto technology and created the Ardor multichain platform (https://ardorplatform.org), where the users can create child chains just for not being dependent from the main chain for keeping the blockchain size small. The NXT chain is around 4 GB today, the Ardor main chain around 2 GB. Both databases fit on a cheap USB stick. This is a real trendsetting concept. Now you really think a hard fork for promotional purpose only would have success ever, compelling the users to distribute the fake fork with 300 GB data ballast just for your initial advertisement? Even if you would get running a quasi-fork in cutting off all historic data and just creating a new chain on top of a snapshot of the BTC chain, what would generally be possible - it still would be a fake fork with a complete other concept what the community never would accept as real Bitcoin fork. Your project just abuses the name "Bitcoin" for promotional purpose, even if you ever would get a blockchain running. @BTCU_ULTIMATE: Let’s hold on a moment. I still hadn’t the time to file my complaints to ACRA and the TLD registrar as I’m busy with coding per night and day. I want to take the opportunity a last time for seeing if a civilized discussion is possible here. We explained you several times that the BTCU project, if fake or not, is irrevocable associated with Coinsbit. Now some members got it that you are representing former and active heads of Coinsbit. You have no chance to deny the direct connection to Coinsbit as they are explicitly listed on your website as partners. The reason why I’m writing here the last time in a friendly matter is that we don’t know, if Nataly Simson is personally responsible for scams or if other staff members are responsible. Because I don’t want to be responsible for harming permanently the reputation of Nataly Simson without knowing the internal interdependencies and responsibilities, thus as I don’t want to judge prejudiced, I’m coming up with a simple question. You are in direct contact with Nataly. You got also confronted with evidently very angry members of Coinsbit. As you seem to be psychological trained you should know that it would now be time to change your role play and tactic. Therefore my question: Are you willing to talk with Nataly about the shown issues these two members posted repeatedly and are you willing to find a solution for them? I tell you now in a friendly manner that this would be the only option to save Nataly Simsons reputation as well as Coinsbits reputation, the reputation of your “BTCU-team” (if fake or not) and your own reputation as well. Do it now and most likely the two members (and perhaps others as well) will be calmed for now. I’ll hold on then as well with my official complaints until we’ll get a positive result. I don't know who uses which graphics. It's just not interesting to me and I don't have time for it. Even if we hypothetically assume that Nataly Simson brought a designer with her (although I cannot assert this since I do not have this information), then what's wrong with that? And what is the best - for the "BTCU" logo has just been taken a free template from freepik.com (https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/modern-cpu-background-with-isometric-perspective_3279501.htm#page=1&query=cpu&position=6), modified a little bit with Adobe Illustrator, done in a few minutes. And therefore the victims' coins were abused?@BTCU_ULTIMATE: I'm not happy the things are going here and I don't want that anyone could say afterwards I wouldn't have tried it, so I'm asking here once again: Would you please - as representative of the Coinsbit heads - so kind and take a look at iGO_Techs case at first please? He's not a little brat, he's a real inventor and engineer! At the moment the whole story here still hasn't left this forum from my side and I'm not interested to let it go viral. So please clarify it in the name of this community why his token has been delisted and why he hasn't gotten his investment back. When we found a solution then we'll head over to the members out of bitbottrader's list. This list is frightening and you won't tell us that all this members are just trolls. Please note that this is a recovery plan, a recovery plan of the victims' funds as well as of your personal reputation and the reputation of Coinsbit and their team, including Nataly Simson. It's now in your hand. Hold on a moment and think about it until it's too late! We are your community! We are not your enemy! Most likely all of us are willing to remove your flags when you start trying to resolve all the open issues. If all issues are resolved and there are no complaints left from your community, I offer to delete my scam alert (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5274150.msg55149575#msg55149575) and all negative postings here as well. I'll hold on as well until I got your response. @iGO_Tech and @bitbottrader: Please confirm if you could support this recovery plan as a constructive solution! What are you doing here? Busy with posting when you actualy should talk with your the attending physician psychiatrist. Until now I have been very diplomatic and this whole theater hasn't left this forum. But since you have opened your cheeky mouth again in attacking your victims personally it's now going to get attention in front of a broader audience, especially in front of all potential victims and investors you caught already in your channels and social media!I'll be back! |
