|
Can you provide a link for more information on this? I found a couple different products named Cryptosteel when I searched for more info.
|
|
|
|
2. A sort of random topic post that barely has any replies to it has the highest keyword volume here on bitcointalk. Like what the hell. I was expecting something along the lines of "bitcoin wallet safety" or "What is an airdrop" or something like that but instead the highest is "SuperChillin." 83,000 in volume too! Compared to "bitcointalk" only at 15,000. That's definitely a significant difference. Baffling, for sure.
There's gotta be a reason for this. Somebody find out what offsite spam marketing campaign this guy was using! |
|
|
|
Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?
That's a question you won't get an answer to (& it's 10-78 BTC in question). Maybe because you, "don't actually seem to be involved with the project." puhhh, what a mess.
1. I invested in NVO.
2. I would not have sent BTC into this ICO if the funds would not have been held by an escrow.
3. NVO development is a disaster and it had to be stoped.
This is why I asked the question about who decided the additional 30% should be released and if there was a vote... It appears the investors didn't believe the goals were being met. I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.
Trust is earned, not declared. You can ask questions, that's not the problem. The problem is that your judgement in this matter can't be trusted due to your past disputes with Lauda and your inability to separate personal quarrels from affecting your perception of facts. You have neg-trusted someone for posting in your thread. You're spreading reprehensible rumours about forum members you're squabbling with. There's a good chance that you'd make something up to get back at Lauda. Dude, you are nuts. I don't know if you spend too much time drinking the cool-aid or what, but I have earned more trust than anyone else on this site. I wouldn't risk my reputation to make something up about a documented extortionist who is doing an excellent job of showing his incompetence and inability to be transparent without any assistance from me. In any event, 2 of the 3 multisig escrows aren't making any comment on the situation, Lauda isn't giving any information about exchange rates or remaining funds he's holding that aren't his, and I think that is enough for me to say that this escrow has been a dumpster fire. No sense continuing to beat a dead horse. Everyone can see for themselves how this situation is being handled, who is remaining silent, and who is defending the wrongdoing. Transparency. It's not for everyone I guess.  Og volunteered, so which category he's in? Corrupt or shill?
What part of, "I wouldn't touch this dumpster fire" did you think was me volunteering? Amazing how this type of situation can happen, and some members want to make it about me. your self-proclaimed reputation
 How is the trust system self proclaimed? Sorry for misinterpreting that
Misinterpreting seems to be your MO. It's all good. Thanks for the apology. |
|
|
|
|
You won’t be able to move your forked coins with Armory, but you can take those private keys and import them into various fork wallets to move those coins. I would recommend moving your BTC from the address first.
|
|
|
|
I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.
Og can't be trusted with this. Right above he's already moving goalposts from "did Lauda steal money" to "was there a vote for a milestone" even though no such vote was supposed to take place as far as I know. It would have to be someone completely impartial, which probably excludes most people in this thread. Someone mentioned ibminer, seems like a good choice if he would agree. There are other trusted people on this forum. No need to involve someone as blatantly biased as Og. I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate. |
|
|
|
Bitmain requiring KYC now? What's up with that? Why all of a sudden they required potential buyers to go through this whole KYC process?
Likely related to their plans to go public. |
|
|
|
How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC without this being a scam?
This: ~60% of the funds have been disbursed to the team according to milestones and the remaining ~40% (probably more due to forks) are likely to be refunded pending a vote, which is in progress: https://nvo.party/Some folks here seem to use a definition of a scam as "anything less than 100%" but the initial 30% distribution was set in stone basically (end if ICO / start of development) and the other 30% seems to be quite straightforward too (availability of beta wallet software IIRC) so there isn't much room for a scam unless the escrow actually runs at takes some or all of the 40% with them.
Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go? Is there something quoted above that is not true?
Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question. Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable? Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own? |
|
|
|
The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67RThe timeline is pretty simple: -> NVO escrow terms were agreed before the BCH existed, and were different than the original CET terms. -> The ICO raised around 3000 BTC, the alts weren't converted immediately. Some were, some still are/were recently converted. -> There were issues while converting, due to investors lack of due diligence(quoting Lauda's exact words). -> Fast forward to June(?), some shit happened(didn't read or get enough or any info on that) and it resulted in a vote, whether or not the investors should be refunded or not. -> Vote is still going on, and if it results in a refund, they will be taken care of by Lauda and team. From what I can tell, only the alts were moved to an exchange, and most of the bitcoin stayed there only. Some bitcoins were sent to bittrex, and I don't know what happened to that. There's still more than 1000 btc in the escrow address ,plus forks. ~1497 BCH was moved on Aug 7 around 3AM GMT, and around 94 BTC was sent back to an alleged escrow address around 7:45 PM that evening. The low price during that timeframe was 0.07 BTC, and the high was 0.1149 BTC, meaning that BCH was worth between 104.79 and 172 BTC, depending on what it was sold for. This means there is at least 10 BTC unaccounted for, likely substantially higher. Further, I do not see any account for the bitcoin gold funds, nor bitcoin diamond. Lauda's statement implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET " policy". The lack of transparency of course does not do lauda any favors in terms of making it appear he is doing everything honestly, and "by the book". How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC? Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go? Is there something quoted above that is not true? |
|
|
|
I am starting to wonder how quickly people jump to illogical conclusions here and why,never mind scratch that, I know why.  It wasn't that hard to get proper answers, was it?  Nice that you got some answers. I saw a publicly stated escrow address that was empty. Users complaining to me of a scam. Lauda refusing to say where the funds were, refusing to give exchange rate data, refusing to let someone audit the situation, and ignoring questions. I still don't understand why a simple timeline of events can't be provided. You would think it would be fun to provide all this data. I believe it is safe to say the escrow was at the very least mishandled and funds should have never moved from the escrow address (I still have no idea why they did or where they went. I read to an exchange managed by a single person?) without a transparent transfer to another address and updated signatures. The blockchain was created exactly so situations like this don't happen. It is disappointing to see this level of transparency. |
|
|
|
Looking forward to you signing addresses tied to those multisigs.
It was already clearly stated that this will not happen. You have not read the thread, again (which is the n-th time that I'm notifying you about your failure to do so). Yes, I saw a screenshot where you said you would never allow an audit as well as a statement where you were open to it. Apparently some things can change when people want to know what happened to their money. I thought we were working towards resolving the issue, but apparently I am just wasting my time. |
|
|
|
What you need to understand is that I don't care about Lauda.
This is why you frequently mention me in private channels, because you just don't care. Evidence of such: I was clearly responding to a question to summarize what happened... Believe me, there's nothing I'd like more than to never have to interact with or mention you again. Stop being tied to ICO scams so I can stop having to while maintaining my conscience. Looking forward to you signing addresses mapped to those multisigs. |
|
|
|
I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related. You keep repeating this after Lauda had already stated numerous times that the rule change did not apply retroactively to the NVO escrow. Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole. I think you forgot to reference where lauda posted where he disclosed this to ICO investors prior to them sending money to the project. Further this term has no equity for the investors and as such is unenforceable in court. All of this ignores the fact that it is very unlikely this would be a negotiated term at the time the ANN thread was created. I like to ask Lauda questions to try and get the real story from the horse's mouth. I would have loved to have asked my questions in PM, but I've been blocked. When Lauda doesn't answer my questions and replies with insults, I can only go by the information he has provided that I come across, which is very little and extremely scattered. The CET page was one central resource where there was info about his escrow services, so people go there to get info on his escrow rules. Seems reasonable right? Then when people ask questions about the inconsistencies they're insulted and left negative trust instead of Lauda simply answering the questions. I'm merely here asking questions for the several members who have been PMing me begging me to look into this as they are fearful of receiving negative default trust and being insulted if they ask the questions, like what just happened to rmcdermott927. I've already marked Lauda a scammer a long time ago. There's no agenda here from me except to find out exactly what happened. If Lauda can prove that he acted in the best interests of the escrow fund depositors and didn't take additional funds he was not entitled to, I would be happy to remove my most recent trust rating. What you need to understand is that I don't care about Lauda. I don't believe he does any legitimate business for me to effect anyway, so attacking him to tarnish his reputation further is not something I care about wasting time on. I do care about the newbies who take a first step into Bitcoin only to be scammed and get turned off to crypto. It is not fair that Lauda walks away with a payday, and they take a haircut on their investment. When he says things like multisig addresses can't be signed, I immediately know that is a deflection and he can sign his address used for his part of the multisig. Maybe other people don't know that and need someone to explain these points since they clearly can't trust their escrow agent to not hide behind semantics to dodge their requests. My hope is that Lauda hasn't stolen any funds, can prove this publicly, and investors get the maximum amount of funds possible returned to them, while those responsible for this scam are held responsible. |
|
|
|
How has it been debunked? It's a fact.
A "fact" made up to suite your own vendetta. After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep the forked funds. There is evidence you did this. It happened. Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent.
Yes; the out-of-context "evidence" is fraudulent in the way that it was presented. The policy change is for CET, in the CET thread for future escrow deals; it has nothing to do with NVO escrow terms which were made before Bcash was a thing. The BCH fork happened in August of 2017. You made this change in November of 2017. Regardless, I will take this as an admission that you had no claim to the forked coins in the NVO escrow. We're making progress. Now we just need to see an audit of the non-transparent moves that were made while the funds were not protected by the agreed upon multisig escrow and when you alerted depositors that their funds would be moved to an exchange and would no longer protected by the escrow agreement as the evidence you provided above states that you took 18 BTC for that exchange and the allegations are that users were not aware their funds were being moved from the escrow protection. You keep repeating this after Lauda had already stated numerous times that the rule change did not apply retroactively to the NVO escrow. Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.
The evidence he quoted stated that he took 18 BTC for that transfer. I'm trying to clear up inconsistencies. People deserve to know what happened to their money. This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.
|
|
|
|
This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you.
Neither the team nor the 4th independent escrow has made a single complaint about me. Peculiar indeed. For real peculiar indeed. With all the pissed off investors who have been scammed and the failure of the ICO along with the lack of transparency, I'd think they'd be upset with you. They must have some other reason to be pleased with the situation I'm not aware of. I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related. Care to stop with the intentional spread of lies? This is the 4th time this is being debunked. How has it been debunked? It's a fact. After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep forked funds. There is evidence you did this. It happened. Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent? |
|
|
|
The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).
It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners. You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money. Sorry. Nothing is hidden; you're confusing confidentiality with cryptographic authentication. Those that are actually relevant to the project and/or care to spend 5 minutes of their time know where the funds are. You're confusing an answer with a deflection. It's ok though, no honest project would work with you due to how you conduct yourself. This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you. I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related. |
|
|
|
The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).
It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners. You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?
He got neg. rated for intentionally and blatantly slandering me on my trust wall. Not a single thing posted by him is true; not a single sentence[1]. He even posted evidence... Again, instead of retaliating to facts with negative trust, why not engage in an actual discussion and explain what people are missing? The blockchain is there to prove the truth so situations like this don't happen. You have purposely tried to keep the details secret for some reason, and that isn't acceptable for an escrow. Signing from multisig =/= signing from individual keys used for said multisig. This is clear and you would know why even the latter isn't feasible in our setup had you actually read the thread before posting.
Semantics really is the weakest argument. However, now that you understand what it is people expect of a multisig escrow (proving ownership of funds by signing a message from the key you control in the multisig address) what is the new excuse for why you can't do it? Why are you purposely being difficult and secretive when you have a public blockchain available to prove funds and explain every transfer made? |
|
|
|
As I can see most people can not distinguish which is a cheap or expensive crypto. So, let me explain that:
People always see the price to decide the value of a crypto. For example, cryptocurrencies above 1$ are expensive, below 1$ are cheap.
This understanding is so wrong, when you want to know which is cheap or expensive crypto, simply look at their market cap, the market cap of a crypto is decided by crypto price multiple its circulation supply. The higher supply, the lower price per coin/token, so the price doesn’t matter now, we have to consider the market cap. Tron has 1.3 billions of market cap with its price is 0.02$, it’s expensive for me. Aragon has 28 millions of the total cap with its price is 1$, so Aragon is 46 times cheaper than Tron, Aragon is much more cheaper than Tron.
This is a good point that too many newbie investors don't understand. Another thing to consider is total supply vs circulation supply. I would argue that Market Cap should include all coins that will ever exist, and not just what currently exists. This is because investments are made based on future estimates. For example, Ravencoin has a current market cap of $28 million due to only 8% of the coins being mined, but it would be painful to invest based on that number. In reality, the expectation is that the market cap will be over $220 million as coins continue to be mined. It is important to view things in this light to get a more accurate expectation of the future valuation of a coin. Also important to note that pre-mined currencies like Ripple can't be considered accurately valued in this way, as their market is manipulated by the issuers determining the supply of the coin making any market valuation nothing more than a measure of the success of their manipulation. Interestingly, sites like coinmarketcap get this point exactly wrong, which leads to an overvaluation of centralized currencies like Ripple and an undervaluation of decentralized currencies like Ravencoin. My example of a cheap cryptocurrency would be Namecoin, with a total valuation of all coins at less than 15 million. I would also use your example of TRON as an expensive cryptocurrency, with a total valuation of over a billion dollars. TRON's price per coin of $0.02 makes it ~65 times more expensive than Namecoin at $0.70 per coin. |
|
|
|
Not really. Here’s your thread from now and your thread from November 2017. You decided to change the rules after you had the funds in hand.
https://imgur.com/gallery/pSfxTSl
Those are policies that apply to CET; it has nothing to do with deals that were already in progress and it has changed in late 2017 IIRC (not March 2018). Assuming that the last thread update definitely corresponds to a policy change just shows how ridiculous the allegations are. As said, not a single claim in this thread is true. You had funds in escrow. Forks happened. You updated your thread to state that you keep all forked coins. I can almost guarantee that you are one of the only people that thinks this allegation is ridiculous. Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out? Insane... You even asked for clarity previously and got nothing but deflecting answers and insults. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=289011You refuse to sign a message or even provide them with an address where the funds are being held, after numerous requests.
Asking the impossible. It's no surprise that neither you nor your master understand how Bitcoin works. Maybe it was due to you pointing out his refusal to sign an address he used for the multisig escrow, which led to the fact that Lauda doesn't understand that signers on a multisig address can still sign messages using the key they used in the multisig address, putting a huge hole in his argument of why he couldn't prove the funds he claimed to hold? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
