LOL. Swing and a miss, fella. You *do* know I'm not a yank, right? There is a world beyond your country.

Wut?


...again, wut? I haven't commented on this project in years, why am I being dragged back in to it again? Is this some sort of weird bot-posting attack on the forum?



...and finally, again, wut?

Trav, you better explain wtf you mean by claiming to 'know' who I am and who I 'work for', because I've got every reason to believe that is a lie or that you are *really* off-base with your research. I removed my negative trust from you after all this time because I felt that, whatever I personally thought of your project, you did appear to be trying to make something legit out of its messy beginnings. But you know what happens to people I believe are lying to their community so, chop chop, let's hear your explanation for this latest claim you are making about me.

Nope. Never was, never will be.

It's even less legit than that 'DeepOnion' nonsense which seems to attract the same sort of noobs.

Why do you keep closing it?

I provided proof that you already tried listing JBOX as a written articles platform and now you are trying as a streaming video platform.


Julius Jamani is listed as the founder of this project. Once the founder has been exposed for scammy behaviour there's no need to do searches on the rest of the crew in order to declare it a scam.

So you're saying that your dating platform has nothing to do with blockchain technology, you just want to raise money by selling an ERC20 token in order to get funding?

You claim to be generating 80-120% in profit from your dating platform annually, yes? Why do you need to be asking the cryptocurrency community for their money if you're already making great returns?

There isn't more than one Julius Jamani using the same email address though.


Proof that you are the same scammer from both ICOs:

https://tbcprofit.blogspot.com/2017/03/

http://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/8780/pr-jboxcoin-blockchain-based-decentrlized-video-streaming-platform

This is not about race, this is about you being a scammer. I've busted plenty of white con-artists, too, so don't go thinking you're anything special.

Proof that you are the same scammer from both ICOs:

https://tbcprofit.blogspot.com/2017/03/

http://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/8780/pr-jboxcoin-blockchain-based-decentrlized-video-streaming-platform

Reserved in case of future necessity.

Reposting content from ICO ANN thread for reference as scammer seems to want to post his same replies in both:

Not that this obvious scam needs much more than a brief perusal to see it for the absurdly lazy scam ICO that it is, I did check your website. I also checked another website of yours which led to the evidence showing you only recently attempted a previous ICO by claiming JBOX to be something else.



So, as I said, you are a scammer and this is a scam ICO - as the evidence proves.

Which part of the following confused you? Was it the link to the scam accusation thread where I detail why you are an obvious scam?


Ok, perhaps if I post the OP from that thread here it might help, seeing as you have difficulty with clicking on a link:

Scam ICO thread for JBOX Token sale

Currently attempting to pretend to be a video streaming project, but previously tried to run an ICO promoting 'JBOX' as a written-articles platform:

http://www.waitingmoney.com/
https://archive.is/FImz8


LOL at the failure to even bother replacing some of the 'Lorem Ipsum' placeholder text while fraudulently claiming the likes of 'Forbes' as partners!

Lazy scammer is lazy.

Time. That's why.

There's only so much I can commit to repeatedly warning people off these scams and I have no doubt this 'lux coin' is just another pump and dump, too.


Here's what you can do:
Find a scam, find evidence it is a scam, open a scam accusation thread with the details of the operation and links to the people involved.
DM me about it so I can issue the appropriate negative trust ratings.

Retroactive patent infringement? Only if the tech they're patenting is for time-travel. How would CME even go about that discussion with a judge in order to get an injunction? - "Your honour, this group of people have been flagrantly using our 2017-patented tech since 2015!!1!1!!"

No, it isn't that kind of process. USPTO should be able to easily establish if CME's tech is anything like SIA's (or anybody else's) and, as I said, would then reject the application. If it isn't anything like SIA's then they wouldn't have a claim to make against them in the first place.

Prior art includes the described hypothetical, too, so having a public discussion about the theoretical design and methodology of a technology still counts. The technology doesn't have to have been used or even built in order to claim prior art, you need only find evidence of it having been discussed in open forum (i.e. not under NDA).

No problem. Read up on 'prior art'

If anything, most of these commercial blockchain-based patent applications will likely be rejected due to the fact it is extremely difficult to describe a sufficiently unique technological innovation which hasn't already been discussed at some point in recent years, probably on this forum.

LOL! I just spotted this little gem in my 'untrusted' received feedback from Epicyclic. Not sure if he's the creator of this bit of fakery or he's copied it from someone else but that is some grade-A dumb-fuckery:

The thing I don't get is that it purports to be a post from THIS VERY THREAD!?!

Even more lulz at the claim of 'Administrators' being interested in this shitcoin, as though there is some sort of cabal of bitcointalk Whale Admins who employ the likes of me to help 'FUD' so they can buy cheapcoinznomnomnom!!11!1!!

They are not really 'in a partnership' with a bank, they are just-another-commercial-customer of the bank who is 'reselling' branded cards in their business name. You fill out the right forms and pretty much anyone can do the same thing.

That is why they are debit cards and not credit cards, because Centra Tech Inc. doesn't have the credentials to issue branded credit cards.

It is their own 'company' branded card and would have been funded by them with fiat to make those purchases. There is no evidence the 'CCE' module they describe converted cryptocurrency into fiat to fund those transactions. Otherwise they would have been easily able to prove it by showing the transaction taking place on the blockchain in real time. All those videos showed was a regular purchase being made by a funded card.



Ooh, a mobile wallet? How innovative. I'll wait until there's proof that their famed real-time automagically-converting crypto-to-fiat 'CCE' module is actually a thing before considering a retraction.