Zimbeck isnt even in the ball park regarding any of this tech with about 100 real projects already well advanced in the works with real, usable, solid solutions... that will face the same legal obstacles that eill make them of no (decentralized) use in the real world. It is of no value whatsoever, sorry. Shooting blanks. But, besides this, Zimbeck's back door is already open and fully controlled (when and if it works) by the crook hackers (surplus' minions) in Taiwan. It's all part if a staged conspiracy being funded wigh the current scam. By the time BITER releases the last 33% the coin and the project will be completely dead and trading in singles.
Talking of tech in this environment is a total exercise in futility.
And, bg the way, it is going to require some actual investment -from the scammed money- from Bobsurplus to even reach the thresold oc thd release of the last 33%. BAY is already technically death.
And James, this quacrx-whatever guy is a fanboy of incredible dedication, more than probably a foot soldier of Bob. A total waste of time in any case.
You are implying there is a back door in the bitbayd? IF you think so can you explain to me why? I'm going to have to build it myself if you think thats the case. That is a pretty serious accusation. BlackHalo has no back doors im always willing to let people build from it. So im curious as to why you think this. |
|
|
|
|
Also my license was discussed earlier in the thread. Of course in reality, that is not something im obligated to discuss i was kind enough to post about that.
I have never seen a person post anything like that ever on a coin they were working on so i think barking up a different tree would be the gracious way of proceeding.
My fee was very small considering the scope of the work and what they had asked of me.
Also discussed was the fact that i did/do not control the coin, only the tech end of it. (so i can fork it and plan out whatever tech schedule)
again discussed was the fact that i never wanted to be lead dev. The OP I changed personally to project management under the assumption that funds would be used to hire people. Some people threw my name around irresponsibly and thus ive had to work harder. So i do in fact currently do all the dev for them it certainly was meant to be managerial and some coding and has turned into something else. Pegging is a feature that was part of it and that is a great example.
|
|
|
|
Although I am new to crypto, I've been looking seriously into some coins to invest in. BitBay was one of those coins and now I am having some serious concerns. I have my own methods of gathering information when it comes to doing business. My day job is as a PI / Internet Investigator.
Upon researching BAY and reading a lot of posts in this thread and from Mr. Zimbeck. It is pretty clear at this point the David has had some interaction with "BobSurplus" which there are multiple threads online pointing to him being a market manipulator / scammer.
Has David Zimbeck answered this simple question directly? If he could just come out and say who is partners in this coin were I think it would clear up a lot of misconceptions. Otherwise, anyone can clearly see he is being deceitful about his partners and/or scheme collaborators. Otherwise, why continue to avoid giving clear and concise responses?
On one hand, he says he is being honest and "licensed" his technology for a flat fee (in BTC). On the other hand, he is hiding who he has been working with while simultaneously dumping coins. How many coins do you have to dump Zimbeck? Answer the questions clearly and precisely.
#1. Are you working with BobSurplus, AKA: "Bob the pumper" and his powerful team?
#2. How many total BTC / BAY coins did you get for your "license"? Give clear totals in BTC and BAY. Now.
If you really care about the truth and investors as you say you do, just answer the questions. Beating around the bush and not replying only adds to your obvious deceit. That should be enough to settle investor concerns and help put BAY back into the right direction. Thank you.
Bobsurplus hired David Z to make the coin, BitBay is bob's coin. I'm in bob's pump and dump group. Up until Bay, every coin bob has told us to buy he has pumped and made us a great profit. This time though, bob had us buy up as much bay as we could, which all went right in to bob's pocket. Every Bay that went unsold was purchased by bob, so not only did he make a ton of Bitcoin off of our group, he has hundreds of millions of BAY he can dump on us at will to make even more profit. He has made so much from this coin already, through his own group buying it, that he has no reason to pump it. Bob fucked us. The few new accounts that you see in the moderated thread that are trying to hype the coin up are all part of our group. They don't believe in bay, they just want bob to pump it. Once they realize that there isn't ever going to be a pump, you will start to see more people like me come out of the woodwork to expose what is going on. Bob did NOT hire me. Lets get that very clear. That can be proven. I was hired by someone else and i protect their privacy. Bob is such an irrelevant subject. Everyone knows what level and class of person he is. I'm sure his own group knows more than anyone how greedy and thievish he is. Any association that is rumored is not material (i can assure you his relevance currently is not worth mentioning) and does nothing for the physical growth of the coin which the person who started it intends to do and is the reason they hired me. |
|
|
|
David has mentioned that he would work on pegging sooner than later. That would automatically fix all this volatility issue. There is no Buy wall so price decline shouldn't be surprising at all. Anyone with small amount of BTC can float the boat any way he wants. I would like to see what happens after 6 months of marketplace and pegging. Whatever happens before that doesn't concern me. My bay is stored in thumb drive 20 miles from here.  Well, as a trader I'm not a big fan of the pegging actually... nor do I think the restricted liquidity will go over big necessarily. However, it's a new concept - or more accurately a new combination of concepts - so I can't prove it won't be exactly what's needed. On the other hand, I've seen way bigger losses (and gains thankfully) so this kind of action definitely doesn't spook me. In any case, I'm here for the show - and like you, for the marketplace itself. Regardless of what else is going on, and even if he has to do it all himself, if David can push things through to the marketplace release and that works to even a fraction of it's potential... then all will be quickly forgotten and forgiven. On the other hand, with ever-expanding fantasies of the numerous bitter/burned investors, it will be hard for him to keep his head above the fray. I do have faith that he can do it - he hasn't run away from BC to greener pastures, and he's worked and delivered on his past promises. Maybe not the best situation at the moment, but you could be holding BALLS that were purchased at 20K which are worth around 200 sats now. BAY would have to be selling for below 1 sat so see the same (and that's in the same time frame as well). Personally, I don't think pegging is needed for now but if you want new investors (long term ones) then pegging will need to be in place otherwise lot of people won't touch it because of volatility. I think there aren't many good devs in crypto and David is torn between smart contract & pegging. He has lot on his table and it's not easy to find someone reliable who knows the stuff. On other hand I don't think BitBay team is just running around to make profit so they can run away if that had been the case there is no reason for them to post anymore. All in all if BitBay turns out to be a scam which I don't think it is..people will end up losing faith in altcoins in general and it'll be dead in few years. The point is, im very consistent with my word. However, im trying to decide if its better sooner than later. I dont like what im seeing either, and unless you guys have the patience to bear this issue. If anything its very distracting. In order to work and focus even, i need to block it out of my head. I can either follow the schedule that was set or just shift gears. Its not the kind of thing you can rush either. Here is my suggestion: Fck everyone who is crying about price and wants to peg it. Focus on smart contract for now and once we have that sorted out then we have marketplace. After that we can worry about pegging depends on the response we get from marketplace. Pegging should be last of our concern at this moment. Let it fall to 1 sat and let the weak hands drown in their own tears. You can't make everyone happy. You have full support of lot of people in this thread who could careless about pegging including me. Yeah but i get lots of messages from people nagging me about it. I try explaining that i dont control bitbay, i only control the tech end of things. So yeah i know what you mean about this. I'm ok with it either way. |
|
|
|
David has mentioned that he would work on pegging sooner than later. That would automatically fix all this volatility issue. There is no Buy wall so price decline shouldn't be surprising at all. Anyone with small amount of BTC can float the boat any way he wants. I would like to see what happens after 6 months of marketplace and pegging. Whatever happens before that doesn't concern me. My bay is stored in thumb drive 20 miles from here. Well, as a trader I'm not a big fan of the pegging actually... nor do I think the restricted liquidity will go over big necessarily. However, it's a new concept - or more accurately a new combination of concepts - so I can't prove it won't be exactly what's needed. On the other hand, I've seen way bigger losses (and gains thankfully) so this kind of action definitely doesn't spook me. In any case, I'm here for the show - and like you, for the marketplace itself. Regardless of what else is going on, and even if he has to do it all himself, if David can push things through to the marketplace release and that works to even a fraction of it's potential... then all will be quickly forgotten and forgiven. On the other hand, with ever-expanding fantasies of the numerous bitter/burned investors, it will be hard for him to keep his head above the fray. I do have faith that he can do it - he hasn't run away from BC to greener pastures, and he's worked and delivered on his past promises. Maybe not the best situation at the moment, but you could be holding BALLS that were purchased at 20K which are worth around 200 sats now. BAY would have to be selling for below 1 sat so see the same (and that's in the same time frame as well). Personally, I don't think pegging is needed for now but if you want new investors (long term ones) then pegging will need to be in place otherwise lot of people won't touch it because of volatility. I think there aren't many good devs in crypto and David is torn between smart contract & pegging. He has lot on his table and it's not easy to find someone reliable who knows the stuff. On other hand I don't think BitBay team is just running around to make profit so they can run away if that had been the case there is no reason for them to post anymore. All in all if BitBay turns out to be a scam which I don't think it is..people will end up losing faith in altcoins in general and it'll be dead in few years. The point is, im very consistent with my word. However, im trying to decide if its better sooner than later. I dont like what im seeing either, and unless you guys have the patience to bear this issue. If anything its very distracting. In order to work and focus even, i need to block it out of my head. I can either follow the schedule that was set or just shift gears. Its not the kind of thing you can rush either. It might be an good idea to peg earlier then expected but not at the price it goes for now. That would be a huge pain for most investors, I do have the patience to wait for the price to go a bit up. The starting price is up for debate guys. The lower it is, the higher supply and the less of a burden it places on us to resell any sale into our wall. The thing is, pegging can be done at any price even 100 dollars. But the higher the price the longer the wait for the wall to sell back into the arbitrage. So a lower price that grows is a very attractive idea to me actually. |
|
|
|
i vote too peg it too half a cent first
Of course, that was the idea. Dollar is a target or a destination and certainly not needed to start at all. I can even peg at ICO price. There is lots of options. The harder part is shifting gears. Its going to require me to step out of python and into c++ bitcoin spagetti source lol. Of course it would be nice to get some good bitcoin devs on board too. (people who know more than just how to change a port number) |
|
|
|
David has mentioned that he would work on pegging sooner than later. That would automatically fix all this volatility issue. There is no Buy wall so price decline shouldn't be surprising at all. Anyone with small amount of BTC can float the boat any way he wants. I would like to see what happens after 6 months of marketplace and pegging. Whatever happens before that doesn't concern me. My bay is stored in thumb drive 20 miles from here. Well, as a trader I'm not a big fan of the pegging actually... nor do I think the restricted liquidity will go over big necessarily. However, it's a new concept - or more accurately a new combination of concepts - so I can't prove it won't be exactly what's needed. On the other hand, I've seen way bigger losses (and gains thankfully) so this kind of action definitely doesn't spook me. In any case, I'm here for the show - and like you, for the marketplace itself. Regardless of what else is going on, and even if he has to do it all himself, if David can push things through to the marketplace release and that works to even a fraction of it's potential... then all will be quickly forgotten and forgiven. On the other hand, with ever-expanding fantasies of the numerous bitter/burned investors, it will be hard for him to keep his head above the fray. I do have faith that he can do it - he hasn't run away from BC to greener pastures, and he's worked and delivered on his past promises. Maybe not the best situation at the moment, but you could be holding BALLS that were purchased at 20K which are worth around 200 sats now. BAY would have to be selling for below 1 sat so see the same (and that's in the same time frame as well). Personally, I don't think pegging is needed for now but if you want new investors (long term ones) then pegging will need to be in place otherwise lot of people won't touch it because of volatility. I think there aren't many good devs in crypto and David is torn between smart contract & pegging. He has lot on his table and it's not easy to find someone reliable who knows the stuff. On other hand I don't think BitBay team is just running around to make profit so they can run away if that had been the case there is no reason for them to post anymore. All in all if BitBay turns out to be a scam which I don't think it is..people will end up losing faith in altcoins in general and it'll be dead in few years. The point is, im very consistent with my word. However, im trying to decide if its better sooner than later. I dont like what im seeing either, and unless you guys have the patience to bear this issue. If anything its very distracting. In order to work and focus even, i need to block it out of my head. I can either follow the schedule that was set or just shift gears. Its not the kind of thing you can rush either. |
|
|
|
Normal people don't even want to loose a single penny. So i also say that pegging is necessary. Do any of you people even realise what you're talking about ? Pegging is no substitute for a proper market valuation. It amounts to standing on the beach and offering buckets of sand for sale at limited supply and $1000 each. i.e. you can set the price at whatever you like but volume is a slight problem. Please think about what you're saying here. Pegging is not going to do sh*t for this coin if nobody wants it. I see what you are saying here but pegging can bring volume because people want to sit out of BTC and hedge against it. ALSO we can grow the peg 5% a month. The may draw volume. |
|
|
|
David has mentioned that he would work on pegging sooner than later. That would automatically fix all this volatility issue. There is no Buy wall so price decline shouldn't be surprising at all. Anyone with small amount of BTC can float the boat any way he wants. I would like to see what happens after 6 months of marketplace and pegging. Whatever happens before that doesn't concern me. My bay is stored in thumb drive 20 miles from here. Well, as a trader I'm not a big fan of the pegging actually... nor do I think the restricted liquidity will go over big necessarily. However, it's a new concept - or more accurately a new combination of concepts - so I can't prove it won't be exactly what's needed. On the other hand, I've seen way bigger losses (and gains thankfully) so this kind of action definitely doesn't spook me. In any case, I'm here for the show - and like you, for the marketplace itself. Regardless of what else is going on, and even if he has to do it all himself, if David can push things through to the marketplace release and that works to even a fraction of it's potential... then all will be quickly forgotten and forgiven. On the other hand, with ever-expanding fantasies of the numerous bitter/burned investors, it will be hard for him to keep his head above the fray. I do have faith that he can do it - he hasn't run away from BC to greener pastures, and he's worked and delivered on his past promises. Maybe not the best situation at the moment, but you could be holding BALLS that were purchased at 20K which are worth around 200 sats now. BAY would have to be selling for below 1 sat so see the same (and that's in the same time frame as well). Thanks bud, yeah right now im just torn between doing pegging early to protect you guys or sticking to the schedule. Markets is the easier task, pegging is a bit more involved since it means adding mining rules. Im sort of preparing myself as we speak and studying bitcon/blackcoin source (its spagetti code lol). And yeah ive got a major bithalo/blackhalo release to do too. That release would also effect bitbay as a wallet update. Its one of those things where ive got lots of work piled on my desk and im deciding which ones are most important today. My coders here in cambodia are still learning so they dont work on any major milestones(unfortunately it is really hard to find experienced software dev). I'm still doing all the coding. So with that said ive sent out my friend who works with me on all my Halo stuff to start scouting for a superdev not necessarily bitcoin related. And the guys are looking in china and im looking at India for another group. Its just that even there, its a lot of interviewing i dont have time for and would rather be coding. So ive got my friend looking at it now and doing that for us in exchange for a bounty. |
|
|
|
Dev , Who is dumping ?
not me bud, but i have my theories though |
|
|
|
Yeah their contract system is not good at all. Its prone to so many security holes. For example, since there is no time limit, what happens if i never agree?!? I can just keep asking for money until you give it to me. There is no advance transactions such as a bomb and no anti-malleability. (And no, you cant sign the bomb after, that is a hack job way of doing it the other person can refuse to sign and still extort, you have to sign it before) Deleting the keys wont work either. Clients have to back up the keys to prevent hard drive failures. There is a reason Halo took me so long and there is a reason nobody had done smart contracts before Halo. There were reasons his super basic single transaction escrow is avoided. Its not a real smart contract system. Smart contracts have enforceable advanced commitments. Also, how do they keep drugs off the bitmessage markets? How do they ensure performance of bitmessage? how do they prevent ASICs from attacking bitmessage? How do they prevent bloat? They would need a whitelisting system and a server to fall back on to solve those bitmessage issues  Its going to take a very long time for another company to do a true Halo system. Otherwise they will be riddled with security holes and i havent even gotten started. But still its a refreshing breath of fresh air. Other people get inspired and that is the sincerest form of flattery. |
|
|
|
Hey guys question:
Ive downloaded the new smart contract wallet and Ive opened it and let it synchronize but my bitbay balance remains zero. so i tried opening new wallet but it asks to open keys which i believe has to do with the smart contracts part of the wallet. I have also noticed the address at the top where it says my bit bay address is different than any address from my BitBay-Manual-1.0.0.1 wallet.
is this because
A: I downloaded and used the manual wallet instead of the installer and thus not in the right directory, although i have not changed anything.
B: Do i have to send my coins from old wallet to the new wallet? Although i haven't read where anyone else has had to do this
You need to make a new wallet. Your wallet is definitely NOT wallet.dat. Your wallet is a pair of two keys. The halo system is the worlds most secure wallet and the two keys can have separate passwords be stored in separate places etc. Just when you make the new keys (file/new wallet) just make sure you back them both up. There is a backup option once made. Your new wallet will load and you can send however many coins you want to it. |
|
|
|
I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by 'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.
I do not support illegal activities and I think that the problem here was the illegal activities, not that it was a decentralized market. Law enforcement wouldnt particularly care if it is centralized, decentralized or distributed, if it is illegal they go after it. If it is not illegal, then why would they go after it. Privacy is something that the world needs. If you are content with the govt knowing everything you do, spend, etc. that is your choice. However there are some people that dont particularly want all their personal details available to any low level clerk (or whoever bribes them) and if the data is in a govt database it will be low level clerks that have access to it. Anyway, you are pro-govt rights, thats fine I have no problem with you having your own views on that, just let me have my own. Fair enough? James P.S. I suppose you feel that online poker is a horrible crime that SWAT teams should be sent to shutdown, since it is illegal in your USSA. Let us ignore the giant bribes that lasvegas peoples are paying the politicos to make online poker illegal, such things only happen in third world countries. Oh I "let" you have any personal views you want, what I don't "let" you is getting away with the INEVITABLE consequences of bot decentralized markets and storage since, inevitably, they will attract illegal activities and, therefore, law enforcement with disastrous effects for everyone involved, including those dealing in legal activities (loss of money and loss of stored property). I am well aware of the pitfalls of government and democracy itself, but history teaches us that even with those pitfalls it triumphs over anarchy -which is totally inviable- and dictatorship so as long as people support democracy in the US -which is where I live, but not "mine" in any way shape or form- and most of the rest of the world, the world is going to have to live according to laws and rules supported by evolving and alternate majorities. That is a FACT, especially in Law Enforcement, regardless if I like it or not. As you are fully aware of, regulation is coming imminently to crypto in both the US and Europe. Necessary and positive in the end so, yes I fully support it. And, as long as those are set by democratically elected governments, I support the enforcement of the laws against those who provide playing fields for the crooks and deranged of the world under the cover of "protecting privacy". Every individual I know of, except maybe Howard Hughes, through history, has been more than willing to give up any trace of privacy in exchange for fame and fortune, so, in the end, it is all fake and a monumental lie... But those are higher philosophical matters not necessarily appropriate for discussion here. What should be discussed, with facts at hands -as I have tried- are both the inevitability of illegal activities in any decentralized environment and the corresponding Law Enforcement action that will follow, since they will have dire effects in the quality of people's investments. What is your feeling about the Internet? It enables all sorts of crimes, shouldnt it be shutdown? What about the telephone? What about automobiles? What about restaurants? I think this tendency to criminalize anything that criminals use is quite a bit of overreaction. Why not just go after criminals? Presumably you believe in the right to free speech? Arguably most things on the internet is similar to free speech, but for criminal activity at some point it morphs into a physical thing. [some exceptions, but you understand what I say] So, why not criminalize the physical instantiation of the crime, not the technology that is shared by the criminals and the innocents. Anyway, I can see we are very far apart on this, so I will stop with this. No sense in taking this thread further offtopic. Back to my original posting here, it sounds like the bitmarkets is already live? So they are first to the market before the BAY using the same/similar tech. James Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert  Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc. He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version. I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here. Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo? This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more. So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for.... If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see a massive global something something soon? Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers? James A1. Well, the idea is similar, we don't know about the tech. From what I know, David is willing to dump the Bitmessage (if I remember well) and create something which is not that heavy on POW and not that bloated. Any competent dev can create a decentralized marketplace on top of bitmessage with a double escrow idea. So, as much as the idea goes, yes, they are pretty much similar. Let's see the working BitBay tech first. A2. Well, since bitmarket will work on Bitmessage alone, I don't see it as a competitor. The POW of bitmessage is a killer for such an approach. A marketplace is a heavy traffic usage function if you include pictures and all. Basically you can't grow a successfully marketplace on Bitmessage EVER P.S. Is TOR still a seller? Why bother with TOR if truly decentralized/encrypted? That's sounds like a bad addition Bitmessage is currently the only decentralized option out there. Thats why im fixing it with custom whitelists which is unique. However, i have been given some interesting leads like TOX. Lots of different concepts but nothing has emerged yet that strikes my fancy. Whitelists in bitmessage is my opinion that by doing that and even having a server to fall back on, i can get a robust solution. Also this way in theory we could use the same IP addresses from any bitcoin/blackcoin seeder to help pool together a stronger network. Its all part of what im working on. It just comes in stages. Bitmessage does suffer from attack vectors and again whitelists may be a help. Also i combine with burning coins too a way to maintain the whitelists without a server and to prevent spam. |
|
|
|
I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by 'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.
I do not support illegal activities and I think that the problem here was the illegal activities, not that it was a decentralized market. Law enforcement wouldnt particularly care if it is centralized, decentralized or distributed, if it is illegal they go after it. If it is not illegal, then why would they go after it. Privacy is something that the world needs. If you are content with the govt knowing everything you do, spend, etc. that is your choice. However there are some people that dont particularly want all their personal details available to any low level clerk (or whoever bribes them) and if the data is in a govt database it will be low level clerks that have access to it. Anyway, you are pro-govt rights, thats fine I have no problem with you having your own views on that, just let me have my own. Fair enough? James P.S. I suppose you feel that online poker is a horrible crime that SWAT teams should be sent to shutdown, since it is illegal in your USSA. Let us ignore the giant bribes that lasvegas peoples are paying the politicos to make online poker illegal, such things only happen in third world countries. Oh I "let" you have any personal views you want, what I don't "let" you is getting away with the INEVITABLE consequences of bot decentralized markets and storage since, inevitably, they will attract illegal activities and, therefore, law enforcement with disastrous effects for everyone involved, including those dealing in legal activities (loss of money and loss of stored property). I am well aware of the pitfalls of government and democracy itself, but history teaches us that even with those pitfalls it triumphs over anarchy -which is totally inviable- and dictatorship so as long as people support democracy in the US -which is where I live, but not "mine" in any way shape or form- and most of the rest of the world, the world is going to have to live according to laws and rules supported by evolving and alternate majorities. That is a FACT, especially in Law Enforcement, regardless if I like it or not. As you are fully aware of, regulation is coming imminently to crypto in both the US and Europe. Necessary and positive in the end so, yes I fully support it. And, as long as those are set by democratically elected governments, I support the enforcement of the laws against those who provide playing fields for the crooks and deranged of the world under the cover of "protecting privacy". Every individual I know of, except maybe Howard Hughes, through history, has been more than willing to give up any trace of privacy in exchange for fame and fortune, so, in the end, it is all fake and a monumental lie... But those are higher philosophical matters not necessarily appropriate for discussion here. What should be discussed, with facts at hands -as I have tried- are both the inevitability of illegal activities in any decentralized environment and the corresponding Law Enforcement action that will follow, since they will have dire effects in the quality of people's investments. What is your feeling about the Internet? It enables all sorts of crimes, shouldnt it be shutdown? What about the telephone? What about automobiles? What about restaurants? I think this tendency to criminalize anything that criminals use is quite a bit of overreaction. Why not just go after criminals? Presumably you believe in the right to free speech? Arguably most things on the internet is similar to free speech, but for criminal activity at some point it morphs into a physical thing. [some exceptions, but you understand what I say] So, why not criminalize the physical instantiation of the crime, not the technology that is shared by the criminals and the innocents. Anyway, I can see we are very far apart on this, so I will stop with this. No sense in taking this thread further offtopic. Back to my original posting here, it sounds like the bitmarkets is already live? So they are first to the market before the BAY using the same/similar tech. James Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc. He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version. I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here. Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo? This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more. So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for.... If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see a massive global something something soon? Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers? James A1. Well, the idea is similar, we don't know about the tech. From what I know, David is willing to dump the Bitmessage (if I remember well) and create something which is not that heavy on POW and not that bloated. Any competent dev can create a decentralized marketplace on top of bitmessage with a double escrow idea. So, as much as the idea goes, yes, they are pretty much similar. Let's see the working BitBay tech first. A2. Well, since bitmarket will work on Bitmessage alone, I don't see it as a competitor. The POW of bitmessage is a killer for such an approach. A marketplace is a heavy traffic usage function if you include pictures and all. Basically you can't grow a successfully marketplace on Bitmessage EVER P.S. Is TOR still a seller? Why bother with TOR if truly decentralized/encrypted? That's sounds like a bad addition Bitmessage is currently the only decentralized option out there. Thats why im fixing it with custom whitelists which is unique. However, i have been given some interesting leads like TOX. Lots of different concepts but nothing has emerged yet that strikes my fancy. Whitelists in bitmessage is my hope that by doing that and even having a server to fall back on, i can get a robust solution. Also this way in theory we could use the same IP addresses from any bitcoin/blackcoin seeder to help pool together a stronger network. Its all part of what im working on. It just comes in stages. |
|
|
|
|
Ok guys, for those of you who get 'return address not loaded is because BOTH email and bitmessage are checked, it defaults to email and thats not loaded'
So that would be if you are sending to a bitbay address (which it would want to use the more reliable encrypted if enabled)
Hope that clears that up. I'm going to add a check for the email if its not loaded to not default to email. (maybe later add a notification that both are enabled)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok anyone with libeay32 bug is probably running vista. IF thats they case, this was built for windows 7 and not tested on vista. However, you can try to install openssl for vista make sure you get the correct version for your OS 32 or 64 bit
|
|
|
|
Please do not make this my problem. - No-one in this discussion has yet to successfully produce a bayhalo contract, its not just me.
and no. it doesnt fill a bitmessage automatically under the receive tab. "YOUR BITMESSAGE ADDRESS:=BLANK" is this something that you guys are seeing from a old bit/black halo install the rest of us haven't done?
Ive never tried sending to a bitmessage address as I never found out the address of either/other client.
When I just tried sending to a bitmessage address i got a "Your return address is not loaded" pop up and it doesnt go thru. Not that I know the bimessage of the other client, Im just pulling one from the bitmessage client.
Since I had no bitmessage addresses, I setup 2 different gmail accounts. Both clients passed the email test - you say run it encrypted which is how i have it set.
It just hangs there pending and never shows up in the other client when trying to send between 2 email setups.
Screenshots will be posted. - I hope this info will be helpful in trying to figure out why some of us are having problems.
Ahhh OK you have an issue i have seen on some computers. BitMHalo is not working on your computer. It runs bitmessage and Halo. Can you do a teamview with me some time so I can see why that subprocess doesnt work for you? PM me please. I was having that issue too and I already posted what worked for me. Close all Bitbay process & wallet Go to C>Program Files>BitBay Copy libeay32.dll Go to C>Bitbay Paste Open new Bitbay Client and wait for 5-10 minutes. Go to Receive tabs and there you'll have your bitmessage address No more error regarding BitHalo not responding. What is strange is that i already have Libeay32 in the installer. Im not sure why my version doesnt work for them. |
|
|
|
Please do not make this my problem. - No-one in this discussion has yet to successfully produce a bayhalo contract, its not just me.
and no. it doesnt fill a bitmessage automatically under the receive tab. "YOUR BITMESSAGE ADDRESS:=BLANK" is this something that you guys are seeing from a old bit/black halo install the rest of us haven't done?
Ive never tried sending to a bitmessage address as I never found out the address of either/other client.
When I just tried sending to a bitmessage address i got a "Your return address is not loaded" pop up and it doesnt go thru. Not that I know the bimessage of the other client, Im just pulling one from the bitmessage client.
Since I had no bitmessage addresses, I setup 2 different gmail accounts. Both clients passed the email test - you say run it encrypted which is how i have it set.
It just hangs there pending and never shows up in the other client when trying to send between 2 email setups.
Screenshots will be posted. - I hope this info will be helpful in trying to figure out why some of us are having problems.
Ahhh OK you have an issue i have seen on some computers. BitMHalo is not working on your computer. It runs bitmessage and Halo. Can you do a teamview with me some time so I can see why that subprocess doesnt work for you? PM me please. |
|
|
|
Just wow again. You are not helping this convo at all. Stop assuming you have answers for me. How does one send to a bitmessage address if one CANNOT put there OWN bitmessage address into the client first?  If you sent it to me, how would I receive it if MY bitmessage address in NOT in the client??? The problem is one CANNOT put their OWN bitmessage address into the client. So therefore you CANT send to me OMFG that was it?! Just confusion over the BitBay and Bitmessage addresses? Beautiful. Things are looking bright. When I see it actually working Ill join in your celebrations. That wasn't THE problem - That was HIS problem. Still waiting on those screenshots It generates a bitmessage address automatically for you. Look at your receive tab. When a contract is sent, the return address is sent with it. You may also choose to use a temporary email account such as a gmail and it will automatically encrypt all of the emails. |
|
|
|
Why are we concerned with IRC and GoDaddy ?? NO-ONE HAS MADE A SINGLE SMART BAYHALO CONTRACT YET --- NOBODY! If not a single person could get it to work then it just doesn't work. The problem cannot be that we are group stupid and cannot find the "receive tab".(thanks for the tip) Please don't tell me the solution is for us to PM David, one-at-a-time, to fix the issues we are ALL having with the smart contracting software. Im not PMing anybody for a fix, and neither should you. (you cant take the time to even recognize that there may be a problem here, but have the time to respond to everyone's PM in here and those who downloaded the client)? What good is it if your client works and the worlds doesn't? We were promised working contracting software, just like they were promised 500BTC if they delivered it. - 500 btc at completion of ico / delivery of initial wallet. (This threshold has been met.)
- 500 btc at delivery of wallet with integrated smart contracts
- 500 btc at delivery of our decentralized marketplace
And if it doesn't work, then nobody is going to stick around. Period. ...And I am a Halo supporter. Im not sure what you are referring to that doesnt work. When i edited the details tab, there was a part i changed with sending encrypted messages to a BitBay address. So just send contracts to a BITMESSAGE address directly for now. You can also send to and EMAIL address using encrypted email. The client very much works in every single other aspect. The only people who werent able to make it work was because they were sending contracts directly to a BitBay adddress (which also should work but there was a typo, which was just a matter of me going in and changing a single letter) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
