|
Kooke and Wasserman are easily linked together by looking at their post history dates. They both went inactive in late october 2014, then came back in 2016 for Opair. Wasserman came back when he started looking for a community manager and Kooke came back a week before Opair was publicly announced.
Those would have to be some pretty huge coincidences.. lol
Especially considering how much of an unconditional cheerleader Kooke has been for this project.
FYI I would be very happy to sell my ICO account at reasonable a loss. (0.38 btc face value)
|
|
|
|
Wallet please  The crappy QT wallet will be released the 19th so they say. According to github there are no projects started, so probably some cheap dev is working on it for 0.5 btc and all files will be uploaded at once. Still no alarm bells going off? It's not fair to call it a scam until you have a video of Wasserman admitting its a scam AND a signed confession note!  I hope all the people that didn't believe us, even when the truth was obvious, feel dumb for supporting this guy. |
|
|
|
Are those identities even real? I dont see any development going on..
Seems really a money grab move.
No, tomsmith, kooke and a couple others have been way too supportive of Wasserman but they never actually give any reason why. They just try to flood all the legit negative comments with "hey guy, everything is fine, don't worry!". They are either Wasserman's alts, or affiliated with him. Anyone who can get out probably should. Notice how Wasserman wouldn't email investors and tell them about the vote, or the escrow decision? |
|
|
|
The secret ballot is just another example of the kind of person you are dealing with.
Your idiotic comments give us a good indication of who we are dealing with. Secret ballot? I guess we have different definitions of the word secret. In my dictionary, something that is posted numerous times on a public web forum where scores of people vote on it isn't called a secret. Anyway, I don't know why I bother - Wasserman could have taken an ad out in the new york times and you'd still find something to complain about (while rotting away in your parent's basement of course). Check yourself A secret ballot is one where peoples votes are anonymous. Which is exactly what this was. It was a vote over giving Wasserman 9% of the entire coin supply, even though he said they wouldn't take a pre-mine in the ICO. Do you really think Wasserman calling the vote, collecting the anonymous ballots and tallying the results all by himself is an honest way to do business? Its a vote where even if he loses, he can't lose. It's a joke |
|
|
|
Great to see SJ and wasserman are agree and moving toward to the same goal. In short, the plans will be fulfilled and we can finally see action here Good health to Opair!!  No, SebastianJu got tired of dealing with Wassermans shady BS and is basically suggesting that people take a refund so he can wash his hands from this scam coin and move on. The recent vote over giving Wasserman the 9% of coin reserved for PoW was laughable! A secret ballot vote conducted, overseen and counted by the benefactor (waserman himself). Talk about corruption.. lol I don't understand your point of view. If you think the coin will be worth $0, why does it matter if he has 9% of $0? If he doesn't release a wallet with fresh code, I won't be optimistic either, but crazy things can happen in crypto. When did I say the coin will be worth $0? Lying to get money is fraud, fraud is a scam. Supporting a scammer is lame. The secret ballot is just another example of the kind of person you are dealing with. |
|
|
|
Great to see SJ and wasserman are agree and moving toward to the same goal. In short, the plans will be fulfilled and we can finally see action here Good health to Opair!! No, SebastianJu got tired of dealing with Wassermans shady BS and is basically suggesting that people take a refund so he can wash his hands from this scam coin and move on. The recent vote over giving Wasserman the 9% of coin reserved for PoW was laughable! A secret ballot vote conducted, overseen and counted by the benefactor (waserman himself). Talk about corruption.. lol |
|
|
|
|
Anyone who has faith in this coin hasn't been paying attention.
|
|
|
|
My point is that most people that support wasserman are probably fake. He ran a secret vote instead of a public vote for a reason.
SebastionJu missed a third option. Allow refunds for 2 weeks AND hold the remaining money until Wasserman delivers features.
not really it favor 2nd phase ICO people as risk free escrower guys can sell coins if price is high or ask refund if price is low, this is not fair for 1st phase investors i agree with that that is why i want be out of that shit - the way how they run things is not building trust.. I'm the one who pointed that out in the first place... I'm not saying that Sebastian would still offer 100% refund to stage 2 investors. I'm saying he could still hold funds from wasserman after stage 2 people are locked in. If wasserman failed to deliver, there are fair things Sebastian could do with the money in his possession. |
|
|
|
He put on a vote over giving himself 9% of the coin supply that was suppose to be for mining rewards. He ran it as a secret ballot, where only he knew the votes and the totals. Surprise... he just told us that he won the vote and gets the free money! Worst part is only 2 or 3 people bothered to say anything about it. I guess he is going to do whatever he wants. I'm just disappointed that SebastionJu is offering stage 2 refunds then handing the remaining coin over to wasserman for no work. Not everybody want return and some want to play wasserman game. They can chose big fuck to wasserman or return money - SJ is doing good job you decide where to go. If price jumps 100x some will have regrets and whine on SJ and future devs will avoid his ass well so his choose i REALY smart. People can go away is wasserman will keep doing shit  their choice their moeny My point is that most people that support wasserman are probably fake. He ran a secret vote instead of a public vote for a reason. SebastionJu missed a third option. Allow refunds for 2 weeks AND hold the remaining money until Wasserman delivers features. |
|
|
|
He put on a vote over giving himself 9% of the coin supply that was suppose to be for mining rewards. He ran it as a secret ballot, where only he knew the votes and the totals. Surprise... he just told us that he won the vote and gets the free money! Worst part is only 2 or 3 people bothered to say anything about it. I guess he is going to do whatever he wants. I'm just disappointed that SebastionJu is offering stage 2 refunds then handing the remaining coin over to wasserman for no work. |
|
|
|
You guys do realize after all shadiness from this ICO, wasserman now only have to release a cheap ass qt wallet for full escrow funds and didn't notify any investors by email on what to vote and how to vote.
Escrow will not do that. Funds will be released in parts. No, not anymore. Sebastian has decided to offer stage 2 people refunds and then giving Wasserman all the remaining money for basically nothing. ...
51% attack is when 1 person/group controls over 50% of the network mining hash rate. Then they have blockchain control and can reverse transactions, double spend coins and block other peoples transactions at will.
Many exchanges have more than 50% coins and no one attacks POS coins all those theoretical problems doesn't happening. All drama is to hyped abut that. PS: Exchange can give such POS 200-400 confirmations before they are usable if they aware Of course Poloniex isn't' going to 51% attack some shitcoin. lol But on a PoW system, a miner doesn't need to control very much of the coin, only the hashrate to do a 51% attack. I kept asking if Wasserman had a PoS system ready for launch and he just now responded. As far we knew it was going to be PoW with 0 reward. Which would have been easy to 51% attack. |
|
|
|
I suggest increase all amount coins to 90 or 100 million, if ft possible. Developers can remain 5-7 million to yourself, and remaining - POS... Attack 51% - it's very dangerous...
What ? if escrow ill have 50%+ online coins it doesnt mean he will attack network even with attack what yo can do ? At best you can do is blocking spending that is all What are you talking about? 51% attack is when 1 person/group controls over 50% of the network mining hash rate. Then they have blockchain control and can reverse transactions, double spend coins and block other peoples transactions at will. |
|
|
|
@wasserman99 - read and respond to my post (~6 post before this one) #1504 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1558596.msg16180948#msg16180948If you take PoW, how will the network be secured? Why are you running the vote that decides if you get free money. That is major conflict of interest. It should also be public, not secret! The vote should be to either give you PoW or not, by adding 2 categories for 'against' you are diluting the votes against yourself. The PoW rules were established before ICO, a small majority shouldn't be enough to change a major rule like that after the ICO. Hi, We can send the premine (if the option b wins) to an escrow address not controlled by us, there is no problem. We will not touch the premine coins. On voting, we decided to do it because many suggested that because the raised amount was less than expected. We decided to take this proposal and conduct a vote. We include the three options that we considered most appropriate. For the moment, the results of the voting at the moment are: a) 5 - b) 14 - c) 6. It's a big difference, even if we sum both options as you say. There are some votes that we are verifying that comes from an investor or not, so if anyone can vote (and is an investor) contact us by pm or slack. SJ is aware of and agree with the vote. Regards I'll ask again. How will the network be secured if there is no PoW reward and no incentive for miners? Do you have a working PoS system ready? Otherwise a 51% attack will be super easy. The votes need to be public. What you are doing is like letting a president tally their own election votes and then tell everyone if they got re-elected. |
|
|
|
@wasserman99 - read and respond to my post (~6 post before this one) #1504 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1558596.msg16180948#msg16180948If you take PoW, how will the network be secured? Why are you running the vote that decides if you get free money. That is major conflict of interest. It should also be public, not secret! The vote should be to either give you PoW or not, by adding 2 categories for 'against' you are diluting the votes against yourself. The PoW rules were established before ICO, a small majority shouldn't be enough to change a major rule like that after the ICO. |
|
|
|
Send wasserman99 a message to vote against him getting the 9% opair coins that were suppose to be reserved for PoW. He's putting on some kind of BS vote trying to get more money  |
|
|
|
Send wasserman99 a message to vote against him getting the 9% opair coins that were suppose to be reserved for PoW. He's putting on some kind of BS vote trying to get more money |
|
|
|
This vote is BS.  First - The POW is suppose to keep the network secure. Do you have a working POS system ready to take its place? Otherwise, 51% attack will be easy as pie! Second - Investors didn't sign up for a vote over pre-mine. It was determined before the ICO. This is bait and switch. Changing major ICO rules now should require a lot more than 50% support. Third - The options should only be "Let you have the PoW coins" or "Don't let you have the PoW coins". By adding extra options - " Don't let you have the PoW + don't change anything" AND " Don't let you have the PoW + delete them".. You are spreading the votes against you into 2 categories, giving yourself a big advantage! Fourth - Any votes need to be public during the voting period. This vote is about giving you free money.. You running a secret ballot is a huge conflict of interest. It's not open and it's not fair. If people agree with me please voice your opinion, this vote is shady as hell. |
|
|
|
|
Obviously Frank and Hao still aren't real and Wasserman can't decide if he wants to run with the money he has or use it to hire some low cost dev to unlock more.
|
|
|
|
|
@Wasserman, how about you get part of the escrow when you show a beta of debit card and ocaml functionality? How soon can Frank and Hao release a beta?
I still have serious doubts that you are going to try to deliver anything at all. It looks like you are just staying on the sidelines hoping people will put blame and pressure on Sebastian to give you easy money.
ICO bounty needs to be paid from Wassermans current funds, not the escrow. Escrow people signed up to buy a coin, not to pay to advertise a scam. Bounty is 100% Wassermans responsibility, and he can easily afford it now.
|
|
|
|
|
Wasserman needs to speak up and tell us what his milestones are going to be. Then we can talk about assigning value to them and work on a real agreement.
Phase 2 people must decide if they want in or out before anyone gets coins. This will take some time, since they can't decide until Wasserman agrees to deliver.
Once coins are delivered, everyone is locked in (for reasons already explained). But if wasserman failed to deliver the software then remaining locked Opair funds would need to be spread evenly to stage 1 and 2 investors. Since stage 2 investors would have gotten their Opair coin and already had the option to dump them, it would be too late for a full refund.
@Wasserman - Exactly what features are you going to eventually deliver with the entire ICO fund? We need to know to make an agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
