Ich glaube auch nicht mehr an einen großartigen Rückgang. Ethereum hat wirklich Substanz. Die ersten echten Anwendungsfälle stehen vor der Tür. Und vor allem: das sind Anwendungen, die man Leuten von der Strasse erklären kann, nicht so was obskures wie eine Blockchain. Auf lange Sicht wird man sich wohl nach so Preisen, wie heute zurücksehnen.
Welche Anwendungen stehen denn vor der Tür? Vielleicht solche,,, http://bitcoinblog.de/2016/02/26/rwe-und-slock-it-wollen-ethereum-fuer-elektroautos-nutzen/Bin mal gespannt was aus dem Slock.it Startup in die nächsten Jahre wird, bleibe auf jeden fall mal am Ball. Das sieht definitiv spannend aus, aber ich bin nach wie vor sehr skeptisch ob das so funktionieren wird. M.A.n. gibt es zu viele Zeichen dafür dass die Dinge noch ruppig werden könnten und das gesamte System ist einfach wahnsinnig komplex. |
|
|
|
Ich glaube auch nicht mehr an einen großartigen Rückgang. Ethereum hat wirklich Substanz. Die ersten echten Anwendungsfälle stehen vor der Tür. Und vor allem: das sind Anwendungen, die man Leuten von der Strasse erklären kann, nicht so was obskures wie eine Blockchain. Auf lange Sicht wird man sich wohl nach so Preisen, wie heute zurücksehnen.
Welche Anwendungen stehen denn vor der Tür? |
|
|
|
Factom inks another deal in China, this time for blockchain notarisation services
Blockchain-based data management solution Factom is to integrate its technology with Ancun Zhengxin's electronic data notarisation services in China. Factom will offer advice and technical guidance as Ancun Zhengxin shapes its blockchain strategy for its notarisation services for more than 100 locations in 28 provinces across China, the companies said in a statement. (...) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/factom-inks-another-deal-china-this-time-blockchain-notarisation-services-1545591
|
|
|
|
The thing is that it's not even possible to verify what they do with the money!
Why the hell should it be? Why do you think they need to justify every single expense to a random forum troll like you? You really need to learn your place in the world. It's not about me. They owe me nothing, I absolutely agree! I did not invest! ;-) But you and some others bought into it because you and some others believed in what they say. Now they have your Bitcoin and you are in loss. Maybe you should have those questions or don't you care about that?
The company proceeds the presale and than they are not authorized to use proceeds of this presale for any other purpose than to buy Neucoin from three Neucoin-foundations on the isle of man - and then they want to distribute it (Neucoin). If there is no way to control that it is as if they say: Give me Bitcoin and I will use that Bitcoin to buy Neucoin from myself which I plan to sell for more Bitcoin. In fact nobody has a clue who is doing what in this game
On the contrary, you know exactly what they are doing because its explained in the t&c you are quoting from. You're supposed to read the t&c before you buy, not buy and then bitch about the fact that your own delusional fantasies of what you thought Neucoin was going to be is different from the actual facts that were explained well in advance if you'd bothered to read them. Again, I did not buy. I never trusted them. But if you know what they do with the money because you say it's all clear: Please, share your knowledge!
or you just forgot my question who holds the private key?
I think you should really look up what a 'multi-sig address' is before you comment any further on this. My fault that my english is not very good, but you know what I want to say. You don't know who is accountable, right?
And does it look like as if the ICO-Bitcoin are used for the Development? I mean it's obvious that they paid for press and for funny "price-analyses"
In the next paragraph you seem to be complaining that they aren't using the money for 'the good of neucoin' or some such ill-defined term, but here you are complaining that they are using it for PR. You can't eat your cake and still have it too. That's not really PR. That's bullshit. It's obviously important to introduce a new way of calculation for NEU prices which is pathetic. And even if it would be good PR, PR is not enough when the whole project goes to shit and everybody can see that - and not just because of the price!
but it doesn't seem as if they would value the real development side very high or even pay for it. The basic tech is not stable and it's not what they have promised it would be!
It is stable, it is what they said it would be. There was a temporary issue as they made a fork recently. I don't see how its a big deal. We obviously have different definitions of the word stable. But I'm glad for you if Neucoin is exactly what you believed it should be.
It's all about selling "something" to naive folks and that's why it's all about the price and that's also the reason why they switch to full PoS - what is also not in line with what was said before.
Firstly, they made a change yes. Would you expect them to just launch it then bugger off and not respond to current conditions? You accuse them of never doing anything, and then accuse them of doing something. You can't eat your cake and have it too. The problem is the greed-design. They can do whatever they want but this project has no chance and they know that. They don't want the sellpressure from mining, so they switch to full PoS and that means that they will stake their 98% premine and they have 100% control but without any chance to distribute what they stake. If you are different opinion please calculate what they stake every day. And then: Please tell me how they will distribute the millions they produce every day, not to mention the billions they hold. Do you really believe that could go like they said it would? Do you see any chance for that... The sellpressure from mining is too much but the millions they produce like dust don't count?
And again: You don't know who exactly is accountable for what the foundations do or the "company" or the ICO-Bitcoin! All the nice talking of non-profit-foundations and company sounds so reputable right? In combination with all the big names but nobody seems to care about the project or am I wrong? Where are they?
All of the 'big names' probably got very scared for their reputations and tried to dissociate themselves as soon as the troll army swarmed all over this and tried to destroy the name of everyone involved with lies and insults. Ah, I understand. Those who told and tell the truth are responsible. That's funny. You can't really believe that.
Yes, you're right. My fault. But the problem stays the same: With the money they've got from the community they are free to do whatever they want to and nobody even knows WHO exactly is accountable.
You seem to think you work in their accounts department and they should submit all their expense receipts to you or something. Its just ridiculous. Again, it's not about me. I didn't give a single satoshi to them. But you should be interested what they do with your money. But, maybe you are not.
But about all the technical issues and that they were never able to really distribute how it was planned you just say: "Poor execution is no scam"?
Well that wasn't me that said that actually, but anyway. I don't know of any significant technical issues, but any problems with distribution I would blame on the attack from you and the other trolls scaring people away and destroying any interest in this coin, more than anything else. No technical issues? Take a look in the official forum and the complaints about issues. One example: http://forum.neucoin.org/t/3-5-hours-of-transactions-removed-from-the-block-chain/2057And no, it's not our fault that Neucoin is a failure. It's because of the economic design. No project could distribute new coins for hundreds of Bitcoins everyday. This is what they wanted you to believe: ‘Neucoin Will Have More Consumers Using It Than Bitcoin within One Year’ - Founder
http://cointelegraph.com/news/neucoin-will-have-more-consumers-using-it-than-bitcoin-within-one-year-founderAnd maybe you believed that. But it's not possible! For no project, at least not for a bullshit-project like Neucoin without any innovation! It would need thousands new buyers everyday to distribute what they produce every day because of the monster-inflation-staking of the monster-premine! And you can blame us because we told the truth about it. But maybe you should blame the team that came up with such a greed-plan and yourself that you believed in it.
Those growth foundation should have the ICO-Bitcoin and they should use those Bitcoin for the best of Neucoin if it's not a scam.
I'm sorry, you've already eaten this cake. I just tell you what I believe what a legit project should do. But, if you like it to give them your money because you don't need it but they do - than it's a win-win. ;-) That's the promise. And sure I can't know that they use it for other purposes but it's obviously that there are constant transactions from the ICO-address
Why the hell shouldn't there be? You expected them to raise this money and then just throw it in the bin did you? I expected exactly what happened. That they transact those coins and I never believed it's really from public investors. I believe it's mainly self-buying because they wanted control right from the start. It never was a legit project in my eyes and either way: They don't really care about developing, good tech and innovation. and it's obvious at the same time that they are not able to handle the tech or the distribution and that nearly nothing is like they've said it would be.
Stating that something is obvious doesn't make it true. The main thing that is different from what they said it would be is that they didn't say there would be an army of whiny liars unleashing a months long campaign of hate to destroy neucoin, and then blaming the neucoin team for the low price of the coins afterwards. I'm not whiny (why should I?) and I did not lie. My posts were mainly about the economical design and it's not possible that I'm wrong with that. If you disagree with that tell me in which scenarios they could distribute the millions they produce every day!
Neucoin what you believed it would be when you bought it? Don't you believe it would have been better to read this thread?
It would have been better if nobody had ever read this thread. Who is whiny? ;-) And no: If this thread wouldn't exist there just would be more unexperienced user who would believe the lies and invest and lose their money, while the team makes money because they planned to sell dust for Bitcoin.
Because you can say whatever you want, that they acted honest and that we here are Fudders and Trolls - but under the line we were right. What I said in many posts and with a lot of calculations about the economical side of neucoin turned out to be true and my predictions were not like betting. It was obvious. And if that was obvious for a little light like me, it should have been obvious for professionals like those who are behind Neucoin, right? But they planned it like this! Or maybe they are just not professionals? Maybe they just did everything to give the impression of a professional and reputable project? Because if yes, than you obviously did not buy what you believed to buy. And if yes, you did that because you believed them. If that's what you call "honest" and just "poor execution but not a scam"... okay.
Yes, you and your friends predicted it will not do well, then you did a very good job of making sure that it didn't do well, and your self-fulfilling prophecy therefore started to look true. Well done. Why did nobody come to rebut us? Don't you think a team should do that as well? I'm highly invested in Factom and just by the way: I mentioned that already in this thread as example for a legit project and that's the chart: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/factom/And Paul Snow, the "Boss" of Factom is everywhere to rebut FUD. He discussed it on LTB, on reddit, in comments of articles, in this forum, on twitter etc. I did that as well btw. And it's easy: Because you can't win a discussion if you try to FUD a legit project. And nobody won ever a discussion trying to FUD Factom. But Neucoin... they don't come to rebut us because they know they would lose! I would ask them like I ask you: How will it be possible to distribute the Neucoin-Dust? I would ask them to show calculations for scenarios and it would be obvious that the whole plan is bullshit. It was an impossible greed plan and that's why I call it a scam! And that's why they don't want to discuss with us!
But they have your money and you don't even know who is accountable and what they do with that.
Every time you say the word 'accountable', which you do very often, it really sets my teeth on edge. You are not the big boss of Neucoin, and they are not accountable to you. They are 'accountable' if they breach the T&C, but all your complaints about the t&cs are about the team following them, not breaking them, so no, they are not accountable to you and please stop acting like they have a duty to do everything you want them to do. I already said: They owe me nothing. But I would have some questions if I would be invested. You don't have those questions and I'm all right with that. But I really believe it's good to tell the truth about this project to avoid that too many others believe their lies. |
|
|
|
Some examples: They say in Terms and Conditions: The Company, which is solely responsible for conducting the Presale, will use the proceeds of the Presale to acquire NeuCoin Tokens from the NeuCoin Foundations immediately after the the NeuCoin Tokens are initially created and the NeuCoin System is made publicly available (the “Public Release”), expected to occur in the summer of 2015. The Company is not authorized to use the proceeds of the Presale for any other purpose. All the BTC raised in the presale will be kept in a publicly visible multisig Bitcoin address which will be published on www.neucoin.org. Private keys will be held by several members of the NeuCoin Project Team along with a representative of the Company so that the Company will not be able to transfer funds from the multisig address without the consent of the NeuCoin Project Team members. Immediately after acquiring NeuCoin Tokens from the NeuCoin Foundations, Company will distribute them to the Purchasers. If the Public Release of the NeuCoin System has not occurred by September 30, 2015 (the “Release Deadline”), the Company will refund all Purchasers their entire purchase amounts as described below. The Company will be liquidated shortly after either distributing NeuCoin Tokens or refunds to all Purchasers. http://www.neucoin.org/en/terms_and_conditionsDid that happen? This is the address: https://blockchain.info/address/3MrNuksZ1VePU3dGiSQFiouWerJUJgDkfHWTF? Yes it happened. This is not a promise to tell you exactly what they will do with every satoshi in their possession for ever more, it is an explanation of how the presale worked. The thing is that it's not even possible to verify what they do with the money! The company proceeds the presale and than they are not authorized to use proceeds of this presale for any other purpose than to buy Neucoin from three Neucoin-foundations on the isle of man - and then they want to distribute it (Neucoin). If there is no way to control that it is as if they say: Give me Bitcoin and I will use that Bitcoin to buy Neucoin from myself which I plan to sell for more Bitcoin. In fact nobody has a clue who is doing what in this game or you just forgot my question who holds the private key? And does it look like as if the ICO-Bitcoin are used for the Development? I mean it's obvious that they paid for press and for funny "price-analyses" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg13350236#msg13350236 , but it doesn't seem as if they would value the real development side very high or even pay for it. The basic tech is not stable and it's not what they have promised it would be! It's all about selling "something" to naive folks and that's why it's all about the price and that's also the reason why they switch to full PoS - what is also not in line with what was said before. And again: You don't know who exactly is accountable for what the foundations do or the "company" or the ICO-Bitcoin! All the nice talking of non-profit-foundations and company sounds so reputable right? In combination with all the big names but nobody seems to care about the project or am I wrong? Where are they? Transparency and Governance NeuCoin will be open, accountable and ultimately controlled by coin holders. NeuCoin’s core code development, user growth programs, and projects to increase utility will be supported by three non-profit foundations based in Isle of Man: the Code, Growth and Utility foundations. All foundations are ultimately controlled by NeuCoin holders (1 NeuCoin = 1 vote), who have the power to hire, fire and set compensation for the foundations’ Council Members, and have a right of approval on annual budgets, spending priorities and other matters. This structure makes NeuCoin more decentralized and accountable than Bitcoin, Ripple or Stellar, let alone most of the anonymous alt coins out there. http://www.neucoin.org/en/terms_and_conditionsDid that happen? Would you say the foundations are controlled by the Neucoin-Holders? Was there a voting? Coin-Holders "have a right of approval on annual budgets, spending priorities and other matters". Would you say that's true? This is from the strategic plan, I presume? This was clearly explained to be something that would happen after a sufficient number of coins had been distributed. There was never any intention that this should have happened by now, you've just made that up. Yes, you're right. My fault. But the problem stays the same: With the money they've got from the community they are free to do whatever they want to and nobody even knows WHO exactly is accountable. But about all the technical issues and that they were never able to really distribute how it was planned you just say: "Poor execution is no scam"? Those growth foundation should have the ICO-Bitcoin and they should use those Bitcoin for the best of Neucoin if it's not a scam. That's the promise. And sure I can't know that they use it for other purposes but it's obviously that there are constant transactions from the ICO-address and it's obvious at the same time that they are not able to handle the tech or the distribution and that nearly nothing is like they've said it would be. Or the funny fact that they did not, like promised, release a Block-Explorer right from the start! Without the unofficial one nobody would have known about the fact that >99% of all coins were in the Top 100! And that's weird because they said that there were >1000 pre-sale-Investors. But more than just 3 billion Coins in the top 100??
This is such a minor issue that is being blown up beyond all proportion. Sometimes there are delays with some things in a software project. Its not a big deal because a) there was a block explorer at launch (the unofficial one) b) there was an official block explorer soon after launch and c) you're assertion that without it nobody would know what the initial distribution was is absurd, because even a cursory look at the most basic explanation would have told you what the distribution was going to be, and it exactly followed that plan. Oh sure, the unofficial was there a few days after launch so they held their promise? That's kind of funny. But there is still no explanation why >99% of all coins were in the top100 and that for a long time!. How is that possible with >1000 people who bought into the presale? Yes they acted honestly, no they did not lie.
Sure. ;-)
They certainly have not been open to discussion, but that is because it would have taken several people working full-time just to answer all the FUD from trolls who don't listen when things are explained to them anyway, making any discussion an exercise in futility.
One question: Is Neucoin what you believed it would be when you bought it? Don't you believe it would have been better to read this thread? Because you can say whatever you want, that they acted honest and that we here are Fudders and Trolls - but under the line we were right. What I said in many posts and with a lot of calculations about the economical side of neucoin turned out to be true and my predictions were not like betting. It was obvious. And if that was obvious for a little light like me, it should have been obvious for professionals like those who are behind Neucoin, right? But they planned it like this! Or maybe they are just not professionals? Maybe they just did everything to give the impression of a professional and reputable project? Because if yes, than you obviously did not buy what you believed to buy. And if yes, you did that because you believed them. If that's what you call "honest" and just "poor execution but not a scam"... okay. But they have your money and you don't even know who is accountable and what they do with that. |
|
|
|
Do you think they...
1. ...acted honest?
2. ...did not lie?
3. ...delivered their promises?
4. ...are as transparent as promised?
5. ...are open for discussion?
I can't answer 1,2 and 4. Partly because I'd have to do some analysis and partly because I'm not sure I (we?) have enough info to determine the answers. Can you provide an example of something specific to get me thinking? I may not be interpreting your question correctly, but no, not 100%. For one, PoW ended much sooner. Some deliverables have been shaky but there is no way that I can jump to the conclusion that they intentionally misled anyone. Problems with rollout can easily be blamed on shit going wrong and people leaving. Executing big projects is hard even if you have a perfect strategy. Are they open to discussion? Yes, I think they are to an extent or at least were at one time. If you are being fair, you have to admit that not all of the contents of this thread qualify as "discussion." I think people have their limits but at the same time I'm not delusional enough to think they executed communication perfectly. Some examples: They say in Terms and Conditions: The Company, which is solely responsible for conducting the Presale, will use the proceeds of the Presale to acquire NeuCoin Tokens from the NeuCoin Foundations immediately after the the NeuCoin Tokens are initially created and the NeuCoin System is made publicly available (the “Public Release”), expected to occur in the summer of 2015. The Company is not authorized to use the proceeds of the Presale for any other purpose. All the BTC raised in the presale will be kept in a publicly visible multisig Bitcoin address which will be published on www.neucoin.org. Private keys will be held by several members of the NeuCoin Project Team along with a representative of the Company so that the Company will not be able to transfer funds from the multisig address without the consent of the NeuCoin Project Team members. Immediately after acquiring NeuCoin Tokens from the NeuCoin Foundations, Company will distribute them to the Purchasers. If the Public Release of the NeuCoin System has not occurred by September 30, 2015 (the “Release Deadline”), the Company will refund all Purchasers their entire purchase amounts as described below. The Company will be liquidated shortly after either distributing NeuCoin Tokens or refunds to all Purchasers. http://www.neucoin.org/en/terms_and_conditionsDid that happen? This is the address: https://blockchain.info/address/3MrNuksZ1VePU3dGiSQFiouWerJUJgDkfHThe latest transaction went to this address for example: https://blockchain.info/de/address/17khSsecZGcmCN2RWCcs3aDSUiwFqWYHBd50% of the transaction the day before to this one: https://blockchain.info/de/address/17yHQAAVe7egQfh9TrGfWMvjamJE1vRADfThe same day a transaction to this address: https://blockchain.info/de/address/1GMCmeqFmqrbStjJJBS6VLhdcvXhHonYjvAnother one: https://blockchain.info/de/address/17u2rsETGjwhHk1iLpRKhLyxnvpnw1kXPS(......and so on....... a lot of transactions are not easy to track, spreading into nothing over multiple addresses) Who holds the priv-key and who is the representative by the way? Transparency and Governance NeuCoin will be open, accountable and ultimately controlled by coin holders. NeuCoin’s core code development, user growth programs, and projects to increase utility will be supported by three non-profit foundations based in Isle of Man: the Code, Growth and Utility foundations. All foundations are ultimately controlled by NeuCoin holders (1 NeuCoin = 1 vote), who have the power to hire, fire and set compensation for the foundations’ Council Members, and have a right of approval on annual budgets, spending priorities and other matters. This structure makes NeuCoin more decentralized and accountable than Bitcoin, Ripple or Stellar, let alone most of the anonymous alt coins out there. http://www.neucoin.org/en/terms_and_conditionsDid that happen? Would you say the foundations are controlled by the Neucoin-Holders? Was there a voting? Coin-Holders "have a right of approval on annual budgets, spending priorities and other matters". Would you say that's true? Or m3ndi3a, former supporter and moderator: (...)
I joined the community and was very much active and enthusiastic. I bought in the presale and even came up with the Squirrel name- Tippy. They made me moderator and all was good and exciting. Then they started pushing back the release and then investors in the community started asking questions. Priemievalsoup was a big investor and he started asking some serious questions. Being a game developer and having some experience with releasing products, his question on why there was no testnet really struck a chord for me. I asked Sandrine and the other moderators about this, and Sandrine told me the team was doing extensive testing already, and a testnet was not needed.
Fast forward a month later to the supposed launch- they come and say they are pushing back the launch because they need more testing and are releasing a testnet to the presale investors by the end of the month. I was really set off and finally had to leave when the end of the month came, the testnet was not released to us, but they claimed they held their promise because they released to "angel investors."
(...) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12574513#msg12574513She was banned on the official forum by the way. Or the funny fact that they did not, like promised, release a Block-Explorer right from the start! Without the unofficial one nobody would have known about the fact that >99% of all coins were in the Top 100! And that's weird because they said that there were >1000 pre-sale-Investors. But more than just 3 billion Coins in the top 100?? This is a screenshot from september 29:  And regarding open for discussions: This thread is full of examples for deleted posts and banned users on the official forum. |
|
|
|
I think its unfair to throw around the word scam here unless you really have some evidence or just don't know what that word means. Its not productive and you should learn to articulate your thoughts better. By all accounts, the creators and investors are underwater. What kind of scam is that? Its an insult to proper scams. Poor execution and zealous marketing speak is not a scam. Doing things in a way you don't agree with is not a scam. I mean, unless you are a tinfoil-hat-wearing-moon-is-a-hologram-so-how-could-we-land-there? type.  I agree that "poor execution and zealous marketing speak" is not necessarily an intended scam. But I think we disagree in one question, but I'm open to hear/read your view on it: Do you think they... 1. ...acted honest? 2. ...did not lie? 3. ...delivered their promises? 4. ...are as transparent as promised? 5. ...are open for discussion? |
|
|
|
(...) the same as the way you and others here present any of the so-called 'facts' you share - a small kernel of truth taken out of context and misrepresented as meaning something it doesn't. Any examples? Neucoin have made some mistakes and done some things I haven't liked, but it isn't the scam or hopeless case I see it presented as here. Depends on the definition of the word "Scam". I'm somebody who is very cautious with that word and for a long time I did not use it regarding Neucoin. And my reason was that there was the possibility that the team did not want to scam and recognize their big mistakes and that they maybe would pay back their Investors. One of my suggestions was a buywall at ICO-price with BTC they made in the ICO. Now I call it a scam because they did not stop with hyping and lying and trying to lead more people into buying. And if you say it's not a scam, you should be able to give arguments. In this thread you can find a lot of arguments why it's a scam. You could rebut it if you are right.
Unfortunately all the normal people who may want to discuss these things rather than just aggressively push an agenda, who don't have the time or interest in never-ending arguments with people who post here all day with half-truths and deliberate negative propaganda just get drowned out and disappear. And the 'ignorant necoin mods' you mention haven't been here for a long long time I don't think, probably because they couldn't take all the venomous personal attacks they were subjected to.
I can't speak for anybody else then myself, but I was always open for discussion and in general I'm not aggressively pushing anything and not personal in discussions. The funny thing is: There never was a discussion. Sometimes Neu-Supporters came here and said something like you - without any arguments, without more informations, without facts. And my own conclusion is: It's just not possible. It's not possible to support Neucoin in a deeper discussion because it's not a legit project. Just to be clear: They sold Neu with lies. And just by the way: There is also evidence that there was a lot of selfbuying, so the ICO-terms never were reached. If you want to know more about it - just ask. And remember: Didn't they say there would be a Blockexplorer right from the start? And do you remember there wasn't a official Block Explorer but an un-official one? And I made the prediction that they need some time to distribute all the billions to more addresses, because it all was in the top100. Most interesting for me was and still is: They are even unable to cheat. They make too much mistakes. The only good thing (for them of course) in Neu is: Nobody cares. If it would have more attention, like Paycoin had, they would be in big trouble. |
|
|
|
Whatever you may think about this thread or the people involved: It's a fact that you'll find more helpful infos here than anywhere else. And that's easy to prove because if you would read this thread and just focus on the informations you'll see that the Neucoin-desaster was predicted, underlined with arguments. And sure, not all posts are informative but under the line this thread has more value than Neucoin and I'm serious about that. Reason: It helped to safe money while Neucoin ripped those who believed in it.
And if you say now:
"I'm not the shill you take me for and recognize that there are clearly problems, even if I still think there is a possibility that they could reach new people who aren't into crypto so hold onto a few coins because of that."
I don't understand that logic, because I can't see anything good in it if there should be more unexperienced ppl who invest in this.
Can you understand the logic of your own statement - you are saying here that as long as there is any possibility that anybody might take an interest in Neucoin you will keep up your campaign to convince them otherwise. You are not here to be unbiased or present facts, you are clearly on a personal attack mission. I'm not sure what's your definition of "facts" but I would say: Something is a fact if it turns out to be true. And I don't say I'm unbiased and I don't say all of my posts are full of facts. But you won't find many posts without facts or at least informations or argumentation. And it turned out to be true. Two questions: 1. Why not attack a project that is not legit? Or do you believe it's legit and if yes, why? 2. Do you believe that there is anybody who bought into the ICO and would not wish he would have read this thread instead of investing in NEU? |
|
|
|
I never said you are wrong by default. Just biased. And calling others biased.
neucoin is SO bad, only a bag holder would defend it.
Or the uninformed.
Lol, I didn't even say anything to defend Neucoin, nor do I have an interest in engaging in a never-ending argument about it, especially since I'm not the shill you take me for and recognize that there are clearly problems, even if I still think there is a possibility that they could reach new people who aren't into crypto so hold onto a few coins because of that. The whole world isn't made up of bagholder shills and fuders, most of us are normal people. All I did was to comment on the nature of the discussion about Neucoin. Simply posting on this thread without expressing hatred and outrage made me a target for you, which illustrates the fact that this is not a genuine discussion, because it has been hijacked by people who clearly have an axe to grind, and who are so highly motivated and persistent that they drown out any genuine conversation. Whatever you may think about this thread or the people involved: It's a fact that you'll find more helpful infos here than anywhere else. And that's easy to prove because if you would read this thread and just focus on the informations you'll see that the Neucoin-desaster was predicted, underlined with arguments. And sure, not all posts are informative but under the line this thread has more value than Neucoin and I'm serious about that. Reason: It helped to safe money while Neucoin ripped those who believed in it. And if you say now: "I'm not the shill you take me for and recognize that there are clearly problems, even if I still think there is a possibility that they could reach new people who aren't into crypto so hold onto a few coins because of that."I don't understand that logic, because I can't see anything good in it if there should be more unexperienced ppl who invest in this. |
|
|
|
Is this kind of response at all normal for new Altcoins? Defensive BTC/other-alt holders?
Yes and yes. Well, at least its not normal but its not uncommon. At times one gets the feeling that it goes beyond just defensive holders of other alts and looks more like organized FUD campaigns (I've even heard rumours of paid fudders, although I can't confirm it). Its nearly as bad as politics sometimes. I think its a mixture of three things: Firstly you get people who are defensive about competition for their favourite alt. In the early days the NEU team reached out to some other coin communities like DOGE with the idea of an 'airdrop' giving free coins to the owners of those other alts, and that really seemed to get people's backs up (particularly DOGE since tipping and micropayments were kind of their thing) and seemed to coincide with the height of the venom when the official forum was almost entirely just angry hate posts. Secondly you get a lot of idealistic people who have very 'purist' ideas about what a crypto should do and object to one being run like a start-up, kind of seeing it as the enemy impinging on their anarchic territory. Thirdly you get a lot of immature people who buy the coins without doing any research on them, find out later on that its different to what they had thought and then shout loudly about being ripped off because of that, or because they didn't make a fortune overnight (which unfortunately is what some people expect when they start buying crypto). You have people in this thread still going on about the distribution - everybody knew what this was going to be before the pre-sale, the reasons why were explained fully, the intended timeline for the foundation to go below 50% was provided, but yet instead of choosing whether they are interested or not and then acting accordingly they keep posting in this forum thread for month after month about how the distribution of coins is a scam. It should be clear that this is not because they have an honest opinion, but because they have an axe to grind. 1. Independently from individual intentions I believe it's good to give infos and point with the finger on weak points instead of just watching like the Neu-team tries to hide it, manipulates people and pays news-sites to hype this with weird numbers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg13350236#msg13350236 2. It may be kind of idealistic to have the idea a Crypto-project should add some innovation to Crypto instead just ripping Investors, yes. 3. We agree! You're speaking about those who bought it. But there are also some who have read this thread and changed their opinion months ago and were able to sell without or with just at a little loss. 4. Yes, the team said how they wanted to distribute and not just I showed that it's impossible to do it that way. Who was right? Did they distribute or did they try to support the price with buy-walls? Did they pay game-devs and community-members for work and so on, like it was planned or was I right with this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12556706#msg12556706Fact is: Those who were critics about it were right! Right? Fact is: The team broke all important promises I know of. Fact is: They are not able to handle the tech. Fact is: Now it's a private Blockchain and they want ppl to pay them to help securing it. And that wasn't the plan, right? Did they say they would switch to full PoS after some months to fuck the distribution up even more? Who stakes and isn't able to distribute? What will happen when the price rises? Will they sell into it or just sit on their billions and stake it again and again? |
|
|
|
and you can see Factom btc flowing into RADS.
Really? Where? Poloniex , FCT down and Rads up like 100% What a bunch of nonsense.. and why is that ? Actually i believe people diverse there investment and if you can do it between Fct and Rads its not a bad idea. well, would I rather put my precious btc into a coin run by broke anonymous college students or a business of 40+ making deals with China and partnering with Microsoft.. hmmm.. well I think we know the answer, but hey do what you feel if right for you. All I can see is nice accumulation occurring at these levels. Please keep selling the rest of your 50%, my buys are ready. hmmm steve jobs, mark zuckerburg, bill gates...all use to be broke college students...wonder what ever happened to them That's exactly the answer I would give ! At least they take the time to let investors know what's up that's a big lacking on the factom project ! Paul snow is the only one who actually is in the spotlight a lot but after watching 2 interviews , the next 5 you listen are 80 procent the same! Still I keep 50 procent but i believe like this I can buy back the other 50 procent for the half of the price  I really don't understand what exactly you wish they should do. Community-Babysitting or working? I mean, read about Factom and look what they are doing: 1. Coding of course. https://github.com/FactomProject/ 2. The Factom-inc-HP was updated with very interesting and promising infos http://www.factom.com/solutions/3. Paul Snow gives interviews nearly every week. And whoever asks him gets answer. (just one example because he seems to be everywhere: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/42900/what-are-the-key-differences-between-factom-and-tieron) 4. Tiana Laurence seems to travel all the time. https://twitter.com/factomproject/status/7006056644276920325. Paul Snow as well by the way: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg13909123#msg139091236. Brian Deery is also very active in communication: https://www.reddit.com/user/BrianDeery (or take a lookt at his bct-profile) 7. Take a look at their Facebook-Page and you will also recognize: Questions are answered: https://www.facebook.com/FactomProject/And like I already wrote in an earlier post: In just 2 months: 1. Azure 2. yuanbaohui 3. Chinese Hackathon third place to a Factom-idea (medical records) and the first place wants to use Factom (CargoChain). 4. iSoftStone Plus the chinese news because of that Paul Snow will travel to China: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg13909123#msg13909123And that's all work! Coding, community-communication, conferences, interviews, negotiations - plus all what we don't see and don't know about. My list above is definitely not complete but in my opinion it's pretty impressive. With other words: It's everyones choice to buy or sell or buy something else. But it shouldn't be underlined with invalid arguments. |
|
|
|
Ein guter fundierter Beitrag Tempus, ich würde zusammenfassen das der Preis von ETH wesentlich mehr vom Potential getrieben wird. Und ganz offensichtlich sortieren ernsthafte Developer PoS aus... es gilt schon jetzt unter sehr vielen als gescheitert, nicht nur wegen der ökonomischen Konsequenzen sondern auch vieler anderer. Und selbst wenn es nur die ökonomischen wären, haben die ja dann letztlich großen Einfluss auf die Netzwerkstärke und das Problem das sich so ein System sehr schnell zentralisiert. Verstehe ich nicht, BTC ist auch begrenzt verfügbar, wenn es ums minen geht dann kann man das im POS mit dem forgen/harvesten vergleichen und das wesentlich Energie freundlicher. Ein großer Unterschied ist übrigens genau das "Energie-freundlicher". Während ein 51%-Angriff bei PoW immer teurer wird, also die Kosten mit der Aufrechterhaltung ansteigen, ist das bei PoS anders. Das sind sozusagen "Einmalkosten". Irgendwo habe ich auch gelesen, dass PoS anfälliger ist und es weit weniger brauchen würde um eine Attacke auszuführen. Insgesamt wird es zu einem ökonomischen Problem, denn ein PoS-System macht sich sozusagen über den Markt angreifbar. Die offensichtlichste Variante wäre Kauf. Ein Angreifer würde einfach so viel kaufen dass er angreifen kann. Man könnte dann zynischerweise sagen: Okay, das wäre der gigantischste Pump aller Zeiten und für einen Investor eigentlich ne Profit-Maschine, was für die vielen die verkaufen würden ja auch stimmen würde. Aber es würde ja in der Praxis anders laufen: Personelle Zusammenschlüsse, ETH leihen (anstatt zu kaufen), psychologische Manipulationen um Investoren zum dumpen zu bringen (self fulfilling prophecy: Die Behauptung, Ethereum sei gefährdet würde Druck auf den Preis bringen was die echte Gefährdung dann erst auslöst etc.). Letztlich ist dann die Sicherheit der Blockchain extrem eng an den Preis gekoppelt während es gleichzeitig ein "Reiche-werden-reicher-System" ist, da ja die Höhe des Stakes entscheidend ist. Man kann argumentieren dass das bei Bitcoin nicht ganz anders ist, denn mittlerweile sind ja horrende Investitionen nötig um mit Mining noch Geld machen zu können und das ist auch richtig. Wir sehen in Bitcoin eine massive Zentralisierung. Über 50% ist mittlerweile schon in China und ich persönlich bin davon überzeugt, dass wenn Bitcoin bedeutender wäre und etwa die chinesische Regierung ein Interesse daran hätte Bitcoin mit einer 51%-Attacke anzugreifen, sie das könnten. Bei Ethereum gibts da aber zwei Probleme: 1. Es geht um viel mehr, nämlich Scripte/Smart Contracts. Der Anreiz Ethereum anzugreifen um etwa einen Konzern zu treffen der es nutzt, ist damit weit größer als Bitcoin anzugreifen, der ja sozusagen ein simpler Transaktions-Mechanismus ist. 2. Wie bereits gesagt: Bitcoin anzugreifen verursacht immer höhere Kosten um den Angriff aufrechtzuerhalten, während es bei einem PoS-System Einmalkosten sind. 3. Die Möglichkeit des Leihens beinhaltet zumindest theoretisch sogar einen ökonomischen Anreiz. Wäre ein Angreifer im Stande sich sehr viel zusammenzuleihen kann er Ethereum shorten. Entweder attackieren wenn möglich was den Kurs in Grund und Boden schicken würde, oder einfach nur über den psychologischen Effekt: Es wird durchgestochen dass das Risiko besteht was ja schon massiven Einfluss auf den Kurs hätte. Und ebenfalls, wie oben gesagt: Das erhöht das Risiko, denn der potentielle Angreifer, der noch gar nicht angegriffen hat, könnte jener sein der kauft um dann erst wirklich anzugreifen. Gewinn wäre gigantisch, wenn er auf einer Masse an geliehenen Ethereum die er nach der gesamten Operation zum Schnäppchenpreis zurückkaufen und zurückgeben kann. Während diese Szenarien gegenwärtig natürlich unrealistisch erscheinen muss man sich klar machen dass in einem Reiche-werden-reicher-System die Zeit gegen das System läuft und zwar schneller als bei PoW. Die Risiken würden außerdem mit dem Erfolg steigen weil mit dem Erfolg die Anreize steigen während es ökonomisch im Zentralisierungs-Modus ist. Und wenn man das jetzt mit dem Prinzip Bitcoin plus Factom (nur als Beispiel weil ich darüber am meisten weiß) vergleicht: Factom kann nicht wirklich über die Bitcoin-Blockchain angegriffen werden, denn erstens hat Factom ja eine eigene Blockchain. Factom könnte einen Angriff auf Bitcoin einfach aussitzen, danach wieder Anker setzen und das wars dann auch schon - während ein Angriff auf Bitcoin sowieso sauteuer wäre, v.a. wenn er länger als ein paar Minuten ausgeführt werden sollte. Zweitens: Factom ist sowieso unabhängig von der Bitcoin-Blockchain weil sie sich in jeder verankern können und das auch wollen - übrigens auch in Ethereum. Sie werden vermutlich jede einigermaßen starke Blockchain nutzen, zumindest ist das möglich. Wenn man Factom aber direkt angreifen wollte wäre das weit schwerer, gerade weil das System kleiner ist. Das ist ein System aus federated Servern die durch einen Wahl-Mechanismus wechseln werden/können. Und es sind genau jene, die das System nutzen werden und Entrys bezahlen werden um es zu nutzen, die diese Wahl treffen werden. Plus: Da das gesamte System kleiner ist ist es leichter zu kontrollieren. Kompromittierungsversuche würden leichter erkannt und Bad Actors rausgeschmissen. Und wenn man sich das jetzt nicht nur als zwei Systeme vorstellt, nämlich Bitcoin + Factom, sondern mehrere Basis-Blockchains plus mehrere Systeme wie Factom die logischerweise auch in Konkurrenz zueinander stehen, dann ist das ein viel dezentraleres System als es Ethereum sein kann. Das ist im Übrigen auch interessant: Sollte Ethereum technisch perfekt funktionieren, müsste es auf längere Sicht zu einer einer Konzern-Blockchain werden, nämlich zugehörig zu jenem Konzern der Ethereum am meisten nutzt. Warum? Weil sie, um nicht über Ethereum angreifbar zu werden, den Großteil kaufen müssten. Ethereum würde damit aber zu einer privaten Blockchain und zu einer verdammt teuren noch dazu. Was machen Konzerne und Banken also? Sie entwickeln ihre eigenen privaten Blockchains - was ja schon geschieht. Und was ist Ethereum? Ich glaube, das andere daraus lernen werden, Ethereum zu Testzwecken benutzen werden, aber bisher glaube ich nicht das Ethereum wirklich für bedeutende Smart-Contracts genutzt werden wird. Da kämen wir dann übrigens wieder zu technischen Problemen die ich nicht mal ansatzweise durchdringe, die aber offensichtlich vorliegen. Interessanterweise gibts in dem Thread "Ethereum Paradox" mehrere Streithälse die sich persönlich nicht ausstehen können, aber als ich den einen davon fragte ob der andere mal unabhängig persönlicher Differenzen richtig liegt zugestimmt hat. Ich verstehe ansatzweise worum es geht, aber nicht genug um es hier auf den Punkt zu bringen.
Wenn man sieht was slock bereits für Anwendungsmöglichkeiten mit der ETH Blockchain zeigt, dann kann ich mir das einfach nicht mit dem BTC vorstellen, sorry echt nicht / jedenfalls nicht auf der Ebene der Transaktionsgeschwindigkeit.
Wie gesagt.. es wird nicht darum gehen dass Bitcoin selbst solche Anwendungen bereitstellt. Die Bitcoin-Blockchain wird nur als Anker für weitere spezialisiertere Blockchains benutzt die sich sozusagen oben drauf setzen. Das müssen im Übrigen nicht mal zwingend Blockchains sein, in manchen Fällen sind es nur zentrale Server die bestimmte Funktionen ausführen. Tierion ist z.B. ein System das ziemlich ähnlich zu Factom ist, soweit ich weiß ohne Blockchain, eher ein Cloud-Service. Da sie sich aber in ein dezentrales Netzwerk (Bitcoin-Blockchain) verankern, können sie damit beweisen dass sie ihre potentielle Macht (weil sie zentrale Akteure sind) nicht ausnutzen. Gleichzeitig sind sie aber potentiell natürlich angreifbarer als ein verteiltes System wie es Factom ist (bzw. sein wird. Momentan ist es noch ne private Blockchain die auf Factom-Servern läuft). |
|
|
|
Thank you for your replies, tempus. I understand your take on the numbers a little better. I'll take some time to do the math myself and apply it to other coins for a comparison.
We'll see how they react to the poor launch and what comes of the integrations they have out there. 100% PoS switch won't get them any more street cred, but it has apparently created a temporary improvement in price.
It's a total joke in my eyes. I mean, let's think about PoS. It's very important that not one entity holds more than 50%, right? But in this PoS-System a single entity holds more than 97%. And sure, they won't attack the Blockchain but what's that? It's by definition a private Blockchain! If we would assume that they would have at least good tech and a stable system, it would still be a company with a private Blockchain. But, under the line it's just bad tech without any kind of innovation. And the funny part is: They want mass-adoption. The goal once was to distribute and to decentralize the system and so on. But what does that mean? If I would like to participate and to help to secure THEIR private Blockchain they want me to pay them for it! ;-) I have to buy Neucoin to be able to help to secure a private Blockchain. And what do I get? Nothing. It's really not more. They want to sell sand in the desert. And that's it. And that makes it by definition to a scam. And regarding the price: They can do with it whatever they want. The PoW made it just more expensive because they did not have full control. Now they have full control and like I've said: They want people to pay them to secure their private Blockchain. I have some doubts that this can be successful. |
|
|
|
Das ist ein bisschen ne seltsame Argumentation zu sagen "Irgendwo gibt es immer Nachteile, daher wird ETH definitiv was" etc. Das ist einfach nicht richtig, denn auch wenn es sicherlich in jedem Projekt immer auch Nachteile gibt, werden die meisten nichts. Und ETH ist do it or die. Es wird m.A.n. nichts dazwischen geben. Bitcoin als Beispiel ist in gewisser Weise auf simple Weise elegant und sehr stark - ziemlich "unkaputtbar". Und diese starke Basis kann sehr beliebig erweitert werden. Factom als weiteres Beispiel ist eine solche Erweiterung die das Prinzip von Bitcoin fortsetzt, ebenfalls eher einfach gehalten, mit dem Fokus auf Stabilität, und dann ebenfalls erweiterbar. Die sprechen ja auch über Smart Contracts für die Zukunft. Und Factom ist ja absolut kein Einzelfall... Und mir gehts bei dem Beispiel nicht darum zu sagen: Bitcoin plus Sidechains werden definitiv die Zukunft sein. Aber was wir da sehen ist eine natürliche Evolution. Bei ETH sehen wir ein System das von vornherein wahnsinnig komplex ist und Probleme zu lösen hat die bisher gar nicht wirklich gelöst werden können weil Erfahrungswerte fehlen. Und genau das wird doch auch im Ringen um den richtigen Weg deutlich. Denn es gibt zu vielen bedeutenden Entwicklungen noch keine echte Entscheidung. Gleichzeitig gibt es eine die eben umso erstaunlicher ist: Der Switch zu PoS, wozu es ja mittlerweile ne Menge Erfahrungswerte gibt. Und ganz offensichtlich sortieren ernsthafte Developer PoS aus... es gilt schon jetzt unter sehr vielen als gescheitert, nicht nur wegen der ökonomischen Konsequenzen sondern auch vieler anderer. Und selbst wenn es nur die ökonomischen wären, haben die ja dann letztlich großen Einfluss auf die Netzwerkstärke und das Problem das sich so ein System sehr schnell zentralisiert. Wie auch immer... ich will damit ja nicht sagen das ETH scheitern wird. Aber was mir auffällt ist, dass sich sehr wenige überhaupt tiefer mit fundamentalen Informationen befassen. Es ist extrem viel Hype und ständiges Gerede über den Preis. Und der Preis sagt einfach gar nichts aus. Abgesehen davon das es möglich ist ihn zu manipulieren ist er auch ansonsten eher ein Resultat einer Hype-Dynamik als irgendetwas anderes. Und mit Hype-Dynamik meine ich dass für 80% die Frage ob andere kaufen werden bei der eigenen Kauf-Entscheidung im Vordergrund steht - weit vor der Frage warum man eigentlich selbst kauft - außer weil andere kaufen. |
|
|
|
Ich spiele gerade mit dem Gedanken mit Ether zu kaufen....so 10-20 Stück testweise.
Momentan horte ich nur BTC, ich habe zwar noch kleine Mengen DASH und UNOBTANIUM aber ich will mich jetzt mehr in Ethereum investieren.
Könnt ihr mir das empfehlen, oder denkt ihr das Ether langfristig an Wert verlieren wird?
Angeblich ist es ja Bitcoin 2.0 ;-)
LG Jan
Langfristig wird es an Wert nicht verlieren, auch wenn einige behaupten das eine DauerInflation schadet , wenn jedoch die Nachfrage stets höher ist wie die Inflationsmenge (und das sehe ich bei Ether) dann dürfte das kein nennenswerter Faktor mehr sein. (...) Das ist in dem Fall korrekt das sie wirklich im Stande zu liefern sind, also dass Ethereum tatsächlich das wird was was es auch werden soll. Dann stehen die Chancen für viel höhere Preise ziemlich gut. Langfristig wäre dann die Frage inwiefern ein Konkurrenz-Projekt auftaucht das im Stande wäre dasselbe noch besser zu machen. Aber: Zu sagen, ETH würde langfristig nicht an Wert verlieren ist genau aus dem Grund auch voreilig. Denn bisher hat Ethereum noch nicht geliefert und alleine der Umstieg auf PoS ist in meinen Augen ein verdammt schlechtes Zeichen. Insgesamt gibt es wirklich viele Hinweise auf kommende Probleme und ich bezweifle wirklich sehr dass ETH weitreichende Nutzung erfahren wird. Denn es ist unglaublich viel Vertrauen in ein System nötig um dort Smart Contracts laufen zu lassen. Bitcoin hat momentan schon so einige Scalability-Probleme, wie soll das erst bei einer derartigen Ethereum-Komplexität funktionieren? Und Konkurrenz betreffend: Ich halte es für möglich und hoffe es mittlerweile auch, dass die Bitcoin-Blockchain als Basis für eine Menge Projekte wie Factom fungieren wird, die jeweils von der Blockchain kleiner und spezialisierter und daher simpler sind. Simpler ist in aller Regel gleichbedeutend mit stabiler und das gesamte Konstrukt wäre dann auch dezentraler, möglicherweise sogar billiger. Wenn ich richtig liegen sollte werden sich über die Zeit die besten von vielen behaupten und es steht ja sehr vieles in den Startlöchern. Wie gesagt, Factom ist ein Projekt (auf das ich z.B. setze, die übrigens auch Richtung Smart Contracts gehen wollen), dann kommt noch Blockstream und es gibt Projekte wie Tierion (ohne Blockchain aber in Bitcoin verankert) usw. Da ist gerade langfristig wirklich die Frage wie viel Chancen Ethereum tatsächlich hat. Was ich aber glaube ist: Wenn man kauft und einfach abwartet wird es sicherlich noch ein oder auch viele male deutlich nach oben gehen. Man muss halt nur die Entwicklung insgesamt verfolgen und gucken ob es eher besser wird oder nicht. Allerdings gibts noch eine Variable die momentan nicht einschätzbar ist: Bitcoin. Sollte der Bitcoin-Kurs fallen, etwas weil es einen Hardfork gibt und der Markt da Panik bekommt, wird Ethereum mit einiger Sicherheit deutlich steigen. Es kann aber auch umgekehrt laufen, dass eine Lösung für Bitcoins Blocksize-Probleme derart herbeigesehnt wird das der Kurs steigt und dann wird Ethereum gemessen an BTC eher fallen. Insofern... es wird auf jeden Fall schon mal nicht langweilig. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
