No, what you're asking results in artificial price pumps that collapse when the update is released. It has happened to multiple coins on multiple planned releases that have been announced and scheduled for a specific date.

To avoid that, because the moment the bubble collapses people lose interest in the coin and anyone who was unfortunate to buy at the top only ends up setting a sell price that'll dump their holdings the moment there's a slight rise in the collapsed price, causing even less chance for the fair market price to be established, the policy for this project is not to announce all features being introduced and not to give specific dates for their release.

That takes the pressure off the dev team and also allows for less market manipulation by speculators.

All coin projects should use this approach.

Here, let me translate, "Why isn't the dev telling me whether its going to be worth buying some BITS now so I can do a quick flip on a price spike caused by people getting excited about the new release?"

Try reading the thread.

Remember, the next upgrade will be optional as it will add a number of very useful services, albeit these services will initially be predominantly centralised, akin the the value-added-services Vericoin offers.

If you have an absolute aversion to centralised services of any kind, you do not have to upgrade to it, so don't bother posting screaming expletive-filled psychotic anti-centralised-service rants, you know, the kind that often seem to be filling up the VRC thread by unhinged haters!

The next stages of the Bitstar project will include the transition of some of the features to p2p decentralised structures, so you can always wait for that if you feel the need.

Otherwise, as things currently stand, the new functionality that is being introduced to the wallet will be immensely useful. Utility and usefulness win over militant decentralisation.

[edit] Mine synched instantaneously.

Mate, you are not even presenting a reasonable challenge to the notion of how it does actually work. You are simply responding with something akin to, "well it won't work because . . .well it just won't, it's stupid".

As a concept it can, indeed, work extremely effectively.

Unless you can present rational argument that counters the trading structure concept, other than simply declaring that it won't work because you say it won't work, then you're just demanding we accept your opinion as fact, which it is not, it is opinion.

Conceptually it can work.

I don't need advice about how this snake-pit works. But, ok, maybe it was only Chang hurling insults around as I don't recall you specifically doing it although you are throwing a lot of irrelevancy into the mix. GES Australia's history and status is actually not evidence of this deal being a scam, as these kinds of handshake-with-the-right-person situations usually only need a bunch of paperwork and getting yourself in-between two of the traders so you can get a cut as a middle-man.

Even Nilesh having his wife as Director and Shareholder is an *extremely* common structure, just check out how politicians use the same process all the time when they are trying to do something 'on the side'.

Trade deals of this size, if they were being done in the US, would usually have two very large squeeky-clean corporations with a manufactured public image and web presence to match. The dirty-dealings would be entirely done 'off-the-chain', as it were.

Trade deals of this size involving countries that have a somewhat looser approach to business regulations and presentation, only need the right person to get into an 'arrangement' with somebody else who is also 'the right person. So a sloppy business structure for GES is not evidence of scam.

Caveat: I'm still reserving judgement either way.

Why do you say that URO would 'never' be USD300? Give your reasoning behind that statement.

Dude, you and Chang are so busy running around screaming abuse at people about how the sky is falling you don't actually even appear to understand how a crypto-as-commodity project would work in the first place.

Again, I still reserve judgement on whether this particular project is genuine, but the concept is still the same.

'URO' has to be bought by the partner who wishes to buy the UREA.
Chances are that, in this situation, Rivaa would get it from GES at a discounted price, but not necessarily as discounted as it currently is to the open market. But that is speculation, it could be that they were enticed into this deal solely because, as first-to-market with this concept, they'd be able to capitalise on the difference in URO price in the open market at this time.
However they purchase URO it would need to be transmitted to GES as a payment for the UREA specified in whichever agreement is in force (we don't actually have sight of the GES-Rivaa shipment agreement do we?, only the Rivaa-IPL one)
GES hold on to the URO coins until they are much closer to the FIAT price of a tonne of UREA and, if need be, sell it off for FIAT until they can get whomever their supplier is to accept URO for payment of physical UREA.

Technically, GES could keep on selling the URO back to Rivaa for FIAT so Rivaa can use it for another payment. The benefit being that the URO coin transfers are done in real time and can be held in multisig escrow until the FIAT funds are where they are supposed to be. If the customer were to fail to settle the FIAT payment for the URO, GES could sell the coins either to another customer or to the open market which would, hopefully, have had sufficient confidence in the validity of the active trading for the price to be the proper market dollar value of one tonne of UREA.

Remember, it can take months and months for the FIAT banking side of these kinds of trade deals to be arranged and transmitted, and also involve very large bank fees, so the use of URO allows for transactions to be real-time and held to one side while the FIAT catches up, where it meets the entry/exit point for FIAT in that situation.

Once URO is trading at market price for one tonnne of UREA, buyers would seek to purchase it ahead of trade deals for physical product in order to get a better deal if they believe the future market for UREA would increase in price. Buying at <>USD300 now, say, in order to make a physical transaction for a shipment of UREA in another deal for next year where the price for UREA, and the subsequent market value of the 'URO' might be <>USD320

It would bring enormous benefits to this market, truly revolutionary.

No, it wouldn't go onto another coin's blockchain, it went to the address he sent it to on the Razorcoin's blockchain but that happened to be an address he'd cut-and-pasted from Riecoin by accident which was accepted as valid by by the Razorcoin blockchain, whereas they are usually rejected for not conforming to the right format for that coin. The recovery for that is to import the address back into your wallet, before anyone else realises you've sent it to an unprotected address on the blockchain and imports it before you.

FYI, I just used VeriBit to book a hotel room for my wife through Expedia.

Expedia received the bitcoin promptly, then dropped back to the reservations screen to tell me it had accidentally lost the room and that, even though my 'bank' had processed the payment, they would send it back to me in a few days!!!!!1111!

Now, get this, I telephone the US Expedia customer service, sit on the phone for 45 minutes, then the guy's supervisor finally gets back to me and says, "So I understand you paid by Paypal?" !!!!

Turns out he had no idea either what bitcoin was or the fact that Expedia hotel bookings could now be paid with 'em. "No, Sir, we only accept credit card payment or PayPal" LOL.

Long story short, I had to explain to him that they did, indeed, accept bitcoin for hotel bookings now and that there was no way they would be able to refund the money automatically. He's having to contact 'corporate' to find our what the score is. I said he should kick some ass at corporate over the support desk not being informed about bitcoin and how to handle problems with payments/refunds.

Sheesh.


Still, I did enjoy getting to use VeriBit for realz.

You and wild theories appear to be a common theme.

Does nobody else see that this reply, to my reasonable post, is Travis attempting to deflect, yet again.

Of course there would be no way for anybody to 'prove' they weren't being paid to FUD, that's why he throws the question at me, because it cannot be objectively proven and he gets to deflect your attention away from the fact that he can't contest the points I have raised about his buy-high-sell-low bot not actually existing. There is also the fact that nothing I am asserting is FUD, it is objectively reasoned and presented.

I am here because I value intellectual honesty and I am more than experienced now at spotting the warning signs in coin projects that suggest all is not what it seems.

Check my posting history for:
1) My exposing of the, very devious, Honorcoin scam whereby they set up a website to harvest forum and email names and passwords from those who fail to use different passwords for their logins. It was a multi-pronged approach involving actually logging in to user trading accounts where they were able to and, instead of triggering security checks by withdrawing, simply using the trading fund on the account to buy their crap coin high and sell it back to themselves on the other side low, rinsed-and-repeated until balance was zero. As well as compromising Bitcointalk forum user accounts and email accounts to trawl for sensitive information.
Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=639043.msg7196573#msg7196573

2) My repeated challenging of the original Silkcoin project's holes.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599438.msg7452801#msg7452801

So, you see, I'm here because people who continue to post bizarre claims that make no sense about their coin project are routinely found to be bullshitting their entire community and fraudulent coin projects are a toxic poison in cryptocurrency that only serve to hold back the progression of genuine projects that do actually have a future.

I will ask you again, Travis:

Whilst I continue to reserve judgement on this particular coin project, I came across a Twitter from someone that demonstrated how people are still misunderstanding how crypto-as-commodity is ultimately priced.


Crypto as commodity *is* supposed to derive its price from the aggregate market price of the commodity. That is how commodities trading works.

The current fiat price is merely a reflection of the initial transition stage and, were this project to be proven genuine, it would rapidly gain traction upwards to a market-price floor for one tonne of UREA and, beyond that, would fluctuate in value in much smaller movements as the trading market and physical market actually transacted, with people looking to speculate on future prices of UREA by either buying or selling URO. The physical product deliveries would be taking place with whichever percentage of the total coins-in-circulation was being utilised by UREA traders, but there would be a persistent market speculation trade continuing on top of that with the remaining balance of coins simply being held or sold on, depending on anticipated market conditions.

As it stands, 1URO *does* equal 1tonne of UREA, according to the protocol signed by the Foundation participants.

This is not to say that this project is proven valid yet, nor, even if it is a genuine attempt to bring something new to the markets, that it will work.

That's the status as it currently stands.

Bittrex offers 'conditional' buys and sells, so markets where buys and sells immediately appear or disappear are more likely to be the result of a conditional buy or sell being triggered than someone going to the absurd length of placing a buy-high-sell-low bot on your market.


Strip the BOT of what? TRUST or BTC? Because if there was a bot buying-high and selling-low, you'd end up being able to offload the cheap TRUST it was selling into it's higher buys, resulting in a nice BTC profit. If you kept that up long enough you'd bankrupt the bot(s).

Yeah, that seems to be your mantra, just.buy.coins.

So, if this conspiracy exists to buy your coins high and sell them low, why are you asking your fans to buy TRUST coins off you? Surely a bot conspiracy that was buying TRUST high and selling them low would mean you'd wind up with a load of bitcoin from the profit you were able to endlessly make on a rinse-and-repeat basis? Seriously, think it through, you are telling people that a bot will sell them cheap TRUST and buy it back off them for more than they bought it for. It's a money making machine, if it existed you would be the toast of the crypto community as someone who could guarantee a bitcoin profit just for buying your coin cheap because it will be bought automatically for a higher price.

Travis, come on, try being honest for once, there is no buy-high-sell-low bot on your coin, because it's an insane concept you dreamt up as a way to excuse the lack of market interest in your coin. See, I'm even offering you a small window of opportunity here, you can come clean and say that you just panicked and got confused, had a few too many all-nighters trying to figure out how to make this coin project magic up some value from somewhere and you asserted something that you didn't realise sounded quite as mad as it does and it just got away from you.

This is your chance Trav, come on, you can do it. Hell, your fans will only love you more because of it, you know that. Brutal honesty in the face of harsh criticism and all that, they'll lap it up.


I already have, many, many times. But you're just deflecting now, clumsy.

Which part of off-topic confuses you?

You two clowns are not doing your case any favours. Chang blew up a short while ago about being corrected on his bold assertion that GES couldn't possibly be in a deal with IPL because they wouldn't qualify and I corrected him about the fact that it is Rivaa doing the deal with IPL and GES, claim, to be doing the deal with Rivaa.

Stick to facts, stop acting like infantile idiots who resort to ad-hominem name calling and make your case with reasoned assertions, not emotional hysterics.

Oh come on, you haven't got a hope in hell expecting sympathy for a post calling the OP a 'fucking cock'.

Grow up gentlemen. Make your arguments, stick to facts and stop being so hostile and vulgar while you do.

Except it isn't Bittrex confirming the existence of a bot, it is you claiming one is there and Bittrex saying that there's nothing wrong with bots being used to trade in any direction.

You are using it to pretend they have confirmed the existence of the bot, they have not. I already pointed out this glaring fallacy to you repeatedly yet you keep on using it again and again.

Bittrex have not confirmed there is a bot, YOU are the only person claiming there is a bot and you have no evidence of a bot.

"Oh but when I release bad news there is a dump" - Human traders dump on news, bots don't.

Post the email confirmation you received from Bittrex where they confirm the existence of a buy-high-sell-low-bot on your coin's market.

You're the one who claims they confirmed it was there, so let's see the proof that they did.

Chang, please learn to present your argument without resorting to vulgar ad hominem insults, they utterly destroy any credibility your assertions may have.

Are you another one who doesn't read your own posts? Or do you have a blind-spot for facts that run counter to your hopes?

"Give him the chance to prove himself"

You don't think he's already done plenty of that with his weird claims about buy-high-sell-low bots working to destroy his coin and that you can all help out by, guess what? Yes, that's right, buying more coins.

Yeah, he's proving himself alright.

NO THEY HAVE NOT.

See, we can all use caps. My concerns are noted only by people who are able to note them. This thread contains numerous pages where my concerns were ignored until I repeated my reasonable challenges to what MitchellMint kept on asserting over and over again.

So, while you might declare my concerns have been noted, it is Travis who needs to stop making claims about buy-high-sell-low bots as if he is in some epic trading battle to save your coin value, when he is not doing anything of the sort.

Stock pictures are used everywhere, it doesn't provide for evidence of anything.

But it doesn't help that some people keep posting pointless links to trade account posts, the kind that litter Alibaba et al. as if they prove anything.

Substance proves substance, not cut-and-paste or GES's own tweets. Trade journals should have been contacted by The URO foundation long before this point and it is bizarre that they were not.