There's no reason to think the dev intentionally made the price collapse, I'm sure he'd have loved to see it keep increasing in value.

But how else would he explain away the loss of confidence the market shows in his empty little project without concocting a story about a conspiracy to destroy it so that, when it comes to it, he'll walk away from this coin as he did his previous ones without being held to account.

What's the situation with the pre-mine these days anyway? Is it being audited by the accountant he said would be reporting once a week?

Let me just describe to you the process used to manipulate the market in order to steadily offload a ton of coins onto the gullible.

1. Put in a bunch of incrementally increasing buy orders worth a tiny fraction of a bitcoin each, getting it close to the sell price, knowing that most people who are looking to sell at that price will see the buy support is still too thin for them to sell their ask into the offers.

2. Wait until there are some additional buy offers made to fill out the thin trail you have laid.

3. When there's enough there to make it worthwhile, you sell into it, offloading onto some poor sap while only costing you the price of the thin trail you laid.

3. Rinse and repeat.

5. Tell everyone there is a 'buy-high-sell-low' bot conspiracy trying to crush your coin.


As I said, which is more likely? The simple answer I give you to describe what is happening on the markets to this coin, or the bizarre notion of a conspiracy intent on throwing away thousands and thousands of dollars buying-high and selling-low?

Sure, your criticism of what I am implying would be valid, if it weren't for one small thing, that it is the Dev who is claiming there is a buy-high-sell-low bot throwing thousands of dollars away to destroy his coin.

Surely if it were just someone dumping their coins, other than the dev, he'd just tell you that some miners were cashing out instead of trying float this absurd idea of the bot-based conspiracy?

So, if it is number 2 and someone is steadily dumping their hoard, it would be reasonable to assume it is the dev because he is the one who is trying to convince you it is a bot.

What *possible* reason would I have for throwing away tens of thousands of dollars in running a 'buying high/selling low' TRUST-destroying BOT?

Let me ask you something, you know, from way back here in the rational-thinking part of your brain, the one that's currently clouded with crypto-schemes of getting rich quick.

Which is more likely?

1) I, or anyone else for that matter, have been throwing thousands of dollars away solely to destroy this coin.
OR
2) *Someone* with a large amount of coins they mined with their commercial-scale mining rig during the extremely short PoW phase, is steadily dumping them.

Which of those two scenarios is more likely?

Businesses and wealthy individuals pay people to keep things private for them within the existing FIAT-based financial world. This will, no doubt, continue to be the case in crypto. Brokers and fiduciary services will spring up to execute transactions on behalf of high-net-worth individuals and these transactions will still need to make use of tax-efficient structures as they do already.

E.G. The idea that a billionaire would buy a super yacht with a single transaction from his own wallet without there being a paper-trail of accounting is absurd.

Crypto is a way to transmit and receive funds, those funds still have to conform to the usual rules of due diligence and appropriate declaration.

The financial services industry isn't going away just because Bitcoin came along. It will be used in the same way as FIAT, only far more efficiently.

You cannot expect a fully anonymous cryptocurrency to ever be acceptable to big business and government. That's not to say it wouldn't have its use (and abuse), but they could never openly support it.

Whilst I can confidently state that this coin has a bright future, I am going to ask that the dev continue to do as they have done so far, in not setting dates for project milestones.

I'm sure we've all seen what happens in both coin threads and market prices, when a date is given for a particular update to be released, namely, the short-term speculators start circling and the price gets pushed all over the place artificially. Should there be any delay to a scheduled milestone, the whole place goes insane with panic sells and threads being spammed with rabid demands for action or, my personal pet hate, incessant trading-related memes.

This completely drowns out the rational discussion that would otherwise be taking place about the project.

The new wallet is coming very soon. That's all you need to know right now and that's all you will be told right now.

After it has been released there will be other milestones announced for the next stages of the project, which will also not be given specific dates.


As an asides, I wouldn't worry too much about getting the coin onto other exchanges. You'll see what I mean in due course.

Many detractors are missing the point. VRC has value-added services that allow a single entry point for people to be able to perform functions that they would otherwise have to trawl through the industry to find who does what and how much it costs.

If you have a person new to crypto who downloads a wallet that allows them to use online services that accept BTC, allows them to send an SMS payment to someone who doesn't have a wallet and numerous other functions, you cut out the need for that laborious and steep learning process we all had to go through.
 
A long term goal will always be for these value-added services to be able to migrate to open-source decentralised platforms but, at this time, we'd be deliberately handicapping wider adoption if we insisted that everybody faced having to attain the same degree of knowledge about what is going on behind the scenes, technically, socially and commercially, as we did.

To be fair, I don't think yourstruly has ever implied that they respect VRC, but just because you don't like the tone of the posts they make, doesn't mean to say the content should be entirely ignored.

Going by their post history, one thing struck me as extremely pertinent, that dev teams should not be announcing project milestone due dates because, as we have all seen repeatedly, these are used by market speculators to push the price all over the place and whenever issues arise that might push back the release of an expected feature, we have people screaming FUD about how the whole project is falling apart.

Coin projects should discuss short, medium and long-term development plans and leave it at that. It'll make it so much harder for the speculators to screw with the price and, hopefully, would result in far less meme-filled threads going spastic with 'moon' and 'dump it' vapid nonsense.

Why, I thought they were 'bad guys' you were talking about? You know, the ones that are 'out to crush your coin'.


Like, Duh, no brainer.

Evidence please.

They may well be, I, however, am not trolling. You will find that every challenge I have raised is based on critical thinking and objective reasoning, I make no assertions that are baseless.


Firstly, I'm not here to save you, I'm here to at least try and combat some of the gross dysfunction in the altcoin world in the hope that it doesn't become entirely over-run by lunatics and thieves.

This coin has no potential, try reading this thread. You clearly have not. None of what Mitchell Mint is proposing makes any rational sense whatsoever and, besides, do you think his near-criminal misrepresentation of the Western Union tweet is sign of a stable mind?

Riddle me this Batman, Western Union didn't want to touch Bitcoin until it was 'fully regulated'. What possible reason would they have to be interested in this crapcoin? That tweet is just the stock reply they give to a 'thank you for . . .' message. Don't you understand that?

He's fraudulently misrepresenting their tweet to imply that they are acknowledging a telephone call he had with someone about doing a deal with him and this coin. Not just insane, criminally insane.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

I don't want his coin to fail, it is going to fail quite fine without me. I'm just trying to minimise the fallout from yet another crapcoin shambles.

Travis Mitchell exhibits all the hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder with delusions of grandeur. He doesn't get credit for living out his delusions. He's not being honest about his identity, he wants you to know he is a big and powerful businessman with a hot ex-model sharpshooter wife who drives an expensive marque car he couldn't spell right.

This isn't him doing you a favour, this is him living out his fantasies of fame and fortune and power. He's not thinking the long game because in his mind he will always succeed, even when his past coin projects have failed it is always someone else's fault. If he's already walked away from failed coins that his identity was known on, what makes you think he's worried about this one going turtle when he's already laying the foundation of blame being down to dark forces who are out to get him and crush his coin.

No, I'll call you, on the telephone, my expense. You're online now, I'll call you at your work, you don't even have to give me your home number, isn't that convenient.

Sure, pm me your telephone number.

What do I think? I think you're a sock-puppet account.

What if some of the community agree and some don't? Who actually has their finger on the trigger of coin destruction?

Are you suggesting that you'll leave it to a democratic vote? You *do* know that scientific research has proven in multiple tests that people are more likely to choose to take someone else's wealth away even if it means they don't make as much gain themselves?

So what happens when you are offering a route for them to take someone else's wealth away and the result makes their coins more valuable?

No he didn't. I asked how exactly there was supposed to be a magical difference between a Law Enforcement blockchain interrogation script and one put together by a competent member of Joe Public.

He never replied, he just insists that LE will be able to track the 'bad guys' transactions because it sounds good.

You do know he is talking about creating an app for blacklisting coins, right? Who gets to decide whether a coin in a wallet address should be blacklisted? Ask him that.

Oh Travis, I think you've lost the plot on this one. I know you struggle to understand the complexities of law, you know the simple difference between slander and libel, but surely you understand what fraudulent misrepresentation means?

So tell me, BadAss, has there EVER been a double-top that didn't reverse? Or one that didn't go up a bit and down a bit then up a bit more and so on?

'TA' is not science, otherwise it would be fact instead of speculation.

That's not proof of anything other than MitchellMint's continued attempts to deceive you all.

Western Union don't have a person sitting on Twitter who you also get to have telephone conversations with about business!

FFS, the "You are welcome" response is just their standard reply to someone tweeting a 'thank you for . . .' message to them.


Try it.