Has Yobit ever directly scammed someone?  I know they arguably operate in the weasel zone insofar as adding even questionable coins, but they have never done anything like actually steal money from my account, not in the year I've used them.

Yobit has higher volume on most altcoins than any exchange other than Poloniex.

Of course, I'm not adverse to Poloniex, if or when it happens.

No blackbytes seem to have appeared in my wallet either.  I just received ordinary bytes.  The total amount received is too small for the issue to be simply counting blackbytes in the byte sum number.

That is despite my high-balance byteball address definitely being linked according to the transition bot when I went through the process and checked beforehand.

P.S.:
I'm not seeing why blackbytes should be such that they couldn't be sent to an exchange, for those of us who might want the option.  Monero and every other privacy-protecting coin that I've heard about is on exchanges.  If others don't want theirs passing through an exchange, just don't send them there (and if anonymity is utterly lost because some might have passed through an exchange a number of transactions back, that sounds like it would be a design fault).  Time is money if your time isn't worthless, making the time involved in person to person negotiations have a huge cost.

Whether due to marketing hype or not wanting to insult their partner, GameCredits is unlikely to point the following out.  However:

Fragoria doesn't have remotely close to millions of players in any meaningful sense.  It might have had millions of accounts once briefly trying it out but not sustained, not unless mere bots or something.

You can get a better idea of the actual active playerbase by looking at the amount of posting on their forum:

http://forum.fragoria.com/?langid=1

For example, if one has ever been to the Blizzard WoW forums, there is no comparison, by literally orders of magnitude.  The latter is what a game with millions of active players really means.

With that said, fortunately GameCredits doesn't depend on Fragoria, not in the long term.  As long as GameCredits keeps up their continuous development, eventually they should reach other games summing up to millions of active users for real.  (That will probably never include WoW, from what I know of developer concerns about pay-to-win and real-money-trading there, but GameCredits will reach more and more other games).  And when they do, they might obtain more true usage than any altcoin has presently other than Bitcoin itself.

I am a holder of GameCredits myself.  Despite a little annoyance at a somewhat premature marketing spin, it is a milder fault than those of most other altcoins, since few others have such a clear market niche or as solid continuing development.

I know you are short on funds, since it was only a 82.7 Btc ICO, and you apparently have a lot of people to pay.

Well, AFAIK, you aren't bound by U.S. insider trading laws like those on stocks.  So maybe you could pay 3 Btc to get listed on an exchange like Bittrex, then buy a bunch of your own tokens at the bottom of the initial cheap dump, then resell those tokens for more than 3 Btc profit when the price rises after you show development progress by announcements and updates.  Time the updates so, and it would be predictable.

That could thus be zero net cost.

Just a thought, lol.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear of the update plans, since delivering updates and announcements, about as frequently as practical, is important to give the community a feel of continuous progress.

Your in-wallet ICO system is itself excellent, presumably derived from NXT or something but the most elegant ICO display I've ever seen, unlike the usual external website system.

More or less true.  But some politicians will spend other people's money on something which sounds at the cutting edge, if persuaded by lobbyists.  I assume the latter is part of the point of the team size and composition.  I don't mean a big nation but more like some mayor of a city government somewhere or something.

Of course, the OP timeline and details are largely ludicrous, but BSing is part of marketing, which relates to lobbying, though in this case needing to be toned down a bit to be less blatant.

Let's examine it.  The business plan includes three parts:

1) Project sponsoring, having a majority vote of forum posters decide what companies to invest in:

Is the average forumite more likely to be an idiot or an experienced angel investor?  This could be entertaining, so I'll give points for that.

2) Bitcoin mining farms:

This doesn't actually have anything to do with core competencies for creating a microjobs channel, but it is thrown in anyway.

Can Taskie compete with elite Chinese miners by having the right network of contacts to bribe local government officials for free electricity?  If no, what is this dude's special advantage?

3) The microjobs channel:

Special value-added over established competitors!  Get paid for your hard work in ethereum TSK shitcoins (instead of bitcoins like on XBTfreelancer.com or elsewhere)!  Why?  Why not?

Defeat the starting Network Effect disadvantage by ... something.

The above assumes the business plan is actually realized.

But half of escrow funds (supposed to be above 200 Btc) may be released if the OP pays a fraction of 1 Btc to a coin-creation (cloning) service to get a generic shitcoin with a working wallet out.   That can happen before any more unique features happen, beyond the existing website and beyond the present hosting of a copy of simplemachines.org forum software.

The other half can be released as soon as some non-zero degree of bitcoin mining is claimed to be operational.

If the OP rides off into the sunset afterwards, leaving bagholders waiting on further developer updates...

Conclusion: There may be lolz to be had.  Probably not by those investing bitcoins in this, though.

P.S.:

No, I don't know the OP is a scammer, although I'm pretty sure all the portraits are merely stock images looted from elsewhere (without anytime soon "a lawyer, an accountant, and an auditor" in any country, let alone multiple countries).

Just there is often almost no difference in net result between a scammer and someone with a totally unrealistic business plan.  My rule is not to invest in any ICOs which are goldmines for applied sarcasm.

Like Uber vs existing taxi companies, or Airbnb vs a hotel chain, the decentralized approach is interesting.

But the network effect totally works against you, like many other altcoin projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law

Sure, this isn't exactly a telecommunications network, but the principle still applies.  Bitcoin took off despite the disadvantage of a small starting network, aided by initial users not having to spend a cent, just playing around with the software academically and for fun, ideological vision, or speculation.  But, for this, the challenge is particularly bad.

In this case, without a large community of users, you don't just get few real users but probably none in practice.

You can't get the initial critical mass very readily without nearly unlimited startup financing / support, to smash through the network effect's practical barrier to entry, especially compared to alternative established package-delivering corporations.

You would need a megabacker, but I'm not a billionaire, so I can't be it.  Spare pocket change in this ICO is not going to be enough.

So that is my reason for not investing.

I figure you might have been waiting for the electoral college result before settling my bets on states won.

But it seems time now:

My win condition has been satisfied: "21 states or less" won by the Democratic candidate in the U.S. presidential election.

http://www.businessinsider.com/electoral-college-donald-trump-president-official-2016-12
... notes "she won the popular vote in only 20 states plus Washington, DC"

So I won the following bets, needing pay out:

https://www.directbet.eu/BetStatus.cshtml?BetID=XvNS7dsT9GBjhLgXFhXw3v4FbA99jgxk7q

https://www.directbet.eu/BetStatus.cshtml?BetID=1ETQL6PvvMc5FT6W8UjPFf1iZR4kFgZTrK

https://www.directbet.eu/BetStatus.cshtml?BetID=12tBktTvYoezCpXUjz5PXfMWnamuNWt7fc

Thanks.

Your expectations do sound plausible at least.  Truly I lack the expertise for a firm conclusion either way, but your reply covers intent on the matter well enough for me to plan to contribute a bit more to the ICO.

After all, the type and magnitude of expected measures in a MSB's required AML program is supposed to be influenced by whether actual money laundering potential is high or low.  It does seem possible (and hopefully the case) that FinCEN might take a common-sense approach in regard to how, if the fiat ramp is controlled, that does limit money laundering potential.


The thought is appreciated.  Unfortunately my comments were drawn only from an incomplete personal investigation (originally for another project), not extending much beyond what is already mentioned. 

Among some other sources, I read part of a giant AML publication.  ( https://www.protiviti.com/sites/default/files/united_states/insights/guide-to-us-aml-requirements-6thedition-protiviti_0.pdf )

But I am not a professional in a related field.

My browsing did come across, though, a number of cases when state and federal agencies responsible for MSB regulation have replied to letters from companies asking for clarification.  So, as you may already be quite aware, completion of your other research might be followed by an optional last step of contacting FinCEN itself, if any uncertainties were left unresolvable otherwise.

Yet, of course, you are dealing with non-regulatory business matters as well, one step at a time.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.  After all, seeing quite active developers tends to be a good sign.

I apologize for joining the list of challenging responses, personally considering a lot of the others to be unjustified.

But I would be curious if you could address a concern of mine.

Page 10 of your whitepaper notes a plan for anonymous transactions.  You are planning to operate based in an U.S. (Nevada) facility while offering anonymous transactions.

Miners and end-users of cryptocurrencies are exempt from relevant FinCen regulations.  However, your company would rather be classified as an administrator of a cryptocurrency:


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/new-us-treasury-fincen-ruling-clarifies-money-transmission-status-renting-bitcoin-miners-hashing-power/

So you will be required to register as a Money Services Business (MSB).  That means you will be legally required to enforce anti-money-laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) measures within your cryptocurrency, as far as I can tell from reading about federal regulations.

Now you might think you could skip everything AML/KYC if you did not convert fiat to crypto or vice versa.  Even that may be iffy.  Not only definitely New York's law but also apparently federal FinCen now may expect AML thresholds (like $3000 and $10000 or whatever) to be applied to the equivalent value in cryptocurrency, even when merely transacting in crypto without fiat.

Anyway, in general, here is an example quote from a million-dollar court judgment against Ripple:


https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/Ripple_Remedial_Measures.pdf

In other words, the U.S. government forced Ripple to agree to implement anti-privacy measures.

I really do hope you have a way around the regulatory situation, but here is a question: Do you know of any privacy-protecting cryptocurrency with a blatantly U.S.-based administrator company, other than some tiny ones simply slipping under the radar?

I don't.  Most cryptocurrencies are either started in Europe or elsewhere, or more decentralized.  Bitcoin is decentralized with no single target for regulators to go after, not dependent on any particular company.

Satoshi Nakamoto probably disappeared for a reason.  Before the Bitcoin era, the electronic currency E-Gold reached $2 billion a year transactions.  E-Bullion and Liberty Reserve were other top privacy-protecting currencies.  What all three have in common is that their founders or top people ended up with federal criminal charges.

Like the rest of the badly managed drug war, just how bad FinCen regulations can be seems about impossible to overstate.

With that said, if you somehow really could pull this off legally, it would be great, especially as a volatility-free coin could much help business adoption of cryptocurrency.

Glad for your continuing efforts.

I read the whitepaper but wonder about the giant challenge, like most altcoins: Getting enough users to use it instead of the alternative of bitcoin itself.

For instance, ICON's planned username registration system is indeed superior to bitcoin's meaningless addresses, but it is hard to think of a specific business that would jump over because of it.  It is like icing on the cake but not the cake itself.  Price volatility is a huge issue in getting businesses to accept any altcoin.  They don't necessarily trust that an altcoin will remain worth almost anything.

(Some guaranteed value for ICON might be possible by a simple expedient of maintaining a 520,000 ICON buy order on the exchange at some moderate price, as many as all the coins in existence, but that is a costly way to only somewhat reduce price volatility).

Most altcoins flounder in the doldrums of their only users being a small congregation of miners, speculators, and exchange bots -- not real users in the real world or external internet.  My guess is that getting even a hundred people really using a new coin like this as a currency would be a good start to break out of that situation, then thousands, and beyond for critical mass.

Beyond the features mentioned in the whitepaper, you may already have solutions in mind for where you could carve out some special market niches to get started.

But, just to throw out some ideas for optional suggestions:

• Your automated payment system might be made to support a billing system, especially for microtransactions.  For instance, imagine a proxy that charged for each hour of use, fancier than could be provided as a free service, but "pay-as-you-go" instead of monthly billing.  Another microtransaction example might be donating to some address a tiny bit per week automatically, and ICON price volatility would not be a particular issue in the case of charitable giving which does not demand fixed prices.

• Yet in some ways, getting future versions of your wallet adopted by enough users might be easier if it was made into a dual-currency wallet, both ICON and bitcoin.  A feature like your automated payment system probably could be made to function with bitcoin too?  Other features would need ICON itself, not functioning with bitcoin.
  
  The idea then would be to drastically expand the total userbase by drawing in existing bitcoin users, figuring that more would slip into the advantages of ICON over time if already having the wallet installed.
  
  For example, right now, my ICON wallet shows a total of 4 active connections, but getting a hypothetical dual ICON-Bitcoin wallet installed on thousands of computers would put ICON on a trajectory to success (even if most initially downloaded it merely for the bitcoin functions, only later gradually easing into ICON more and more).

• Speaking of other feature ideas, there is a computer game, World of Warcraft, with millions of players, in which there are personal banks but also guild banks too.  The latter are quite popular, allowing a bunch of money control features like letting some users have partial access with a limited cap on funds they can withdraw per day.  Nothing like those money control features exist in current crypto wallets, AFAIK, yet they would actually be useful.
  
  For instance, setting a limit on how much could be withdrawn per day from a wallet, by some user types, could be useful for parents with kids -- or clubs or organizations wanting a group wallet.  It also could be a partial anti-theft safeguard, a little like seemingly every ATM card in the world has a daily cash withdrawal limit, so no thief could withdraw $100,000 in the first day.

Speaking of additional exchange options, Cryptopia is probably decent for small new startup coins too.  For example, Pesobit does most of its transaction volume there.


7.78 btc (history section at https://www.ico-list.com/ )

Although we are still waiting on Yobit to get their wallet out of maintenance status, Creatio has made a step forward now in another way:

It is now on Coinmarketcap.

Coins often do well if having unique capabilities and/or some intrinsic value (gold-backed Xaurum, dividend-yielding Omicron, hard-drive-mined Burst, real-world-used Bitcoin, et cetera).  Creatio is in that category to a degree, which gives it potential, already so far tending to maintain above ICO price.

A weakness is how new service buyers would presently have to buy a substantial percentage of the total coin supply in existence, to pay for some services, which may be challenging for them to do quickly, affordably, and efficiently versus limited market liquidity.  But that weakness may diminish over time, if Creatio eventually settles into a more stable semi-high price and if Davien lowers prices in XCRE per service accordingly then.

Odd.  Such a transfer worked for me, a few hours after your post (a test withdrawal of 2000 XCRE, completed a few minutes after the email confirmation).

Maybe the tradesatoshi exchange subsequently fixed the issue.

As far as I know, although not a local resident, no other cryptocurrency-loaded debit card withdrawing directly in Philippine pesos exists (without a method involving additional steps).

If or once that capability is added to Pesobit as planned, there is no need to worry about the future price of this coin, as it will go way up if in use like that with an unique capability.

Although only having been in crypto for less than a year, I am a whale in Pesobit holdings (a significant percentage of the total original ICO while not having sold any), and essentially every altcoin has pump and dump fluctuations superimposed on longer-term future trends, as in all the graphs at coinmarketcap.com

What really matters in the end is continuing development to produce intrinsic value, and that we seem to have.  I applaud the development team.

Animated and continuously panning, the image for the new wallet login page is very nice, standing out among countless web pages I've visited.  Well done.

Touches like that may help this coin feel friendly to new entrants and take off.

Glad for your continuing efforts.

By the way, while up to you, possibly consider adding a BTC donation address to the opening post, not uncommon for OPs.

On the prior topic, just as additional info:

The wrong-time node's IP address keeps changing, unless it is more than one:

First it corresponds in IP-geolocation to New Jersey, then Japan, then California.  Maybe someone is switching proxies, VPN, or VPS?  Odd.

Possible fix to solve the blacklisting threat messages (which I get too, despite my time being exactly accurate):

If a non-majority of nodes have a time utterly contrary to reliable online servers (e.g. an API call to http://www.timeapi.org/ ), only send threatening messages to the problematical node, not to innocent computers like mine.

I get the threatening message because someone's computer has a time 5 hours behind mine.  Either they are in Hawaii (compared to my CST time zone) without time zones being properly adjusted for, or else their time is just plain wrong even for their time zone.  But my computer has the correct time, synchronized by Windows 10 with time.windows.com

Right now, the threatening message's receipt and wording is as if my computer would be assumed inaccurate when there is just one node giving out false info, not mine.

(I'm just aiming to give constructive criticism, despite quite happy with PascalCoin's potential overall).

At least in my experience so far, gaining blocks seems to be semi-random, albeit reliable enough as long as it is kept mining.  I gained 1 block in initial hours, then went a far longer time without any blocks gained (despite actually a higher kH/s rate after adjusting options to use more CPU cores), then gained 2 more blocks in rapid succession.

I see you have a listing website (looks useful) and so a reason to ask for a more precise figure than the "over 700" on the prior page of this thread.

The final display was:

"709.06 BTC   Donated by 496 people"

as of
"-2 Blocks   Time left"

all recorded in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elastic-project/genesis-block/master/genesis-block.json

The donation period for getting coins just ended earlier today.  The OP and other posts seem to suggest the hackathon and testnet phases may occupy the next few weeks, more focused on getting it right than rushing, yet presumably followed by when the coin could go live enough for people to get it on an exchange.

(Disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge, just having previously looked at the thread and elsewhere to gain enough confidence in Evil-Knievel's apparently excellent coding skills to send in several bitcoin).