I am interested to try this product and post the result on my crypto blog. You guys offer an affiliation of this product?
No. There are no trial versions or anything of that kind. You pay 0.1 BTC for a licence for a single exchange, or 0.09 BTC if you use a discount code. |
|
|
|
I do not have a phd in economics, but then again, you do not have it either.
I have not asked for a phd. I'm well above the 'for dummies' level, but it seems that you're well under it. You expect everyone to work for free? He already explained he got most of the money from a grant.
Why would anyone, who is still in their right mind, create a grant for Bitcoin ABC? He's full of bullshit. But so what if he gets paid by Roger or Jihan? Something wrong with working for money?
Plenty of wrong with both Roger and Jihan.  |
|
|
|
If market size is not a metric for this, then I do not know what is. That is what shows how much money/people in it.
You are so uneducated that this is hilarious and pathetic at the same time. You're trying to tell me that I can dump $8 billion worth of BCH?  I think there is something wrong with you.
Take a look in the mirror, and then go back to economics for dummies. Let me take a guess: paid by either Ver or Jihan. |
|
|
|
Wonderful. You've been going after them for months? You can put anything you want in ToS. If it contradicts the law, it would be reputed null and void.
Does not in this case. I let you read about "usus" "fructus" and "abusus".
BCH here is the fructus of BTC. Hence as the owner of the said BTC, you are entitled to its product (BCH).
BCH is a product of Bitcoin? What kind of kool-aid have you been drinking?  Indeed, no source for that. They would have been idiots to admit it.
|
|
|
|
1) I am not impacted by this. I stopped holding funds on Betcoin since May.
Doubtful. 2) ToS mean nothing in regards to the law.
Of course it does. What are you talking about? 3) No, when you upload funds you don't transfer ownership.
Ambiguous claim. Please point me to the section of the law that states that any attack on the Bitcoin network, i.e. any coins from a *duplicated* chain must be sent to the owners/senders of related BTC balances. That's exactly the reason why Coinbase did a 180 because they were gonna get sued left and right.
Source of the claim that it is because of lawsuits? |
|
|
|
|
You are not the rightful owner of that BCH unless it was explicitly stated in a ToS, before the event, that any such coins will be distributed to the players. Stop acting self-entitled.
Any coins held on an exchange/online service are not yours, they are IOUs.
|
|
|
|
...
BCH is a failed altcoin...
Argumentation is one thing but BCH is number 3 in https://coinmarketcap.com, it is even bigger than Ripple and Litecoin. ...why do you lie? You think that a market cap for a currency is valid / significant metric? Damn you've been doing some hard kool-aid. |
|
|
|
Says the scammer. Shut Up Luptin!!!! Halt dein Maul ja
Are you mentally challenged? Claim 1: I'm a scammer. Claim 2: I am Lutpin? Evidence for either one? Zero. Then again we have these warning signs of your stupidity: 1) Trust summary for PolyCoin-Team
This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.
2) Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
3) Rating by dogie: "dogie 2015-09-19 0.00000000 Left me negative trust saying I'm Quickseller? Probably a troll."
|
|
|
|
I figured as much / wouldn't expect you to say something that did not happen. People who leave retaliatory fake negatives just confirm that the negative they have received (regardless of the reason) is warranted, i.e. that they are not trustworthy. I swear all the threads on reputation are just thread about false negative ratings or DT members trust abuse.
It seems that people can't understand the basic concept: Behave according to the implied forum etiquette, and don't do anything shady and all those "false negative ratings" won't exist in the first place. |
|
|
|
Lauda, your actions show your character, thus showing your motive.
And your statements show your intellect/knowledge or lack thereof. Stop writing nonsense just to rank up the account, alright? A dead coin is a dead coin. But you make it seem alive.
BCH is a failed altcoin with: 1) Extreme mining centralization. 2) No proven developers. 3) Malicious individuals behind it. Even if no real user touched this with a fork in years, Ver & co have enough money to lose mining and spamming transactions to make it seem alive. Stop drinking the kool-aid and supporting scams. |
|
|
|
If BCH was insignificant, then it would be treated as such. But with how many people come in here to "put in their word", it makes it a compelling significance.
That is absolute bullshit, otherwise any random token with a shit ton of paid baboons, having hundreds of pages would have "compelling significance". Either you're spamming or you're drinking kool-aid. Pick the lesser evil. |
|
|
|
Small reminder again:
The amount of shills defending this altcoin, which is arguably worse than a good amount of the shitcoins out there, is astronomical. How much exactly are you paying people for so much shilling mr. Ver? |
|
|
|
But you do understand that I made this impulse for the sake of the community not because of my self, I do not have nothing from it personally... And I will certainly not come up with a FULL developed concept ALONE!
The idea is inherently flawed and will not work with the current state of things here. And why you think things must go like you suggest? Well nvm, I see you are not a big help to this topic! Sorry again to distract you, and just let it go please...
Because you are a newcomer who has no idea what he/she is talking about? Spend some actual time here before posting more bullshit. Thanks. Hmmm, is there any way to know if those behind the ICOs are legit o not?
The people being real does not guarantee legitimacy. There is no way to know when we have cases of people who nobody has heard of. Occasionally scammers slip up and use images that are found somewhere online, and get exposed. Making ICO pay before the start is ok, but to whom they will pay? and who will regulate?
The forum and the forum. |
|
|
|
fake account
Tagged both. I go first, he is trusted
It is you second acc  Such a stupid attempt of fake vouching. |
|
|
|
Ya sure I will do it alone.... Why not...
I thought it was doable, or was that only when others do the thinking for you? How is about making a public discussion and take other options on board...
Create a proposal alone then come to the public with it and discuss. I dont know why you hostile, but ok... Sorry for distracting you trying to give an impuls!
Your idea/suggestion is flawed and easily got shot down, which you see as hostility. That's how weak the thinking behind it is. |
|
|
|
1. Democratically voting members into the committee ( min 20 people to avoid corruption)
Democratic voting by who? Farmed accounts, shitposters and spammers? 2. Make a fee for it and pay committee members and infrastructure
This would not be worth the effort/reward. 3. Needs much more thinking to find a proper working solution. But I believe its doable!
Everyone says something like that, similarly for the trust system. Come up with a fully detailed solution that works both in theory and practice, and then we can talk about whether it's doable or not. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency market is volatile and uncertain. I think China is just protecting its citizen from the fraud and scams brought by untrusted ICOs. Their government needs to figure out how to deal with ICO legally so they have stopped it.
Do not allow any random anonymous prick to run an ICO -> problems *solved*. Is this the reason why the prices of almost all coins dropped?
Shitcoins and tokens are dropping because they have no use case or any actual value to begin with. It's all a speculative bubble. Bitcoin is unfortunately suffering as you usually can't trade back into fiat without using an intermediary such as Bitcoin. Bitcoin, as of today, is the only coin that is legitimate. Technically, Ethereum should also be illegal in China ATM as it was also an ICO. Technically. |
|
|
|
That will not work: 1) Hard to choose said members. 2) Said members would have to *waste their free time* to essentially be doing someone elses homework. 3) Prone to abuse and corruption. As we've seen with other members in the past, they're willing to sell themselves out for a penny (e.g. Quickseller bogus escrow). Some ANN fee
Should be mandatory IMO.
No answer, as expected. |
|
|
|
|
1) Do not use Yobit.net.
2) Do your due diligence when trying to use an exchange (Google + Bitcointalk searches).
3) They already have several negative ratings, thus this scam accusation (and the ones to come) are just useless.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
