|
Instant transaction is marketing bullshit.
The DRK dev himself said this week the transactions will take 15 seconds.
That's a test environment, nothing like the real environment.
|
|
|
|
It still takes 10 to 15 seconds to reach 1 confirmation. Nothing special and hardly instant.
So it's not actually instant at all. Just marketing bullshit.
That's not how it works at all. It uses the MN system to verify a hash and locks the input with 10 separate entities. It takes literally seconds for confirmations. This is rivaling Visa or Mastercard payment systems. This is a quote from the DRK dev: 2 seconds was in a very small local environment! It should be 20-30 seconds in production, 10 if we're lucky.
|
|
|
|
It still takes 10 to 15 seconds to reach 1 confirmation. Nothing special and hardly instant.
So it's not actually instant at all. Just marketing bullshit.
Here come the haters! It was confirmed pretty much 2 sec after he clicked the button. Normal confirmations do not apply anymore when InstantX is enabled. The transaction is securely locked in place and cannot be double spent against, same as 6 confirmations of the regular blockchain. Something you don't get about that ? Actually your dev said that himself. If he has changed his stance let me know. |
|
|
|
|
It still takes 10 to 15 seconds to reach 1 confirmation. Nothing special and hardly instant.
So it's not actually instant at all. Just marketing bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Synechist I have an idea, why not have two Blocknet topics:
1 topic strictly limited to only Blocknet discussion
1 topic for any questions/claims/discussions about Dan
Basically I just want us to filter out the BS and have a topic strictly kept to Blocknet. Still I'm seeing a post about Prometheus and now something about liens. The simple way to stop this is to have two topics, one in the announcement section and one in the general section.
It's clear that 2 weeks from now we're still going to be dealing with new Dan FUD. Makes sense to separate it out from the main topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Maidsafe is in a different league to Storj.
Maidsafe's entire network and protocol has been built from ground up from scratch.
They have a team of programmers, have many patents they have released for free, have done tests with the code in huge organisations e.g. NHS, designed to be DDoS resistant, VOIP and video calling built in to the protocol... that's just some random info from the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
Well Blocknet made its goal, so it is going to happen, sorry but the competitors smear campaign failed,
Do you have any evidence that the many concerns that were raised were nought but a 'smear campaign' and, more importantly, were from a competitor? Because simply dismissing the valid concerns of people who were being critical of this ITO and those behind it, isn't helpful and paints you as somebody who will simply declare everything that doesn't agree with you to be FUD. Several of the most vocal accounts FUDDing Blocknet and XC with topics and posts have been found to be all sock puppet accounts of the same person: Unicornfarts, Danisdone, rdnkjdi. I also suspect several other accounts to be by the same person but unlike the above I have no proof so I won't post yet. It's amazing how much damage just a couple of people can do with determination and fake accounts. |
|
|
|
So market cap for Supernet is approx 8000 BTC. Market cap for Blocknet is approx 1000 BTC. Can't wait for this to get pumped.  |
|
|
|
i also created a topic saying i was retiring here & from this scene and they removed it..
and yes i do consider that a general altcoin related topic.
they removed it to be a dick..
Did you ever consider the possibility you might just be a huge cunt? |
|
|
|
wasn't leewilson banned from this thread??
i'm pretty sure he was is there a way to ban person from a thread? Never heard about it... So ho shouldn't be able to even post here if he's banned? It's a site rule that if the person who created a self moderated topic asks someone to leave the topic and they don't leave that they will get banned by the site admin. So whilst there is nothing literally stopping them from continue to post, they run the risk of being site banned. |
|
|
|
If you're wondering who unicornfarts was (one of the most prolific Block trolls), of course it turns out he was none other than a sockpuppet account for long time XC troll rdnkjdi  And danisdone was him too. I wonder how many other of these trolls accounts that have popped up are created by rdnkjdi. Such actions would be illegal in a regulated market. |
|
|
|
again confusion about fud. i stand by my opinion and if you dont like it thats probly because you have your own gains in your head and not what is best for this community. Im willing to lose to get rid of people treating this like their own personal feeding trough are you? facts arent fud and fud arent facts bud. I still find it funny that you guys put so much effort into bashing people like me when you should be bashing the guy you trusted that didnt live up to his end of the deal. I judge people by their actions dude. im not entirely sure what you go by but if you keep defending the people that dont deserve it your bound to lose over and over again.
XC fanboys have their heads up their asses right now... They know what's best, fuck what everyone else thinks. You've been banned from this topic by Synechist a few hours ago. Hopefully you get reported to Theymos now. |
|
|
|
This has become, by far, the most POINTLESS announcement thread of all time.
Why is there basically NO information in the OP? Not even a link to the shitty website...
Still no running total of BTC invested for people to see...
And, best of all, 177 pages of bullshit to read through to find the little information that is actually out there.
You guys have some serious work to do. Time to get back on track already.
The OP will be updated asap. In the meantime I encourage you to exercise some sympathetic patience for the team. I've barely slept in the past week. There's been a lot to do. This act of hard work shows the community that the XC team will do anything to get things tied up. Great work out there! Dan will blow everyone's mind when the ITO is finished and the ITO funding has been completed. Right now, people are doing as best as they can to still FUD the project but I've heard from more than one source that Dan is a magician when it comes to coding. If you followed the XC thread, he squashed a few Win and OSX bugs with XChat in minutes that some users experienced. If you doubt this project at all then sell off, but just remember you are ditching a project that is backed by probably one of the best devs in crypto ATM. More profit for the rest of us who are support this project. It will be interesting to see if the value of XC becomes somewhat linked to Blocknet developments. Or vice versa. The more tech XC comes out with, the more it further discredits FUD about Dan and the more promising it makes Block look. Similarly for Block, as milestones start being passed, people will regard XC future plans (e.g XC Inc) with more certainty. |
|
|
|
SNIP
It's people like you who are causing the problem you dumb fuck. All I see up and down the screen the last couple of pages is your tedious repetitive bullshit. |
|
|
|
Yep. I agree. If you traded blocks you take the risk of not getting square in the end. However, if you bought under 25, well done if you can sell off at 25 on the wall. Always in crypto ways to profit in trading, but someone always has to lose. Keep that in mind.
Since Poloniex have been actively trading Block and if the ITO fails to raise the minimum amount of BTC, could they be in a position to lose money? For example and purely theoretical; 1. Poloniex initially had 350 BTC of Block to sell. 2. They have been actively allowing trading of Block during the ITO. 3. Coingateway users have sent 25 BTC worth of Block to Poloniex to try and arbitrage their 10% discount. 4. All 25 BTC of Coingateway coins have been sold on Poloniex. 5. The refund on Bittrex causes the ITO not to meet the minimum requirements, the ITO is cancelled and all exchanges are refunded their initial amount of BTC. 6. But Poloniex is now sitting on 375 BTC worth of Block instead of their initial 350. 7. Is Poloniex stuck for the 25 BTC? a) If 25 BTC of Block have been sold that doesn't mean Poloniex holds 25 BTC of block. Poloniex collects trading fee. The Block belongs to whatever market participants bought them. b) Poloniex isn't stuck anything. Anything they hold which is extra, is profit they made from trading fees in the form of Block. c) They may have sold these collected fees off on their own market for BTC anyway. Ahhh, so Poloniex might not get stuck but the people who bought at the lower price may? Not sure. |
|
|
|
Yep. I agree. If you traded blocks you take the risk of not getting square in the end. However, if you bought under 25, well done if you can sell off at 25 on the wall. Always in crypto ways to profit in trading, but someone always has to lose. Keep that in mind.
Since Poloniex have been actively trading Block and if the ITO fails to raise the minimum amount of BTC, could they be in a position to lose money? For example and purely theoretical; 1. Poloniex initially had 350 BTC of Block to sell. 2. They have been actively allowing trading of Block during the ITO. 3. Coingateway users have sent 25 BTC worth of Block to Poloniex to try and arbitrage their 10% discount. 4. All 25 BTC of Coingateway coins have been sold on Poloniex. 5. The refund on Bittrex causes the ITO not to meet the minimum requirements, the ITO is cancelled and all exchanges are refunded their initial amount of BTC. 6. But Poloniex is now sitting on 375 BTC worth of Block instead of their initial 350. 7. Is Poloniex stuck for the 25 BTC? a) If 25 BTC of Block have been sold that doesn't mean Poloniex holds 25 BTC of block. Poloniex collects trading fee. The Block belongs to whatever market participants bought them. b) Poloniex isn't stuck anything. Anything they hold which is extra, is profit they made from trading fees in the form of Block. c) They may have sold these collected fees off on their own market for BTC anyway. |
|
|
|
|
So should I buy into Blocknet or not?
Holders/believers, give me your most convincing argument.
Pros: Dan has always delivered with his past tech promises, only one other project like this and it is valued much higher (supernet)
Cons: The manipulative FUD seems endless and has damaged the reputation of the project before it's begun, Tokens are unlikely to receive decent fees for considerable time
Trying to decide.
|
|
|
|
|
EVERYONE EMAIL AND CONTACT BITTREX - THEY OBVIOUSLY AREN'T AWARE OF THIS ASSHOLES HISTORY
Check my post history, check my reputation, check my hero member status and check how I write about other people on this forum. Now listen to this: do NOT trust this guy with your money. If there is one piece of advice you listen to it's mine.
|
|
|
|
Really text proof? Did you just not go on a long winded explanation of how all that can be faked yet you claim it as proof.
ah no but this is some clear proof here https://gist.github.com/atcsecure/cf6a478ef3169cefdc6dabout why this all started, and yeah I have the skype screenshots to back it up too! I'm very disappointed with what I am reading there. At what point were you planning to tell that to all the XC investors? Just spring it on us with an announcement?  What I see there is quite bit of concern for how the XC holders would take it e.g. "[10/9/2014 1:02:32 PM] .: So, current XC owners retain their value" Why are you disappointed? It looks like an very proper discussion of the options -. Because the language used indicated there would be no feedback about the decision from the community. Rather announcements and a press release. A decision involving changing the money supply should require community approval. It's a fundamental building block that all trust comes from. Dan has clarified and his answer is more than satisfactory to me. |
|
|
|
Really text proof? Did you just not go on a long winded explanation of how all that can be faked yet you claim it as proof.
ah no but this is some clear proof here https://gist.github.com/atcsecure/cf6a478ef3169cefdc6dabout why this all started, and yeah I have the skype screenshots to back it up too! I'm very disappointed with what I am reading there. At what point were you planning to tell that to all the XC investors? Just spring it on us with an announcement? Absolute not, it would have been done by a consensus vote of XC holders and only then if it was "approved" would it have happened I'm glad to hear that because the conversation implied otherwise with announcements and press release mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
