I'll try to explain what I suggested above.
To summarize what we have here: there are two facts we need to make note of:
Fact 1. This ICO was not what everyone was stating ("Real honest ICO with no whales and only real investors putting money in"). A big manipulator was in, not sure was it Dev or some unrelated third party. In any case at least the half of the coins were sold to not real investor.
Fact 2. Now DEv has too many coins in his hands. It is at least half of the ICO coins, and if 50% of the whole supply. Even after mining phase it will go down to 29.4% - a huge "pre-mine", allowing a nice dump.
So thats some more reasons why I suggest to burn those coins (dumped 50% of ICO). Apart from other benefits, in my eyes this will 100% ensure the malicious one is not the Dev.
You want them to burn the coins they bought with the money they raised from the ICO? They only raise like 20 BTC from the ICO and now you want them to throw away half of it? Get real man. Also your "Fact 1" is not at all a fact, it is just what you suspect. So how about you call it what it is. Look at viral, see how people dumped below the ICO price right off the bat? It's pretty normal. People get impatient and realize they need BTC now, or see something where they think they can invest their BTC in for a quick profit and then come right back with more BTC (having made much more than they lost in fees). If you want the devs to continue development of the coin, they will need funds or incentive to do so. They didn't raise all that much in the ICO, but if they have a lot of the coin itself then they have a lot of incentive to keep working on the coin. If they could set up an address viewable and audit-able to the public for the coins they bought back and use it as a development fund, I think that would be best for all parties involved. It looks like our opinions are 180 degree opposite in every topic. I don't get your point of view, the same way you don't get mine. I hope you are not actually the one who bought those coins, then dumped them, trying to manipulate. I suspect you are, though. Yes I want them to burn the coins they bought back, because 1. They did not spend any money on those coins. Did not want those coins. These coins are same if they were not sold at all. Why those coins should not be burned the same way as all other unsold coins? REAL ICO was 50% less, than it seemed, let's just face it. 2. It is dangerous for Dev to have so many coin. What do we tell, when we see "no ICO" normal coin with 30% pre-mine? Don't everybody tell "WTF!!!???" and stay away? Such big premine offers a great dump. I would be interested on what other community members think (except you and maybe placebo, as his opinion is predictable). What dev thinks? Why everybody is so silent. All this is too suspicious. You are the one who is trying to make the devs change their plans to please yourself and your agenda (although I honestly don't think what you are saying is the best for you or me, as I imagine we are in similar positions), and it's not the first time. I'm not going to reply to those two points because they are just restatements of your previous message which I already responded to, you just repeated your previous points... and I don't feel like going in a circle with you. And no, I am not the person who is trying to manipulate the coin, and the fact that you think I am proves (to me personally, at least) that what you think is going on here is wrong. So, yes. Let's see what the community thinks and, most importantly, the devs. |
|
|
|
|
At this point is getting close to where it's safe to say it is dead. The dev lied earlier, he said he didn't know why it the market was frozen and he said it would be back on shortly- and now it is delisted and we know the reason why and we know he knew the reason why too. On top of that, he hasn't taken the time to update us or anything after the delisting.
|
|
|
|
Btw just to throw my opinion out there...
I agree that you should only release lite wallets for windows, because of the issue with windows not being able to correctly sync the time- which is not an issue with crypti but with windows. I'm curious though, does anybody know how quick a blocktime you can have before running into this problem? 10 sec is obvs too quick, but what about 20s or 30s? Would having the minimum blocktime capable of preventing this problem be possible if it is only a bit slower than the current blocktime? Might be worth the sacrifice in transaction time.
Also, I agree that there will need to be more incentive to setup a full node or else we will be left with only the 101 active delegates and perhaps a few extra. I don't know how much of a problem that would actually be (if at all), but I think it is inevitable if there is no incentive for inactive delegates (especially once the 101 active delegates have become so entrenched with so many votes and high uptime % that it seems impossible to make it into the active 101 for somebody setting up a new delegate).
Imo 101 nodes are enough. DPoS is a system, which offers all the benefits of a centralized system with enough decentralization. It means that 101 is an empirical found number by the BitShares team, which offers great advantages. + Decentralized + Fast It is not needed to have more nodes running at a time. The network works flawless with these 101 delegates. Even when we have 100x the volume. This is my personal opinion through.  How many of the 101 are the same person or group/organization? |
|
|
|
|
What he is saying is that this is a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) coin. You validate transactions, generate blocks, and receive block-rewards by staking coins in your wallet. So all you need to do is buy some coins, move them to your wallet, and leave it open and staking (don't forget to encrypt your wallet).
|
|
|
|
I'll try to explain what I suggested above.
To summarize what we have here: there are two facts we need to make note of:
Fact 1. This ICO was not what everyone was stating ("Real honest ICO with no whales and only real investors putting money in"). A big manipulator was in, not sure was it Dev or some unrelated third party. In any case at least the half of the coins were sold to not real investor.
Fact 2. Now DEv has too many coins in his hands. It is at least half of the ICO coins, and if 50% of the whole supply. Even after mining phase it will go down to 29.4% - a huge "pre-mine", allowing a nice dump.
So thats some more reasons why I suggest to burn those coins (dumped 50% of ICO). Apart from other benefits, in my eyes this will 100% ensure the malicious one is not the Dev.
You want them to burn the coins they bought with the money they raised from the ICO? They only raise like 20 BTC from the ICO and now you want them to throw away half of it? Get real man. Also your "Fact 1" is not at all a fact, it is just what you suspect. So how about you call it what it is. Look at viral, see how people dumped below the ICO price right off the bat? It's pretty normal. People get impatient and realize they need BTC now, or see some other coin that they think they can invest their BTC in for a quick profit and then come right back having made much more than they lost in fees. If you want the devs to continue development of the coin, they will need funds or incentive to do so. They didn't raise all that much in the ICO, but if they have a lot of the coin itself then they have a lot of incentive to keep working on the coin. If they could set up an address viewable and audit-able to the public for the coins they bought back and use it as a development fund, I think that would be best for all parties involved. Either that or burn part of it, but I don't think it is anywhere near fair to ask them to burn it all and I actually like (and have seen much better success) when devs have some vested interest in the coin due to them owning a share themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Btw just to throw my opinion out there...
I agree that you should only release lite wallets for windows, because of the issue with windows not being able to correctly sync the time- which is not an issue with crypti but with windows. I'm curious though, does anybody know how quick a blocktime you can have before running into this problem? 10 sec is obvs too quick, but what about 20s or 30s? Would having the minimum blocktime capable of preventing this problem be possible if it is only a bit slower than the current blocktime? Might be worth the sacrifice in transaction time.
Also, I agree that there will need to be more incentive to setup a full node or else we will be left with only the 101 active delegates and perhaps a few extra. I don't know how much of a problem that would actually be (if at all), but I think it is inevitable if there is no incentive for inactive delegates (especially once the 101 active delegates have become so entrenched with so many votes and high uptime % that it seems impossible to make it into the active 101 for somebody setting up a new delegate).
|
|
|
|
|
The coin hasn't even been released yet... please people, dump if you want. This has a marketcap less than 6000 USD and if you don't think it will go higher than that.. well, go ahead and dump.
|
|
|
|
Why so much internal bickering? Common guys, Crypti is lucky in that for the most parts trolls have steered clear, let's not troll each other  |
|
|
|
|
Nice work devs! I'm looking forward to seeing this project grow! Such a tiny marketcap we have right now, only like 6000 USD, it will only get bigger.
|
|
|
|
Does no-one care that the "dev" lied and said they "had spoken with Bittrex and the market would be open soon" ?
All smells very fishy.
You're still here? Lol. Get a life, I actually own some of this coin and even I've taken a break from this thread much longer than you. Go relax, XTP will continue to be a scam or not be a scam whether or not you throw out red word-barf claiming one way or the other every hour. |
|
|
|
|
This coin is looking better and better by the second. You guys seem very serious about this, I hope that stays true! If it does, we will all profit nicely.
|
|
|
|
I don't think birrtex is the best choice I think relatively polpniex is the best  Poloniex is by far the best exchange, but it seems really picky about what coins are added. If the devs can demonstrate continued support and development and convince them that this coin and its devs will be around for a while, then I bet they would add it. |
|
|
|
|
I have a good feeling about this coin, I don't think 10k is in anyway out of reach.
|
|
|
|
Everyone who has sent me an address thus far has had their coins sent to them. Seriously all feedback, tips and compliments are appreciated and treasured  VG41pMJYhSyUdyonyTr69PbCY3xXh5Ax4i Edit: Wow seriously big thanks to all the tippers! Size doesn't matter!  Sent you a pm with my viral address. Thanks! Sent! Thank you! Small tip incoming |
|
|
|
Everyone who has sent me an address thus far has had their coins sent to them. Seriously all feedback, tips and compliments are appreciated and treasured VG41pMJYhSyUdyonyTr69PbCY3xXh5Ax4i Edit: Wow seriously big thanks to all the tippers! Size doesn't matter! Sent you a pm with my viral address. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
johncassa and prospecta you have both been saying that for the past 24 hours... we get it, you think it is dead. so why the fuck are you still here again?
|
|
|
|
I think there must be a fork. In my wallet I'm on 17458, with 7 connections. According to your block explorer my last POS block was 4 days ago. So we forked sometime in POS around block 12055...
You mean the hardfork which was announced in the OP at block 12500..? New wallets are in the OP. |
|
|
|
looks like we just bought into the bag holders 4 lyf club  |
|
|
|
Just in case all coins are not sold in ICO , what would happen to the remaining coins ?
C-CEX will burn all the unsold coins thanks Correct, but we will also adjust the mining structure to protect our ICO investors! So the result ICO VS Mining will be the same. If we have to destroy 70% of ICO coins then mining rewards will drop by 70% too. So if only 200,000 coins are being sold then this will not be a 1,500,000 FCS coin, but a 300,000 FCS Coin. So it is not destroying just the unsold coins, but we will change the block rewards too before launch. This is fair for ICO investors else they would pay 4 times more then miners and that is what we certainly want to prevent. People who invest in our ICO take a risk and people should be rewarded and not punished because they took a risk. The masternode value will also be decreased as it doesn't make sense to have a 25,000 FCS masternode when there are only 300,000 coins on the market, so everything will be adjusted based on ICO results. I am very glad to hear this, thank you! This is the right thing to do and a good sign seeing how responsive this team is. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
