|
I don't understand it, the guy is complaining about being scammed by a known scammer with several negative trusts, then blaming it on the very system that warned him the guy was a scammer in the first place?
Makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
OK so only a few more days before the big game. I'm gonna have to go with the Pats to win by 3 or more. Rams just don't have the playoffs experience that the Pats do. If the Rams win I'll eat my hat.
|
|
|
|
|
Not proof, not evidence, not convinced.
|
|
|
|
Year ago, 1 NEM was at 12000 sat, now it's about 1300 satoshis. As BTC is 4-5x lower than before a year, it means ~ 40x decrease. And as we were on #4-#5 position year ago, now we're at #18 and constantly falling further. Maybe it's (the position on CMC) just means that here are more projects now, that are more interesting / overhyped / whatever ... despite of this or that, it's sad at all.
You haven't kept an eye on the USD price apparently. Again, it's almost the same. Spread all the FUD you want and waste your energy. You know what you are trying to do with your propaganda  Uh... "almost the same".. are you nuts? One year ago it was 80 cents a coin, today its $0.047 a coin. |
|
|
|
|
Very thorough examination...
Since you posted this their telegram has been pretty silent. Just people wishing each other Good Morning.
Its very rare that a project with a plagiarized white paper goes on to be legitimate.
However, I know that Tron and Justin Sun got in trouble for that -- they quickly revised their white paper, and have been pretty darn successful ever since.
|
|
|
|
And when the next step function wave of adoption occurs, BTC will once again experience an interminable backlog of tx volume, with soaring tx fees. At which point it will 'work' only in the vaguest sense, and will be all-but-unusable. At which point, the wisdom of having stayed with the original protocol design will be revealed.
Again, the basis for your rationale depends on things you believe _will_ happen, and so far have yet to happen. Despite BTC's tx fee woes that plagued it a year ago its still by far the dominant coin in terms of popularity and BCH's market share has only decreased since then. BCH has become a tiny fraction of BTC in terms of price since Dec 2017. There's no reason to believe things will change, especially since BCH supporters are now divided into two firmly entrenched camps intent on reducing the price of the other to zero. Merchants don't want to have to set up multiple wallets to accept multiple coins -- they want one coin: bitcoin. Everything else is just an altcoin. |
|
|
|
Under $3,400 let's see what sticks or maybe the bottom isn't in.
Now its above $3,400. Seriously, you guys should stop biting off your nails at every $100 mark test. The bottom is currently $3220, or thereabouts -- almost $200 away. It's not time to get out the revolver or the cyanide until it breaks clean below $3200. |
|
|
|
no.... thats a lie, I would love a prequel (but same time its very dangerous to create a worthy prequel on that classic) .....
word. probably impossible to surpass or equal the original. I don't know why I love this GIF so much, but I do. As a grammar nazi the inappropriate apostrophe kind of itches me but its still hilarious. |
|
|
|
Africa (the unbanked) is where we really need to push adoption. I guess the issue is not having the internet (wifi or 4G). Imagine if even 1 in 1000 people had a mobile phone & a BTC wallet or something.
I'm sure you've heard of Kenya's mPesa and all that. So, they do. The problem is they need extra money to invest in a very high-risk investment. Or, less pessimistically, they need to be able to exchange in-and-out of bitcoin with less fees than is incurred by using Western Union or something. |
|
|
|
In TA-related news, Top Crypto Trader Says BTC May Go Up if it Goes Up, Go Down if it Goes Down. https://www.newsbtc.com/2019/01/26/bitcoin-btc-could-be-gearing-up-for-a-big-move-as-sideways-trading-persists/Although this weekend is off to an involatile start so far, Mayne, a popular cryptocurrency trader, noted in a recent tweet that Bitcoin could very well climb higher in the coming days if it is able to break above a few key levels.
“$BTC if we break above the grey block you can add or wait until a break and close above yearly open to add,” he said, with the referenced “grey block” existing around $3,650.
Mayne later noted that Bitcoin has moved closer to this region, and if it is able to break above its yearly open at approximately $3,700 it could see a price surge up to $4,000.  That's TA in a nutshell. |
|
|
|
the Bitcoin whitepaper proposes a specific economicmic model that does not parallel with the lightning network as you can see if you read the first page of the whitepaper. The lightning network is literally, an off chain solution that has nothing to do with hash power. Hash power is what backs the bitcoin economy, lightning network takes that away by proposing ‘2nd layer’ (a dummy name for third party) solutions.
We are talking about two completely different experiments here.
Lightning Network isn't a "3rd party"; its an independent network of people who voluntarily agree to participate in it, for very little (if any) compensation. Yes, its an off-chain solution, and if it helps make bitcoin more usable then so be it. Nobody cares about rules you are arbitrarily imposing on the Bitcoin Network. So for some, what ‘constitutes’ bitcoin is a document, not a ticker symbol ruled by the likes of a third party exchange.
Yes, and they are all already invested in BCH and SV. |
|
|
|
Without God there would be no science... or anything else, for that matter. Without engineering, science would have died out long ago. A. Whose version of god? Yours? How are you certain your god is the "real god"? Seems a bit pompous. B. Yet both still exist and the evolution of knowledge could not have proceeded in any other way. The version of God that nature and the universe shows. Without a lot of thought, nature isn't clear about anything other than the power and knowledge of God. See Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0. Most of today's scientists wouldn't call even alchemy science... much less simple investigation and discovery. A. That's your opinion of what "god" entails. Its not based in anything other than your opinion. B. Alchemy isn't a science because you can't turn lead into gold. No, that's your opinion of what "god" doesn't entail. Science shows that God exists. Politics allows people to not accept anything that they don't want to accept, including science, if they don't want it. There was a time that the science of nuclear fission didn't make the A-bomb work, because it was faulty. That didn't make it not a science. A. Science has not shown god exists. Again, that's your opinion. B. Science eventually did make the A-bomb work, but its never changed lead into gold. |
|
|
|
Without God there would be no science... or anything else, for that matter. Without engineering, science would have died out long ago. A. Whose version of god? Yours? How are you certain your god is the "real god"? Seems a bit pompous. B. Yet both still exist and the evolution of knowledge could not have proceeded in any other way. The version of God that nature and the universe shows. Without a lot of thought, nature isn't clear about anything other than the power and knowledge of God. See Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0. Most of today's scientists wouldn't call even alchemy science... much less simple investigation and discovery. A. That's your opinion of what "god" entails. Its not based in anything other than your opinion. B. Alchemy isn't a science because you can't turn lead into gold. |
|
|
|
A reference to blockchain definition does not in anyway termed plagiarism.
OK I'll save you the hassle of having to scroll up a few comments and paste for you the evidence again: Your whitepaper has plagiarized entire paragraphs. From a Forbes article: What businesses benefit?
Prior to the advent of the blockchain, there was no way to secure and validate ownership in a digital asset or verify a transaction in a trustless, public manner. Take, for example, the act of utilizing a software license to gain access to a program like Microsoft Word. To enforce the right to use the software, it must check a centralized server operated by Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted, it could deny access to the software or transfer those permissions to another user. While we consider Microsoft a trusted entity, the risk of illicit behavior increases when an untrusted party is introduced.
Perhaps a better example is ownership of a more valuable asset, such as a substantial share in a company or valuable digital asset such as a one-off piece of digital artwork. To transfer shares of ownership in a company, the current model requires stacks of paperwork, a lawyer or a centralized and trusted entity, such as the New York Stock Exchange.
What about transferring a digital asset like art? How do you prevent people from copying the digital file and sending many others a copy? If there’s no way to publicly verify the transfer of a single asset to a single entity, then there’s no way to enforce ownership or authenticity. This is why the value in art is always in the physical good.
The blockchain is the first technology that enables the transfer of digital ownership in a decentralized and trustless manner. In fact, there are companies like Polymath that are disrupting the industry by creating digital tokens that can represent ownership in a company, or DAEX, which is seeking to disrupt the world of digital art by publishing ownership on the blockchain.
While technology and supporting platforms around the blockchain ecosystem are sure to evolve, to answer the question of which businesses will initially benefit from its use, are the ones which possess the following traits:
• Transaction-based
• Benefits from public scrutiny
• Benefits from history that can’t be rewritten
• Decentralization benefits the end user or customer From your whitepaper: How businesses benefit?
Prior to the advent of the blockchain, there was no way to secure and validate ownership of a digital asset or verify a transaction in a trustless, public manner. Take, for example, the act of utilizing a software license to gain access to a program like Microsoft Word. To enforce the right to use the software, it must check a centralised server operated by Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted, it could deny access to the software or transfer those permissions to another user. While we consider Microsoft a trusted entity, the risk of illicit behavior increases when an untrusted party is introduced.
Perhaps a better example is ownership of a more valuable asset, such as a substantial share in a company or valuable digital asset such as a one-off piece of digital artwork. To transfer shares of ownership in a company, the current model requires stacks of paperwork, a lawyer or a centralised and trusted entity, such as the New York Stock Exchange.
What about transferring a digital asset like art? How do you prevent people from copying the digital file and sending many others a copy? If there’s no way to publicly verify the transfer of a single asset to a single entity, then there’s no way to enforce ownership or authenticity. This is why the value in art is always in the physical good.
The blockchain is the first technology that enables the transfer of digital ownership in a decentralised and trustless manner. In fact, there are companies like Polymath that are disrupting the industry by creating digital tokens that can represent ownership in a company, or DAEX, which is seeking to disrupt the world of digital
art by publishing ownership on the blockchain.
While technology and supporting platforms around the blockchain ecosystem are sure to evolve, to answer the question of which businesses will initially benefit from it’s use, are the ones which possess the following traits:
• Transaction-based
• Benefits from public scrutiny
• Benefits from history that can’t be rewritten
• Decentralisation benefits the end user or customer That's what plagiarism is. You stole somebody else's content word-for-word and made it your own. What's your explanation for this? This is a general term. I hope you understand this. This part is talking about business betters
/tərm/Submit
noun
1.
a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study.
"the musical term “leitmotiv”"
synonyms: word, expression, phrase, turn of phrase, idiom, locutionYour white paper has copied word-for-word entire sections. This is plagiarism. Its the result of not having your own ideas, or anything original to say, probably because you are putting out a scam and didn't think to go into much detail. |
|
|
|
A reference to blockchain definition does not in anyway termed plagiarism.
OK I'll save you the hassle of having to scroll up a few comments and paste for you the evidence again: Your whitepaper has plagiarized entire paragraphs. From a Forbes article: What businesses benefit?
Prior to the advent of the blockchain, there was no way to secure and validate ownership in a digital asset or verify a transaction in a trustless, public manner. Take, for example, the act of utilizing a software license to gain access to a program like Microsoft Word. To enforce the right to use the software, it must check a centralized server operated by Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted, it could deny access to the software or transfer those permissions to another user. While we consider Microsoft a trusted entity, the risk of illicit behavior increases when an untrusted party is introduced.
Perhaps a better example is ownership of a more valuable asset, such as a substantial share in a company or valuable digital asset such as a one-off piece of digital artwork. To transfer shares of ownership in a company, the current model requires stacks of paperwork, a lawyer or a centralized and trusted entity, such as the New York Stock Exchange.
What about transferring a digital asset like art? How do you prevent people from copying the digital file and sending many others a copy? If there’s no way to publicly verify the transfer of a single asset to a single entity, then there’s no way to enforce ownership or authenticity. This is why the value in art is always in the physical good.
The blockchain is the first technology that enables the transfer of digital ownership in a decentralized and trustless manner. In fact, there are companies like Polymath that are disrupting the industry by creating digital tokens that can represent ownership in a company, or DAEX, which is seeking to disrupt the world of digital art by publishing ownership on the blockchain.
While technology and supporting platforms around the blockchain ecosystem are sure to evolve, to answer the question of which businesses will initially benefit from its use, are the ones which possess the following traits:
• Transaction-based
• Benefits from public scrutiny
• Benefits from history that can’t be rewritten
• Decentralization benefits the end user or customer From your whitepaper: How businesses benefit?
Prior to the advent of the blockchain, there was no way to secure and validate ownership of a digital asset or verify a transaction in a trustless, public manner. Take, for example, the act of utilizing a software license to gain access to a program like Microsoft Word. To enforce the right to use the software, it must check a centralised server operated by Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted, it could deny access to the software or transfer those permissions to another user. While we consider Microsoft a trusted entity, the risk of illicit behavior increases when an untrusted party is introduced.
Perhaps a better example is ownership of a more valuable asset, such as a substantial share in a company or valuable digital asset such as a one-off piece of digital artwork. To transfer shares of ownership in a company, the current model requires stacks of paperwork, a lawyer or a centralised and trusted entity, such as the New York Stock Exchange.
What about transferring a digital asset like art? How do you prevent people from copying the digital file and sending many others a copy? If there’s no way to publicly verify the transfer of a single asset to a single entity, then there’s no way to enforce ownership or authenticity. This is why the value in art is always in the physical good.
The blockchain is the first technology that enables the transfer of digital ownership in a decentralised and trustless manner. In fact, there are companies like Polymath that are disrupting the industry by creating digital tokens that can represent ownership in a company, or DAEX, which is seeking to disrupt the world of digital
art by publishing ownership on the blockchain.
While technology and supporting platforms around the blockchain ecosystem are sure to evolve, to answer the question of which businesses will initially benefit from it’s use, are the ones which possess the following traits:
• Transaction-based
• Benefits from public scrutiny
• Benefits from history that can’t be rewritten
• Decentralisation benefits the end user or customer That's what plagiarism is. You stole somebody else's content word-for-word and made it your own. What's your explanation for this? |
|
|
|
Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.
No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit. ... ant Ctor, and DSV, tru dat You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper. It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence, and are easily manipulated. The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable. Technologies advance, adopt, evolve. Hence, SegWit and LN. Bitcoin Cash has big blocks yet far less transactions per day than BTC, and SV has even bigger blocks and even fewer transactions. You can continue to think, "yeah, well, that will change in the future." But I just don't see that happening. More likely BTC will just continue to evolve to meet user demand and its knockoffs will continue to flounder. |
|
|
|
Well?
Like I mentioned before these are common terms. Also, thanks for the observation. It shows you are following our community. Oh please, by all means, the courtesy of observing plagiarism fall into Nutildah, a very great job for pointing that out. I didn't even notice as I'm too busy wondering about your self-acclaimed security and competitive advantages... which you still fail to clarify up to this second. So, there will be two concerns to be addressed by now, either clarify or admit you're scam You can check out the website and verify the coinware team yourself. You can visit Ico sites and check out the coinware projects. You can also talk to the core team one on one on Telegram, zoom or if you wish to arrange a meeting in person. What about the massive plagiarism in the white paper? Why not spend the time to write your own paper knowing that a plagiarized white paper is one of the top signs of a scam ICO? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
