I thought Tomatocage was a reasonable guy so I sent him a message regarding his feedback and how ghibly79 couldn't understand the system. But instead of going through the system and try to understand it, he choosed to ignore me. What a shame! But nevermind, the system will still go on as planned. Or maybe, just maybe, he understoods it perfectly just like me  It's a "possibility". Must be a case all seasoned members here are telling it's a ponzi while jr members are defending you. |
|
|
|
Hi ghibly79, you are incorrect regarding the 40BTC - the price guarantee does not guarantee the initial investment. In essence the investment of initial investors and other investors buying from the reserve is used to implement the guarantee of ALL investors and miners. This coin is not a scam if the exchange and BTC reserve run by the dev is trustworthy and hopefully the BTC reserve is secured against hacking. But there are other concerns, as I have described in my original post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5908692#msg5908692 . Point 1) was addressed by the dev, but I believe the others remain. I'm not endorsing this coin, I'm just having fun watching people struggling with math or full of greed, fanboys and all that jazz. Popcorn, please! Nope. Let's simplify even more, pushing it to 1+1 level. Let's say scammer op gets 15 btc from the ipo ("price evaluation phase" like he calls it). The day this coin launches I'll buy 15 btc worth of STD, thus doubling the GER, cause I doubled AMC. Then immediately sell all back right after. I'll get 30 btc, effectively stealing 15 btc out of ipo bag holders. This is probably what op is planning to do anyway, though probably not all in one go to keep this thing running a bit more, to steal some more. The last to sell will be left with 0 value std. Can't make it clearer than this. as the reserve gets depleted. Work the numbers and you'll see. If you double the AMC (AMC=the BTC reserve) right after the IPO you get half the STD reserve - which has just been cut to 100Mio STDs. So you buy 50Mio STDs for 15 BTC, whilst initial investors bought 100Mio STDs for 15 BTC. Selling immediately loses you more than 1/2 your BTC. If I was a scam-dev creating standardcoin I would not run with the BTC after the IPO - I would wait if STD's go up in value as that naturally gets more BTC into the reserve. Once that number is high enough (like 10.000 BTC?) I'd run... ...but I believe pulling such a scam actually has a pretty bad impact on my real-live job, so no-thank-you. Mmm.... no: GER=AMC/MMS Right after ipo, in my example, AMC=15 btc, MMS=400 mils (TOTAL money supply, as the dev stated in one of his explanations, I'll go get the link if you missed it). So GER=15/400m=3.75 satoshi (will be rounded to 4 but let's skip that). If I buy 15 btc at 3.75 satoshi I'll get whatever amount of STD (depending on how fast the GER will rise during the buying order filling, but it's irrelevant to calculate), let's say X STD. Now GER=30/400m=7.5 satoshi. Now I sell X STD back: price CAN'T DROP by design so the same X will be worth more btc now. Not exactly double, that was an oversimplification: with the underway rising GER during your buy order you practically bought initial STD for 3.5 then some more at let's say 4 then some more at 4.5 and so on, till 7.5, gradually. When you sell back you sell ALL at 7.5 so you'll get way more, cause you'll sell back the initial increments (bought at 3.5 .... 4 ...4.5....and so on) all at 7.5 too. You'll need to know the exact function and integrate for the exact figures, but it's unnecessary and given the average level of the comments I wanted to avoid it as the pest xD Exact numbers are unnecessary, you will get more. You don't buy new STD at GER from the reserve. You buy new STD at the upper bound as I derived it - in fact you'd buy it at a higher rate if you buy a large(r) chunk. It was the marginal cost of an infinitesimal additional investment in STD. There's no need to integrate here, the dev also doesn't do it. There is also no gradual selling as you describe it - all of it is sold at once and at the GER. The GER does not change during selling, as it is AMC/MMS, i.e. guaranteed for all coins, even coins that will be mined in the future. It would be good if the dev adds some formulas to his website and his example just as I did in my posting. That way mathematically inclined people could follow his arguments way easier. .......... I buy apples. First apple costs me 1$. Second apple 2$. 3rd 3$. And so on. Last apple 10$. Now I sell all apples back at 10$. Will I be getting more or less $ back? And if I get more (obvious) who is paying for those extra $? No need for formulas either, really. It's that simple....
There is also no gradual selling as you describe it - all of it is sold at once and at the GER. The GER does not change during selling, as it is AMC/MMS, i.e. guaranteed for all coins, even coins that will be mined in the future.
So you are saying the system calculate the new GER when executing your order, then gives you BTC/newGER in STD? In this case initial investors 100mil will be worth 2x after that (30 btc total in my example). If they now sell back, new investors are the bag holders ^^' Last seller will be holding the bag either way you do the calculation, cause it's a Ponzi ^^' |
|
|
|
By the way, pos is working fine: just minted my first 827.007123 COMM  |
|
|
|
Hi ghibly79, you are incorrect regarding the 40BTC - the price guarantee does not guarantee the initial investment. In essence the investment of initial investors and other investors buying from the reserve is used to implement the guarantee of ALL investors and miners. This coin is not a scam if the exchange and BTC reserve run by the dev is trustworthy and hopefully the BTC reserve is secured against hacking. But there are other concerns, as I have described in my original post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5908692#msg5908692 . Point 1) was addressed by the dev, but I believe the others remain. I'm not endorsing this coin, I'm just having fun watching people struggling with math or full of greed, fanboys and all that jazz. Popcorn, please! Nope. Let's simplify even more, pushing it to 1+1 level. Let's say scammer op gets 15 btc from the ipo ("price evaluation phase" like he calls it). The day this coin launches I'll buy 15 btc worth of STD, thus doubling the GER, cause I doubled AMC. Then immediately sell all back right after. I'll get 30 btc, effectively stealing 15 btc out of ipo bag holders. This is probably what op is planning to do anyway, though probably not all in one go to keep this thing running a bit more, to steal some more. The last to sell will be left with 0 value std. Can't make it clearer than this. as the reserve gets depleted. Work the numbers and you'll see. If you double the AMC (AMC=the BTC reserve) right after the IPO you get half the STD reserve - which has just been cut to 100Mio STDs. So you buy 50Mio STDs for 15 BTC, whilst initial investors bought 100Mio STDs for 15 BTC. Selling immediately loses you more than 1/2 your BTC. If I was a scam-dev creating standardcoin I would not run with the BTC after the IPO - I would wait if STD's go up in value as that naturally gets more BTC into the reserve. Once that number is high enough (like 10.000 BTC?) I'd run... ...but I believe pulling such a scam actually has a pretty bad impact on my real-live job, so no-thank-you. Mmm.... no: GER=AMC/MMS Right after ipo, in my example, AMC=15 btc, MMS=400 mils (TOTAL money supply, as the dev stated in one of his explanations, I'll go get the link if you missed it). So GER=15/400m=3.75 satoshi (will be rounded to 4 but let's skip that). If I buy 15 btc at 3.75 satoshi I'll get whatever amount of STD (depending on how fast the GER will rise during the buying order filling, but it's irrelevant to calculate), let's say X STD. Now GER=30/400m=7.5 satoshi. Now I sell X STD back: price CAN'T DROP by design so the same X will be worth more btc now. Not exactly double, that was an oversimplification: with the underway rising GER during your buy order you practically bought initial STD for 3.5 then some more at let's say 4 then some more at 4.5 and so on, till 7.5, gradually. When you sell back you sell ALL at 7.5 so you'll get way more, cause you'll sell back the initial increments (bought at 3.5 .... 4 ...4.5....and so on) all at 7.5 too. You'll need to know the exact function and integrate for the exact figures, but it's unnecessary and given the average level of the comments I wanted to avoid it as the pest xD Exact numbers are unnecessary, you will get more. |
|
|
|
Whatever the truth behind this coin you cannot just abuse the trust system.
If BTCtalk had any mod team worthy of that name, you'd be already banned ghibly.
Except I'm not abusing. I'm giving negative feedbacks to proved untrustworthy people (I consider maths a proof, yes). |
|
|
|
|
Not to mention his exchange is not decentralized, you are effectively giving bitcoins to some nobody with zero history and hoping he won't run away with the money: he stated "nobody is holding anything, you send your btc and the exchange send std back automatically" OH REALLY? SO YOU ARE KEEPING THE BTCS and there is no guarantee you'll buy back anything.
That's another point but it's pretty obvious, didn't feel the need to remark initially, but better do it now given the level of the comments there ^^'
Imho he probably won't run with the money, anyway: he'll just let the ponzi run and steal slowly with the above method.
But this added risk is there too, like Tomatocage pointed out.
|
|
|
|
The earlier investor is investor A not investor 1. Investor A is the one who joined the Price Valuation Phase.
Investor 1 is just an example, he re-present for all the Initial Investors, who hold 100m STD.
You cannot describe a hypothetical "Investor 1" withdrawing his funds without explaining exactly what investment that very same person made in the first place, and how many STD they got for that investment. The Investor 1 got his 100m STD in the Price Valuation Phase, which costs him 40 BTC. And then 100 mil more are mined and sold for 40 btc (cause value is fixed). Using those 40 btc initial investment. Then investor 1 wants to sell back his 100mil std, which costed him 40 btc but OH WAIT no btc are left. Not a scammer, just bad "quality" post :trollface: Hi ghibly79, you are incorrect regarding the 40BTC - the price guarantee does not guarantee the initial investment. In essence the investment of initial investors and other investors buying from the reserve is used to implement the guarantee of ALL investors and miners. This coin is not a scam if the exchange and BTC reserve run by the dev is trustworthy and hopefully the BTC reserve is secured against hacking. But there are other concerns, as I have described in my original post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5908692#msg5908692 . Point 1) was addressed by the dev, but I believe the others remain. I'm not endorsing this coin, I'm just having fun watching people struggling with math or full of greed, fanboys and all that jazz. Popcorn, please! Nope. Let's simplify even more, pushing it to 1+1 level. Let's say scammer op gets 15 btc from the ipo ("price evaluation phase" like he calls it). The day this coin launches I'll buy 15 btc worth of STD, thus doubling the GER, cause I doubled AMC. Then immediately sell all back right after. I'll get 30 btc, effectively stealing 15 btc out of ipo bag holders. This is probably what op is planning to do anyway, though probably not all in one go to keep this thing running a bit more, to steal some more. The last to sell will be left with 0 value std. Can't make it clearer than this. |
|
|
|
I redefine the rule system to my liking too. From now on I'm going to give positive trust points to all posts that I really like or those that i feel are getting unjustfied trust points until proven right. How do you like my new rule ghibly79?
Then YOU will be abusing the system One last time: I tagged a scammer, not a post "I don't like". Btw check op trust rating again now. Now let's move on, I wasted enough time on this. Just ignore me and go invest.
DEV seems to have spent a lot of time and thought into this.
That's for sure, the problem is some investors don't spend the same time thinking about it xD |
|
|
|
Anyway I'll take kreativekrypto advice on one point: I did my best already and can move on. Best of luck |
|
|
|
It's so simple I'm amazed at people stupidity tbh.
Maybe numbers intimidate you?
Can be explained without numbers even: initial investors pour some btcs in and they receive some (not all) standard coins for that. Still the value of std is calculated by dividing btc invested by TOTAL MAX number of coins. But part of std coins are bought off others (miners). With whom bitcoins? Initial investors' (cause there are only those in the system). So now initial investors can't get back all their invested btc anymore, only the remaining.
If new investors come in and pour some more btc, when they sell back they'll get that same btc they poured in PLUS SOME MORE cause they raised the value by buying (by design it can only rise). And where are you getting those extra btc to pay them the premium? Again, from initial investors, who then lose money. On the other hand if initial investors sell back before new investors, new investors lose money instead.
Last seller will be left holding the bag and losing money. It's called a PONZI SCHEME
Stay away from cryptos if you have this poor understanding of basic (elementary school) maths and economics.
 I'd tell you this: Stay away from cryptos if you have this poor understanding of basic (elementary school) maths and economics.
|
|
|
|
Ghibly thank you for warning everyone with your numerous posts, also thanks for the negative feedback and trust. I will remove mine on yours after yours is removed. Once done just leave the thread you've been the best white knight you could and warned us all many times, so its ok to leave now. You're 35+ years old you should know better by now.
Standard thank you for fixing the calculation when do you estimate the multipool to go live?
I gave you a negative feedback because you gave me one first, falsely accusing me of abusing the system and abusing it yourself. Your opinion is not the problem: I'm not scamming anyone there so you can't leave a negative, while op is so negative feedback is deserved. Just to clarify. And yes I can remove mine if you remove yours, that's reasonable. |
|
|
|
Mods don't remove scams, you have to read and find out yourself ( here my explanation). I notified Tomatocage too. Huh! It's not cool to misuse the trust system like that. What if everybody begin to do that? We all get the scam accusations already. Are you going to give negative trust to everyone who doesn't agree with you? No I'm not. I'm tagging SCAMMERS. Maths there, no opinions, no "disagreement". You can still choose to get scammed if you are fooled by a couple of simple formulas, your choice of course. But a fair warning may spare some distracted user to be a victims.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
"Quality" of the post has nothing to do with this. It's a plain, blatant scam. It's a fraud, so op is not trustworthy. I'm perfectly in line with trust system guidelines. Matematical proof here --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5919351#msg5919351No, you are misusing the system. There's no way around it. You clearly justify your negative feedback on the quality of his posts. Trust system is meant for trading. You can't redefine the rules how you like. I agree it's good to warn about scams, but nobody likes bullies. Again: no. A bad quality but HONEST post will not be tagged. If he's trying to scam people money it has nothing to do with quality. Are you just a troll or another OP sockpuppet? Are you trying to bully me? What fucking sockpuppet? Fuck you really! From now on, I put you to my ignore list. Ignoring me is legit, and pls do cause you are a waste of time anyway. Just don't falsely accuse me of abusing the system. |
|
|
|
The earlier investor is investor A not investor 1. Investor A is the one who joined the Price Valuation Phase.
Investor 1 is just an example, he re-present for all the Initial Investors, who hold 100m STD.
You cannot describe a hypothetical "Investor 1" withdrawing his funds without explaining exactly what investment that very same person made in the first place, and how many STD they got for that investment. The Investor 1 got his 100m STD in the Price Valuation Phase, which costs him 40 BTC. And then 100 mil more are mined and sold for 40 btc (cause value is fixed). Using those 40 btc initial investment. Then investor 1 wants to sell back his 100mil std, which costed him 40 btc but OH WAIT no btc are left. Not a scammer, just bad "quality" post :trollface: |
|
|
|
Mods don't remove scams, you have to read and find out yourself ( here my explanation). I notified Tomatocage too. Huh! It's not cool to misuse the trust system like that. What if everybody begin to do that? We all get the scam accusations already. Are you going to give negative trust to everyone who doesn't agree with you? No I'm not. I'm tagging SCAMMERS. Maths there, no opinions, no "disagreement". You can still choose to get scammed if you are fooled by a couple of simple formulas, your choice of course. But a fair warning may spare some distracted user to be a victims.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
"Quality" of the post has nothing to do with this. It's a plain, blatant scam. It's a fraud, so op is not trustworthy. I'm perfectly in line with trust system guidelines. Matematical proof here --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5919351#msg5919351No, you are misusing the system. There's no way around it. You clearly justify your negative feedback on the quality of his posts. Trust system is meant for trading. You can't redefine the rules how you like. I agree it's good to warn about scams, but nobody likes bullies. Again: no. A bad quality but HONEST post will not be tagged. If he's trying to scam people money it has nothing to do with quality. Are you just a troll or another OP sockpuppet? |
|
|
|
|
It's so simple I'm amazed at people stupidity tbh.
Maybe numbers intimidate you?
Can be explained without numbers even: initial investors pour some btcs in and they receive some (not all) standard coins for that. Still the value of std is calculated by dividing btc invested by TOTAL MAX number of coins. But part of std coins are bought off others (miners). With whom bitcoins? Initial investors' (cause there are only those in the system). So now initial investors can't get back all their invested btc anymore, only the remaining.
If new investors come in and pour some more btc, when they sell back they'll get that same btc they poured in PLUS SOME MORE cause they raised the value by buying (by design it can only rise). And where are you getting those extra btc to pay them the premium? Again, from initial investors, who then lose money. On the other hand if initial investors sell back before new investors, new investors lose money instead.
Last seller will be left holding the bag and losing money. It's called a PONZI SCHEME
Stay away from cryptos if you have this poor understanding of basic (elementary school) maths and economics.
|
|
|
|
Mods don't remove scams, you have to read and find out yourself ( here my explanation). I notified Tomatocage too. Huh! It's not cool to misuse the trust system like that. What if everybody begin to do that? We all get the scam accusations already. Are you going to give negative trust to everyone who doesn't agree with you? No I'm not. I'm tagging SCAMMERS. Maths there, no opinions, no "disagreement". You can still choose to get scammed if you are fooled by a couple of simple formulas, your choice of course. But a fair warning may spare some distracted users to be victims.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
"Quality" of the post has nothing to do with this. It's a plain, blatant scam. It's a fraud, so op is not trustworthy. I'm perfectly in line with trust system guidelines. Matematical proof here --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5919351#msg5919351 |
|
|
|
Mods don't remove scams, you have to read and find out yourself ( here my explanation). I notified Tomatocage too. |
|
|
|
How about changing the abbreviation STD to something not so sexually transmitted? I know that most of the suitable ones are already taken, but something like STDC, SDD, SND are much better than STD for obvious reason. It'd be better if you change to any name except STD lol No the name fits perfectly: in the case of sexual transmitted diseases you get bad things for wanting a quick reward not using precautions. Same here xD |
|
|
|
Come on, who's giving the dev negative Trust points?
You can't just do that faking transactions and deals.
He should report the culprits to mods.
A kid couldn't understand the system even I tried to explain it to him a few times. After I told him to go learn some basic maths first. He gave me a negative feedback. lol. Me, trying to get less people scammed by this ponzi. But starting to think you deserve to be scammed (some of you). I understood the syst ponzi perfectly and have given thoroughly explanations for dummies there, for those who care to read. He has another 2 neg feedbacks beside mine (expand untrusted), btw. |
|
|
|
The problem is he is trying to cover it's a Ponzi, selling it as a "secure investement". You can run Ponzi games here on this forum, in the gambling section. That's the problem It's called a scam. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
