What does VIA hope to improve over Counterparty?

Is Clearinghouse focused on smart contracts mainly? Decentralised exchange? If it's a decentralised exchange, what makes it better than the already existing NXT AE?

No, considering it's already been stated that the IPO will go for 14-28 days depending on demand. What is fishy about that?

And they decided to allow people to sell their TOKEN below the IPO price just in case they had buyers remorse or needed funds for a personal emergency or something. It was actually quite nice of them to allow this, but of course the accusations of foul play never seem to stop.

I don't know much about sharkfund0 but if I remember correctly I think it was mentioned that it held 10% of BTCD and 10% of BBR. And considering BTCD has gone from nothing to top 10 market cap crypto and BBR recently went up over 10x it doesnt' sound too unrealistic that sharkfund0 did in fact go up 400%. I wish I was one of the people who had a part of that 40% of sharkfund0 to be honest.

I didn't call you a liar, I said you were not being truthful with your statement. If you're saying that you omitted that because you misunderstood what James was offering then that's fine.

And I do think think that people will take the statements of a newbie account at face value without investigating the truth behind them. This thread is a perfect example of people doing just that. People will do that when it's what they've wanted believe all along anyway, and as soon as they see someone else writing the things they want to believe they form an opinion based on that. If everyone on here took the time to investigate what was true and what was false we probably wouldn't have thousands of altcoins and scams going on every week. But people just believe whatever makes them feel better about themselves.

SuperNET sounds too good to be true when you first hear about it. And it's possible that it is too good to be true and it never works out the way it's supposed to. Nothing is guaranteed. If James hadn't created the MGW and written 40,000 lines of code(his words) since spring I wouldn't be interested in the idea. But this seems to be an interesting case where you have someone with both the ideas and the apparent technical skill to make them happen. Lots of people have ideas, but it's rare when you have someone who can actually build things as well.

Anyone who wants to invest in superNET should do their own research. It's more akin to a start up company as someone had mentioned earlier. Its intention is to generate revenue and profit. What ever incentives people feel are best suited to them getting the largest return on their investment are what they should vote for with their TOKENs or UNITY shares.

How would this even work? The US government would have to buy up so much NXT that every holder would probably become rich. And even if the government did pledge some large sum of money to do this, all these now rich NXT holders would just start a new NXT chain and dare the US government to come make them ultra rich again. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

Can you elaborate why you believe all of the above statements to be true in plain english without resorting to childish name calling?

If wanting to know the truth makes me a "do gooder" then so be it.

I said you weren't telling the truth in the post where you claimed that "he has asked for 500 BTC for "2000 BTC worth" of his own assets." when you know that isn't what is happening. Do you feel that your post that I called out as not truthful was a honest post that attempted to portray the situation accurately?

You helped get it off the ground. Thank you.

This was a pretty reasonable post up until the point where you started calling superNET a con and James a crook with no evidence.

A couple of things though, if superNET goes down, none of the coins involved will go down. Each coin is still its own independent blockchain.

And any smart coin community will focus on adoption. I believe that's the most important thing. SuperNET shouldn't hinder adoption in anyway, just provide access to services and technologies that are available.

I might as well cross post this here. It has to be pretty clear to anyone reading this thread what's going on here. Short on facts big on rambling on and large text. Seems like a real intelligent group of people this thread as attracted.



You've done nothing but make ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims while linking to your post and spreadsheet. Here's a short list of the claims you've made with no evidence what so ever:


Not true as shown above in an eariler post.


Evidence? And as far as I know any coins held by superNET are to be held indefinitely. Certainly any sale of assets in the form of coins will go to a vote.


Again, evidence?


Now you're accusing him of falsifying volume and inflating the price of his assets. Evidence?


...


So now the voting on BTER where people have openly purchased ~3k BTC of TOKEN is rigged?


What are you talking about here? He's the one saying he owns the assets and he's often mentioned how much the total asset value of his shares of his assets are. Why don't you think it's a good thing for someone who's producing something that drives the price of an asset(technology, trading, providing a service, whatever) to own a large part of that asset? Isn't economic incentive a good thing?

All you've done is attacked James by accusing him of doing the things above but the only evidence you've presented thus far is your spreadsheet that outlines which parts of jl777 assets are owned by other jl777 assets.

Anyone who's read the superNET thread knows that James holds large portions of his assets and the all of his assets are cross owned in a multitude of ways. It says so right in the superNET OP. Where did he claim otherwise? And why is that necessarily a bad thing? He's the one developing the technologies or choosing what coins to invest capital in those assets, so owning the assets that he's attempting to increase the value of makes sense from an incentive standpoint.

Regarding the typos in the PDF, that document wasn't written by James. If you're trying to claim some intentional deception on the part of James you're going to have to try harder.

You've done nothing but make ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims while linking to your post and spreadsheet. Here's a short list of the claims you've made with no evidence what so ever:


Not true as shown above in an eariler post.


Evidence? And as far as I know any coins held by superNET are to be held indefinitely. Certainly any sale of assets in the form of coins will go to a vote.


Again, evidence?


Now you're accusing him of falsifying volume and inflating the price of his assets. Evidence?


...


So now the voting on BTER where people have openly purchased ~3k BTC of TOKEN is rigged?


What are you talking about here? He's the one saying he owns the assets and he's often mentioned how much the total asset value of his shares of his assets are. Why don't you think it's a good thing for someone who's producing something that drives the price of an asset(technology, trading, providing a service, whatever) to own a large part of that asset? Isn't economic incentive a good thing?

All you've done is attacked James by accusing him of doing the things above but the only evidence you've presented thus far is your spreadsheet that outlines which parts of jl777 assets are owned by other jl777 assets.

Anyone who's read the superNET thread knows that James holds large portions of his assets and the all of his assets are cross owned in a multitude of ways. It says so right in the superNET OP. Where did he claim otherwise? And why is that necessarily a bad thing? He's the one developing the technologies or choosing what coins to invest capital in those assets, so owning the assets that he's attempting to increase the value of makes sense from an incentive standpoint.

Regarding the typos in the PDF, that document wasn't written by James. If you're trying to claim some intentional deception on the part of James you're going to have to try harder.

The coin supply matters when he's talking about each coin being worth 6 dollars.

BTCD is a fully mined coin on PoS now with no downward pressure from miners and something like a 1.2 million coin supply(low). BBR is a PoW coin and is still being mined and will be mined for a long time so it's not really a valid comparison to compare BTCD to BBR.

I don't own any TOKEN for what it's worth. I'm interested in superNET though and I want to see it succeed because I think it will be a good thing for the sector. The only "Kool-Aid" I'm drinking is the one in search of facts and truth. Whether those facts are for or against jl777, I don't care. But I'm just calling it like I see it. I'm not vouching for anything. People should do their own research and invest only what they can afford to lose in every case.

The reason I asked you to tell the truth is because clearly you were bending the situation by saying that "he has asked for 500 BTC for "2000 BTC worth" of his own assets.".

First of all, it is a proposal to for people who hold TOKEN to vote on. So if they feel it's not in their best interest, then they can simply vote no and the asset will stay how it is.

The proposal only pays out if and only if the NAV of UNITY reaches an agreed upon value, which will likely be something like "UNITY is listed in the top 5 or 10 assets on coinmarketcap.com". I don't know exactly what it's going to be, but obviously the whole deal in contingent on a massive increase in value for the UNITY asset.

These are the scenarios:
1. Vote No, nothing changes.
2. Vote Yes, UNITY now holds additional assets and will pay out 500 BTC upon reaching the agreed upon value

In the #2 scenario there are two scenarios:
1. UNITY does not increase in value to the specified NAV point and no more BTC is allocated beyond the 1% currently available.
2. UNITY does increase in value, people holding UNITY now have multiplied the value of their holding, and now James has more working capital(which will likely amount to 2-5% of the market cap at that point).

I don't think anyone is saying that all assets, crypto or otherwise can immediately be liquidated for whatever their current market value is. Obviously it doesn't work like that, so when dealing with a large portion of any asset, the value is debatable. James has not claimed otherwise as far as I know. I think it's more than reasonable that the person who is developing such a large project should have adequate capital to work with to make it the best it can possibly be. I told him that I thought he had made a mistake in only allocating 1% of the fund for working capital. That's incredibly low for such a large project, whether it raises 5k BTC or 10k BTC(5k looking more likely). What is 50 BTC when you have random projects here raising 1500 BTC IPOs for development? Why shouldn't superNET be able to pay its developers competitive rates and contact the highest quality people to audit the code and do security checks?

I think you're focused too much on the fact that he's decided to pledge a large amount of assets that have a nebulous value associated with them. Not on whether having additional working capital would be good for the project or not. SuperNET is not just the MGW dressed up differently. Usage and network effect is the most important aspect of what makes a currency successful. Having a common bond that joins myriad quality services together in to one unified interface is something that is needed in this space where we constantly have new technologies competing against each other. Maybe superNET won't be 'the one', maybe you or someone else will create a competing network that offers better services and ends up being the dominant connective force in crypto. Who knows what will happen. I do think that some sort of unifying network like this is inevitable. Before I thought that maybe there wold be some ultra-technologically superior crypto that would come out and just dominate the market, I had never thought of the possibility of just having a common network to share technologies that would essentially allow for unlimited growth just by adding useful tech to a singular gateway. This way technological process can happen gradually in an iterative fashion that eliminates the need for 'marketing' coins. People who develop useful services will likely want to join, and it will likely be beneficial for them to join so that they can take advantage of the network effect that is offered.

Boolberry is doing fine. People obviously got very excited when word got out that they would be part of the superNET. Since BBR currently has the strongest anon tech in crypto I would expect demand to increase when people are able to use the superNET to send BBR.

It's still up hundreds of percent recently. If you ended up buying in at the top of the current cycle that's unfortunate but I wouldn't worry about it too much.

A lot of people still don't know about BBR despite it having upgraded anonymity compared to other CN based coins: http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-solves-cryptonoteflaws-37055246

So maybe people here should consider doing some projects that will help raise awareness and usage among people who are interested in using anonymous cryptocurrencies.

No, I'm trying to look at it objectively. I don't see how setting a conditional reward for being in the top 5 or 10 market cap values is a loss. Either UNITY NAV increases enough that holders have gained a massive amount of ROI and he gets a reward or he gets nothing and loses whatever the current value of those shares are.

The assets them selves are not valueless considering the amount of work that's been been put in to developing the technologies that they're based on. And the other assets which hold significant amounts of crypto.

The thing about superNET is that it intends to generate profits as a functioning gateway for crypto through fees and contextual advertising of useful services. So in order for those performance metrics to be hit people buying superNET are going to want to see it begin to show promise in those areas. And superNET succeeding is all predicated on James' technologies working as he intends them to, so all of this still has to come together for superNET to get to that level.

And I've read your post and the spreadsheet but I don't see how setting a performance based metric like that is a bad thing. It sounds more like you're arguing as if he were putting in 2000 BTC worth of assets now and directly receiving back 500 BTC right away, not when UNITY is multipled by x times in value.

No. At least attempt to tell the truth.

That only happens if and only if superNET reaches a very high market cap and gains a high market cap position relative to the top cryptos.

It's clearly a win-win for investors with James taking on a large amount of risk with a relatively small reward that happens only in cases of extreme success.

The coinomat thing is interesting too and I didn't even know that James was planning on including that service in the superNET. That means there will be a direct fiat gateway usable right there. I'm thinking that with coinomat there the superNET GUI will be able to handle 100% of all your crypto transactions now unless you happen to need to use some other fiat gateway.

Also coinomat has XUSD. Not sure exactly how this works, but I've noticed it trading on Poloniex. Could have some good potential there depending on how it works.

SuperNET is very selective. All these hypothetical coins you're referencing will not be a part of superNET. It won't be easy to become part of the network. So far the only confirmed member other than core member BTCD is BBR. And BBR is a coin that's been out for a while and currently has the best transaction anonymity in crypto, as well as a developer widely regarded to be one of the best in the space.

The coins that are a part of superNET should benefit from increased user base and increased usage. Theoretically there shouldn't be any downside to joining superNET in the long run once it's fully developed and secure. Joining superNET will be a motivator for new coins to develop new and unique technologies that can provide value and earn themselves a place in superNET.

Received payment in to my account and withdrew. Pretty slick site.

The thing that makes superNET interesting as well is that not only is it asset backed and holds multiple assets but it is also intended to be a fully functioning profit generating system.

Also, superNET is the opposite of anti-competition. It's actually expands the marketplace and puts all the products in services in one 'place'(but that place is not just a single place, it is the network which is accessible from every wallet which has added superNET)  for users to access. Thus making it more competitive. People are going to want to offer the best assets and the best crypto services because the best ones will compete to become part of superNET. This competition will increase the rewards for all developers by expanding the amount of potential users for each service. I think this is at least part of what James means when he says that crypto is not a zero sum game.