Im pretty sure You will never see 50x or 100x anymore. crypto market is saturated and alot of bagholders waiting to dump their bags

Agree with you.
But Maybe less than 2% projects worth to research and invest.
Crypto market dont need to new shitcoins anymore

bnb been growing due to fundamentals: blockchain, futures, ieo, margin. what about now ?! i dont see any interesting thing anymore. i don't expect any significant profite at all

maybe not Now! but i give guarantee xrp will die sooner than any other top 10 coin

So they should just get funded by VCs, Why do they need tokens & billions of USD?  Even 1 million $ is enough for every single project!
How much was the Whole ethereum project hardcap ?
ICOs cannot keep robbing people with white papers. 99% of icos scamming people! For example Recently GoNetwork basically did that. Raise 50 million and now have market cap of 3 million. And they have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Just check out recent icos performance. All below Ico price!



pic credit : icodrops.com/

ICO era is gone! Stop feeding serial scammers. Stop funding these cash grab nonexistent projects.
The World Do not need new tokens at all. We got enough shitcoin for next 100 years.

Well if there are a real project (With trustworthy Team) which is really willing to distirbute Their tokens! There are Many ways Without Doing ICO!

ICOs should just get funded from VCs and do an airdrop to community.

Most ico can be done open source on github for free.. the greed in creating all of these project is stifling growth. A lot of innovation come from free open source project from passionate developers.

Im 3 years in this field and strictly advice you do not invest in any ico at all.

What Do you think guys ?

One-time as in entered once on each computer, or one-time as in it changes every time?

Either way, I think you're confusing it with the OTP. Either that or I'm misinformed.

This is exactly what I am worried about. I recognize the fact that some people prefer comfort when entering their PIN as opposed to an additional security precaution, but wouldn't it be beneficial to allow both methods of PIN input - on the device and/or the computer keyboard? The button layout of the Trezor makes it clumsy to punch in the PIN, but far from impossible. Many of us would sleep easier knowing our security could not have been compromised because of an infected computer. At the same time, those who prefer the comfort of their keyboards can simply not utilize this feature and enter the PIN as it was originally planned by the developers. It's really just a matter of modifying the software and I urge the developers to at least consider it.

Unfortunately the speech does nothing to alleviate my concerns. In fact, it is what triggered them in the first place. Antonin merely demonstrates that the PIN code is entered on the computer, claiming it is a safety measure in case the device gets stolen. The scenario I mentioned is not discussed in the presentation.


That does not explain why the PIN code is not entered on the Trezor itself, as suggested in my original post.

I'm confused as to why the PIN code is entered into the wallet application, rather than the device itself - surely that increases the risk of a successful physical theft. Assuming the PIN code is not changed on a regular basis, using the device on an infected workstation would essentially render the PIN code useless if attacked through a combination of both digital and physical means. On the other hand, if the code was to be entered on the Trezor itself, such a scenario is not possible unless the PIN code is provided by the owner under duress.

That statement is a bit far fetched. A new member might not have anything specific to add to the Newbies section, but would be willing to contribute positively elsewhere. I think the restriction is counterproductive and provides an incentive to post worthless material on topics that do not sparkle any interest and therefore serve as a playground for the sole purpose of racing to the fifth submission.