|
2
|
Economy / Reputation / Re: Balthazar's trust
|
on: December 18, 2019, 01:08:50 PM
|
The problem I have with this statement is that there is no evidence to support the claim that Balthazar did not help to create the exchange...
Like I have said two years before, the problem I have with this statement is that there is no evidence to support the claim that cryptodevil did not rape children. That would be the same "higly-likely" story which is full of "would be"'s. Presumption of innocence or factual evidence? No, never heard of.  #cryptodevil #metoo. There is every reason to believe that, while BTC-e may not have been your brainchild, you were very much connected to it on multiple levels. Whereas your puerile attempt to dismiss such by way of false equivalence lacks both evidence and reasoning. 1. Your mining pool's launch and BTC-e's launch occur within a couple of weeks of each other, along with your mining pool being an official partner of BTC-e 2. You already admitted that you provided technical consultanting to BTC-e 3. You asserted in this article that the founder of BTC-e, Alexey, was your friend 4. You were a moderator at BTC-e 5. You launched your own PoW/PoS coin, heavily instamined it and had it listed at BTC-e within days on an exchange which was known to be particularly difficult to get coins listed on ...every reason to believe that he was, indeed, technically involved with it from its inception in 2011 |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Economy / Reputation / Re: Balthazar's trust
|
on: December 16, 2019, 11:08:17 AM
|
I'm always willing to review historic trust ratings, albeit in this instance I would clarify that I did not accuse Balthazar of fraud, I asserted that his connection to BTC-e rendered him untrustworthy in my opinion. Frankly, given the points I raised in dm with Veleor, even if I were to revisit this rating as it stands I would likely only modify the BTC-e relationship text to that below as well as raising the issue of the sketchy nature of Balthazar's Novacoin launch and listing on BTC-e: ...However, BTC-e is not his creation, Demidov only collaborated with the platform...
The problem I have with this statement is that there is no evidence to support the claim that Balthazar did not help to create the exchange and every reason to believe that he was, indeed, technically involved with it from its inception in 2011: His mining pool in 2011 was an official partner of BTC-e, and he served as a moderator in the exchange chat Nobody becomes an 'official partner' to a Russian exchange in a casual way, he would have had to have been very much connected to its founders and its founding for them to not only assert his mining pool as a business partner, along with his acting as a moderator within the chatbox, but to also have agreed to list his Novacoin on the exchange shortly after he released it, a coin which was found to have been heavily insta-mined (actually the initial charge was a pre-mine but Balthazar eventually admitted that it was an insta-mine:
These coins were mined between 9 February, 1:00 am (client release) and 10 February, ~15:00 pm (official release of NVC/BTC trading pair at the BTC-e exchange). Let's not forget, it was an insta-mine conducted with the full knowledge and timing of the fact this brand-new coin was to be listed almost immediately on BTC-e, an exchange which repeatedly refused to list other coins: Shortly after the launch of Novacoin it opened up for trading on the popular trading platform BTC-e. Many claimed that BTC-e or users on BTC-e were keeping the price artificially high as it was quickly trading at an exchange rate greater than any other alternate crypto-currency. What’s more is that BTC-e had rejected requests to trade other alternate coins which had a longer history and presumably a stronger user base. Be honest, that doesn't stand for anything in terms of supporting your claim towards his innocence. Therefore, I believe that the charge of fraud against him should have irrefutable proof
Well my trust rating doesn't actually charge him with fraud, it merely asserts that his connection to the exchange leads me to conclude that he is not trustworthy: This user is the representative for and possibly the creator of the cryptocurrency exchange BTC-E.com He certainly was a representative of BTC-e, by way of his deep involvement with it as I have explained and I have used the word 'possibly' to caution that he may have also been involved in its creation, be that by way of his self-professed position as technical 'consultant' or otherwise. Frankly, while there could be an argument to be made against the trust rating I gave him, it would only be that I'd probably re-word it to focus solely on the facts related to his known involvement with BTC-e and the shady launch of his own cryptocurrency, which would still leave me of the opinion that he is not trustworthy. Unless you have evidence to the contrary I would struggle to justify removing a negative rating entirely. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Yo Theymos! DT2 members are liars and abuse their powers.
|
on: November 18, 2019, 11:59:32 AM
|
He in my opinion was innocent as well, I was only a developer for the company for roughly 6 months.
So which part of the following 'Hashlet' bullshit makes Homero, or you, innocent?  ^^^ None of these things were actual physical miners, they were literally just png's with clicky 'boost' options with rocket icons on the web interface for them that did nothing but make the customer believe they were mining crypto instead of being, as was the truth, merely the false front-end of a multi-million-dollar ponzi. But you knew that. |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Bounties (Altcoins) / Re: [BOUNTY] Nexxus Rewards - global rewards community [LISTED COIN] $411k cap 💰
|
on: October 25, 2019, 11:02:01 AM
|
If you are aware of something here that is illegal or fraudulent please let us know so we can address it immediately.
-- Thanks
-- Bob Wood
I have already pointed out that your 'guaranteed 500% ROI' claim is fraudulent, Bob. Stop pretending like you don't know this. I have provided a video of myself being interviewed by BTC TV...In your haste to prevent scammers you have damaged a legitimate company that is trying to take cryptocurrency to the mainstream public to empower them to take back control of the money and their financial systems.
No, what you've provided is a video of you illegally offering a security with a claimed profit guarantee that you cannot possibly deliver:
"we're offering the nexxustokens, NXR, for 20c a token, but we're also guaranteeing along with the tokens the purchasers receive a buyback option for $1 per token, so its a guaranteed 500% return on investment"This absolutely makes your IEO/ICO a scam through fraudulent misrepresentation. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Bounties (Altcoins) / Re: [BOUNTY] Nexxus Rewards - global rewards community [LISTED COIN] $411k cap 💰
|
on: October 24, 2019, 06:10:10 PM
|
For all interested parties regarding the Nexxus Rewards Buy-Back option:
Nexxus Rewards guarantees that they will buy-back your IEO purchased Nexxus Tokens for $1.00 when Nexxus shoppers purchase products or services from Nexxus merchants.
With every shopping transaction, the shopper earns a percentage of the sale in Nexxus Tokens that are purchased from the public exchange with the merchant's money from a percentage of the sale.
Nexxus merchants gladly pay the money to purchase Nexxus Tokens from the public exchange for a solution to get and keep new customers.
Nexxus Token holders with buy-back options are approached first, in the order they purchased, to sell all or part of their tokens to Nexxus Rewards for $1.00.
Of course, there lies the remote possibility that no shopping transactions ever happen. All of the Nexxus Rewards software and systems are already production-ready for revenue generation. 18 months of market testing have been completed. The executive team is assembled and operating. The funds raised from the ProBit IEO are for rolling out the Nexxus Rewards solution. The probability of generating sufficient shopping transactions to satisfy the buy-back options is very high, although never guaranteed.
^^^ A 'never guaranteed' guarantee? You're breaking the law, Bob and your IEO is a scam making fraudulent claims about a non-guaranteed 'guaranteed' ROI. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nexxus Rewards - SCAM - Fake team member
|
on: October 24, 2019, 06:02:08 PM
|
For all interested parties regarding the Nexxus Rewards Buy-Back option:
...
...although never guaranteed.
So retract your claim towards the IEO offering a guaranteed 500% ROI. It is a fraudulent claim and you are breaking the law. As you've just posted yourself to publicly acknowledge that it is 'never guaranteed', you have objectively demonstrated you are fully aware of the fact of the matter, namely, that your guarantee is no guarantee at all. You are knowingly breaking the law if you do not retract that claim, Bob. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nexxus Rewards - SCAM - Fake team member
|
on: October 24, 2019, 03:52:37 PM
|
We can guarantee buying the tokens at $1.00. Of course, it is based on merchant revenue that we have a solid plan to generate.
A 'plan to generate' revenue is not in any way shape or form a 'guarantee' that you will generate the needed revenue. So your 500% ROI 'guarantee' is worthless and, more than that, it is intentionally misleading and fraudulent. Remove your fraudulent claim of an ROI guarantee, Bob, you're breaking the law and you know full well you are. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nexxus Rewards - SCAM - Fake team member
|
on: October 24, 2019, 02:22:54 PM
|
We have proven that Nexxus Rewards is not a scam No, you have not, Bob. You're attempting to con members of the public into buying your NXR token under the 'guarantee' that they will make a minimum of a 500% ROI and yet that 'guarantee' is entirely predicated on sufficient merchant revenue being generated to buy back those tokens. This is not 'guaranteed' in any way whatsoever. Your IEO is based on a fraudulent claim and you are in violation of securities law, ergo, a scam. please be responsible crypto advocates and do the right thing.
-- Bob Wood
We are, by alerting the community to your shady MLM/pyramid connections and your fraudulent 500% ROI 'guarantee'. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nexxus Rewards - SCAM - Fake team member
|
on: October 23, 2019, 12:07:52 PM
|
Concerning Steve Wilkinson:Steven Wilkinson worked with me several years ago on another company. Steve and his wife went on a cruise together with me along with 30 salespeople from around the world. I know Steven personally. He lives in Austin, TX. I spoke with him this morning to notify him that someone named Christian Boyd is using his picture on twitter. Steven is reporting it to Twitter. You can see Steven's linkedIn profile at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wilkinsonsteven/ The picture posted of Steven is absolutely Steven Wilkinson. Ok, even if we ignore the questions over the profile pics, how to you defend having Asif Baloch on your team? ...and Dr Baloch Asif - Chief Security Officer looks just like "Dr" Asif Baloch from SARcoin, Digital Rupees, Signatum 1.0 coin failures.....
Dr Baloch Asif that was asked to leave Krypto Commerce. But, even above all of these issues and concerns, there is this: I have provided a video of myself being interviewed by BTC TV...In your haste to prevent scammers you have damaged a legitimate company that is trying to take cryptocurrency to the mainstream public to empower them to take back control of the money and their financial systems.
No, what you've provided is a video of you illegally offering a security with a claimed profit guarantee that you cannot possibly deliver: "we're offering the nexxustokens, NXR, for 20c a token, but we're also guaranteeing along with the tokens the purchasers receive a buyback option for $1 per token, so its a guaranteed 500% return on investment"This absolutely makes your IEO/ICO a scam through fraudulent misrepresentation. Hand-wavy nonsense about how "because we're not dependent on speculative trading, we create our own buyer demand" does not equate to a viable economic model, ergo, you're talking bollocks and trying to convince gullible members of the public to send you their money on the basis that you're going to 'guarantee' they'll make a profit...because something something something. Your IEO is an attempt to scam the public and you are making fraudulent claims about a guaranteed profit you absolutely cannot back up with real numbers. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
|
on: October 03, 2019, 12:13:47 PM
|
So I have to ask: are you a liar, or are you just stupid? You're clearly one or the other, so which one is it?
Well I can attest to the fact that he's provably dishonest. He keeps intentionally misrepresenting the legal meaning of 'established facts' in the judgement text even after having it clearly explained to him. As you can see from above, there ARE not only assumptions by the Judge, there are established facts.
Why are you being so dishonest? I already explained to you that ' the Court deems the following facts to be established for purposes of this action:' is solely about this case alone as they are facts neither side contested |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
|
on: September 04, 2019, 02:11:22 PM
|
What did they make the basis of the case that he actually owned bitcoins at that point? Just his word? Yes. Don't forget that it is absolutely in the Kleiman family's interest to let his claim of bitcoin address ownership remain uncontested. Because if he can't actually hand over 500k+ btc then they are still owed the equivalent in cash/asset value which he is liable for. So basically all he's done is claim he has x amount and provided the public address of such which anyone could do, but no actual proof of him ever actually owning or having access to them and them being in a trust is the excuse as to why he can't? Is there a list of addresses he's publicly claimed to have owned?
CSW simply had his guy extract a list based on the following criteria: 1. Blocks mined between January 3, 2009 and August 21, 2010 2. Unspent coinbases 3. Pay to public key coinbases 4. Non-reused addresses 5. Single coinbase output 6. Nonce least significant byte of 0-58 This excellent redditor explains moreAs you can see from above, there ARE not only assumptions by the Judge, there are established facts.
Why are you being so dishonest? I already explained to you that ' the Court deems the following facts to be established for purposes of this action:' is solely about this case alone as they are facts neither side contested |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
