You are correct, and in fact we are already in the process of getting listed at Altsbit.  Also at AltMarkets.io

COMMOD is an independent coin.  But when BarrCoin relaunches on KMD, it will be on-chain fungible with COMMOD.  That means 1 COMMOD will always be equal to 1 BARR, so they are linked and interchangeable.  Any retail location or restaurant that accepts one coin for a discount will automatically be able to accept the other coin.  But they will each still have their own blockchain and network, and the plan is for BARR to be 100% PoS while COMMOD is 100% PoW.

BARR is still as active as NXT...so we're moving it to a new blockchain.  Which is how Golden Crypto Commodity got started, as a kind of testnet for the BarrCoin relaunch.  Not just a test network, but also test marketing, test discounts at restaurant locations, test Indiegogo crowdfund campaign, everything. 

Hey l8orre, you were also in the Barr ANN on the first day.  Also in October, but that was 2015. 

We now have open orders for COMMOD against 22 other coins - almost every coin except Bitcoin.  If COMMOD gets to be worth 1 satoshi or more, then there will be orders in BTC

I'm onboard!

Yeah I looked it over again, and I did say positive things about my coin.  In the course of explaining why Bitconnect users could possibly move their coins to a different blockchain, I advertised reasons why they could benefit from doing that with their Bitconnect.  I didn't think it was advertising at the time, but I can see now that it could be defined that way even though I didn't offer to sell anything or accept any money or cryptocurrency for any exchange or service.  

I don't have a mining pool of any kind, and I don't know why you think I do, but maybe the other moderator also mistakenly thought that I was advertising a mining pool.  I apologize for not making myself more clear.  And like you said, you can't see the screenshots of the deleted posts because of the Bitcointalk image proxy problem.  I apologize for not having another way to share image links here, and I admit that the problem was exacerbated by my own personal failure to find another way to share images.

I also apologize if my single post in a thread appeared to be multiple posts when a moderator looked at it.  If I used unorthodox spacing or paragraphs that made 1 post look like repeated spam, then that's my fault.  And I apologize for engaging with a Bitconnect user in the Bitconnect topic, who said "I think it's great" in response to my post about Bitconnect.  I should not have led that person into his own spam violations, and hopefully he does not continue to misuse Bitcointalk as I wrongfully did for the purpose of discussing possibilities for an altcoin in that altcoins's topic.

I realize that everyone else is promoting their own altcoins, and every topic can't be a spamfest for every altcoin.  I should've stayed in my own topics, because like you said the OP doesn't want spam in his topic.  Of course I also just had a post deleted here in my own topic, but that just means I'm automatically guilty like you said.  

I haven't been here for a couple of years, and I thought I'd jump right back in like it used to be.  I should've taken the time to ease back in and be a humble newbie for a while, until I learned the new rules.  People used to be happy when I came to their thread and spent $5,000 on their coin that only had $24 a day volume, but I should have asked around and found out that it's no longer acceptable to talk about doing those things with a coin, in that coin's topic.  Now I know, lesson learned.

I overreacted out of frustration, and I should've just let it go.  I couldn't understand why my posts were deleted and I was banned, when apparently the entire thread was also deleted.  But I can see that it's sometimes important to punish people and specifically delete their posts and ban them, even when the rest of the topic is deleted anyway.  If a moderator spends that extra time deleting one user's posts before he deletes the rest of the posts too, then the user should take the hint.  

I might be a little bit Asperger's, so sometimes I don't get it at first.  I'm sorry.  I get it now.  I'm nobody, my posts are worth nothing to anyone.  My entire existence here can be erased with the press of a button, and nobody will care or even notice.  That's the reality of it.  Since that is my place, and your place is to have the power to decide what I'm allowed to say, it was inappropriate for me to question your ruling even if you still don't know what was deleted or why.  If you say the banning was justified, then it was justified.  

Hey Welsh

The particular thread owner of Bitconnect, who may or may not appreciate my posts, is not around anymore. 
I can't privately message him, because he disappeared with millions of dollars of Bitcointalk users' money.

That is the exact topic of discussion which I addressed in my post, which was deleted.

You said that, but now you're using my posts from this thread, which I created, as examples of why my other posts were deleted.

So nothing you say means anything.

Are you actually saying that you would ban people on the word of the original Bitconnect devs?  Please confirm.

Isn't there a feature called "self-moderated thread" if the OP doesn't want people to have any freedom in their topic?

If the OP didn't choose self-moderation, why would he have any more authority than me over what people are allowed to say in the topic?

Please quote the "clear advertising" from my post.  Bonus points if it was off-topic, or more than once per thread, or otherwise against the rules.  (It wasn't)

Also, BARR never burned any dead coins.  So when you say "clearly", it's limited by your own lack of comprehension. 

The people in the thread expressed a desire to get money for their Bitconnect.  Hundreds of them, and that's the topic of conversation.  
But there's nobody in the world who offered them any money for their Bitconnect.  So the conversation continued.
Then I showed up, and I was the only person in the world who thought I might be able to offer them something.  
In keeping with their existing conversation, I suggested a possible way for all the hundreds of people there to get what they had been discussing and wanting.

And you have a problem with that, which doesn't make you look too good.

But what I said was just a suggestion, since it doesn't exist, and it would only be possible through my own personal funds, with no possibility of profit for me.
Giving people my personally-earned altcoins if they burn their coins is not a service I run, or have ever run.
It's not anything I'm selling, or anything I'm asking them for money for, or stand to profit from, or have a website for.
Even if every Bitconnect user had agreed to my suggestion, it wouldn't involve any of them sending me any coins, or money,
or anything but messages and work that I would have to do by myself.

So it doesn't fit a normal person's definition of an advertisement.  But it fits yours.  

My possible proposed offer - which would have been the only offer in the world to all those hundreds of Bitcointalk users for something they could do with their Bitconnect - was erased without my consent, and without their consent, by an anonymous person who has the power to control those people's lives and take away their freedom to choose what they can do with their Bitconnect.

What is my "service", in your opinion?  You're well-informed, right?  So tell me, since you're so certain about it. 

What service are you talking about?  BARR, a decentralized altcoin? 

So an altcoin is now a service, according to you. 

According to mprep, in the link you just linked, I didn't break any rules.
He also confirms that I was completely correct, and that you were completely incorrect in your disagreement against what I said.

I posted once per thread, about a possible exchange or swap that was directly related to the coin.  I used no bold, no images, no codes, no advertisements.
Then when someone asked me more about it, I posted once as part of the discussion which is allowed.  Don't be a fascist.

So like I said, there are moderators who don't follow the rules, abuse their positions, and just do what they feel like no matter the consequences in people's lives.  And you fully support them.







When you and I were in the same thread almost 5 years ago, I never told you that you deserved to be banned.
Was I wrong?  You were saying some things that were pretty off-topic:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=912034.540

So a mining pool isn't allowed to go into a coin's thread and mention that they've added that coin?

Nobody's allowed to mention when a coin is added to an exchange, unless they create a separate topic?

A dev isn't allowed to go into the old thread and announce that they've started a new thread?

When a coin is moving to a new blockchain, nobody's allowed to mention it in the old thread?  Only a new thread?

I've been here for years, you are incorrect.

I have an acquaintance in Shanghai, and I mentioned to him that I'm involved in altcoins.  He said he got stuck with a bag of Bitconnect.
I don't know much about Bitconnect, but BARR has been burning and redeeming altcoins since 2015.  So I looked up Bitconnect.

I made 2 posts about Bitconnect, asking if any holders would be interested in exchanging their coins for BARR.  Just 2 posts.
Then a user asked me a question, and I responded directly to the question.  That was my 3rd and final post about Bitconnect.

Then some angry person came into the topic threatening anyone who dared to post again in the topic, so I didn't post again.
Then I was banned for "ad spam", even though I didn't post again.  
A 7-day ban, and I can't even send messages or ask the moderators about it from that account.

Do the forum rules consider it "ad spam" to talk about a coin in that coin's topic?
Do the forum rules consider it "ad spam" to offer a way for people to recover funds that they were scammed out of?

If the moderators don't want anyone to talk about a certain coin, shouldn't they delete the topic instead of banning anyone who posts there?  
Or if it's against some rule to post in a certain topic, could they at least tell us the rule so we can avoid breaking it?
Do the forum rules allow moderators to ban coin devs and official dev accounts, for personal reasons, right before the devs are launching a new blockchain?

Was the person banned who repeatedly bumped the Bitconnect topic by posting "STOP BUMPING THIS TOPIC OR I'LL RUIN YOUR TRUST RATING!  THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING" ?
Is posting in that topic against the rules, or not?  Is bumping that thread against the rules?
Is it against the rules to spam the same thing repeatedly in the same topic?
If so, was that guy banned too?

I've seen plenty of devs here who launched coins, sold the premine, and abandoned the project within weeks.
And I continued to see those devs post here.  They didn't just spam posts, they spammed the entire world with scamcoins.
But that didn't get them banned here.  

And what have I done?
When the price of Bitcoin steadily declined for years,
and people were abandoning cryptocurrency by the thousands,
and altcoin exchanges were failing left-and-right,
and hundreds of blockchains stopped working - blockchains that were advertised here on Bitcointalk, where people lost millions of dollars -
during all of that, BARR made permanent changes across 12 blockchains and put a lot of money back into people's pockets.
Those people used that money to re-invest in crypto, instead of going broke and quitting.
Because of BARR, hundreds of people were able to contribute to the following boom.

There were at least 3 coins that were only traded at Cryptsy, that BARR redeemed and allowed people to sell.
When Cryptsy disappeared, every holder of those 3 coins lost 100% of their money -
either they couldn't get their coins out of Cryptsy, or they had the coins but couldn't exchange them anywhere.
But before that happened, everyone who wanted was able to burn their coins and get BARR, and then sell the BARR.

We burned 30% of the entire supply of Keycoin, before the Keycoin blockchain stopped working.  
We burned 33% of the entire supply of Fractalcoin, before the Fractalcoin blockchain stopped working.  
We burned 47% of the entire supply of Sapience AIFX, before the blockchain stopped working.
And we swapped those coins to a blockchain that has never stopped working.
BARR is the only way anyone got their money out, unless they sold their coins to someone else who got stuck with them and lost all their money.

Then Cagecoin, Unitus, Chaincoin, Lyrabar, and the list goes on.  We burned 11 Billion Bunnycoins, before the blockchain stopped working.

But some moderator at Bitcointalk has decided that Bitconnect holders won't be allowed the same opportunity.

Not a single BARR holder has ever been unable to sell their BARR,
because I personally made sure there have always been buy orders for the past 4 years without interruption.
And I always let everyone know their options by posting at Bitcointalk.

So I don't know, it just seems like there are plenty of scammers they could be banning before they ban a coin with a spotless record.

Hi, I'm going to message you about a pool for a new coin

Yes, we burned 11 Billion BUN and redeemed them with BARR.

I always get about 300 peers ever since I swapped my KEY for BARR.

I haven't had any problems with my Bunnycoins that I swapped for BARR.

No problems syncing, no forks, and I've been able to trade and send without interruption.

The swap for BARR is over, but maybe we could do one more round of swap for Bunnycoin if anyone is interested.

The exchange rate would probably be different this time since the price of BUN is half as much, and the price of BARR has doubled.

But it would only be possible if the blockchain is working and not forked.

Looks like I was overly generous in estimating $2,000.

These shares he wanted to sell for $50,000 are now trading for about $132.

http://cryptofresh.com/a/BANX

https://youtu.be/AsKR84Mx8JA?t=5m8s


"The initial crowdsale didn't last very long on C-Cex"
 - Mark Lyford  March 22, 2016




























https://youtu.be/AsKR84Mx8JA?t=5m8s


"The initial crowdsale didn't last very long on C-Cex"
 - Mark Lyford  March 22, 2016