Are you saying Stellar isn't the same as Ripple?

If you fork a coin, isn't the new fork just as valid as the old fork, with all the same blockchain up to that point?

If you fork a coin, and your fork is just as valid as the other fork, and people using the old fork can't use your coin, then you have 2 different coins.  Is either of them an altcoin, and if so, which one?

Some people from Ripple left and created their own fork, and called it Stellar.  What is the difference between that and XT?

But the business plan had already stated that the premine would be 5.4 million, with 600,000 for miners.  That's what they said, but that's not what they did.




Mark Lyford says Banx premined 6 million.  One time he did say the supply was 6,000,882, so is that what was "overmined"?  882 coins?

Another time he said miners mined about 45,000 coins.  At no time did they actually go with their original claim and say that they premined 5,400,000 and miners got 600,000.  Miners didn't get 600,000, and I still haven't seen anything that shows any miners getting anything at all.  As I've pointed out, Mark says there is no mining on the first page of the ANN, on the first day the coin was announced.

Are you allowed to promote Stellar at the Ripple forums? 

Here's Mark Lyford's previous crypto business venture:

http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-special-offers/925791-new-crypto-revolution-here-get-started-bitcoin-today-wso-day-19-04-14-a.html


And on page 2 he posts his Bitcoin address, which we can examine here:

https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/e4348ac365d585e1?from_address=1JTzzatvy6dSunwabLFu9NQ8RPurn7q1qu


Looks like this wallet was first used on December 4, 2013, and somebody bought 34BTC from localbitcoins.  Not the best market timing, and probably paid about $1000 per BTC.  Hopefully it was a cash transaction, or at least hopefully there weren't any chargebacks involved.

Then there were 2 sends of 20.0BTC each, and later 40 receives of 1.0BTC each from BTCGuild.com.  

I can't make much sense of it myself, but then I'm not an expert like Mark:




And what kind of knowledge was he selling people?

I messaged BeastBTC yesterday and he says he's talking to the datacenter.  Hopefully it'll be back online soon.

Keycoin has less than 1 million coins.

It has a low stake percentage, but my wallet stakes 24/7.

But the devs disappeared and never delivered on their big plans, so there aren't many users and it can be hard to find connections.  So most people would say it doesn't have much to offer, other than the low coin supply.  On the plus side, the price didn't crash and is still pretty stable.  I guess whatever small community is still around supports the coin, and it's survived for over a year which is more than some coins could manage.

I'll give you a quote from Banx CEO Mark Lyford, about a communication from CoinMarketCap:








They fixed that particular bug that accidentally inflated the figures, but then there was another bug:

Look, I've just gone over the entire history of the coin in this topic.  There was no mention of overmining when the network was forked, because there was no mining at all.  

Besides, they wouldn't be able to reject "the overmined shares" with the coin swap they did.  They accepted all coins sent to Banx.io before the switchover, and they rejected all coins that weren't sent by the cutoff.  In fact, they rejected the shares that Mark himself deposited into other exchanges - he didn't even bother to send them back to himself, because they were worthless.




Banx.io was already running before they purchased Atomic Trade, and BanxShares isn't a PoS coin.  You have to leave your coins at Banx.io in order to get the monthly dividend payment.

The Atomic-Trade purchase was announced February 14, 2015, which is the next day after that big BTC transfer I noted from the Banx.io wallet.





But they did tell us:

Oh, and also:


Wrong, and wrong.  

First of all, here's the BanxShares ANN:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813191.0

The things you're saying don't match what Mark Lyford says in the official BanxShares announcement.

The first day of the ANN thread, Mark says there is no mining at all for BanxShares.  When were the 2 phases of PoW?  Before the coin was announced?

In the first post of the ANN, it says BANX can be bought at Alcurex.org and Banx.io.  No miners deposited any BANX at Alcurex.  All of the coins were deposited by Mark himself, because the coin has been 100% premined supply since it was announced.

 Mark did say that there was mining previously, but that it had already been cancelled before Day 1 of the coin being announced.  That doesn't make any sense, and I don't see any evidence that anyone ever mined this coin.  

He claims that 45,000 coins were mined:



But if that is true....


How did they end up with almost exactly 6 million, AFTER that?  Another dev might shed some light:


5,400,000 + approx. 45,000 doesn't equal 6,000,882.  They just picked a number and made that many coins, no mining necessary.

Besides, he later says that the coin is 100% premined:


And if you click that link, you will see that 6 million was the original intended number of coins, before any of this happened.
Interestingly, the prospectus says that they will allow miners to mine 10% of the coins, with only a 5,400,000 premine.
That's the number the other dev was using, but Mark just forgot about that part and accidentally admitted that all 6,000,000 were premined by Banx.
The coin was launched in October 2014;  
These numbers were put together in July of 2014, so they were already decided and have nothing to do with any miners, forks, exploits, new wallet versions, or exchanges.  

But the cap did change, because of the trades that you said happened and the new coins that were created.  

You say the price doesn't change, and we know there are X number of coins in circulation, so how has the marketcap gone from $2 million to $12 million?

That's right - the volume of new coins for sale.  You're saying there are X number of coins "in circulation" - that's the number CMC uses for "available supply".

Supposedly, the company is holding a certain number of coins, and the ones sold on market are the "available supply".  But they're not really "in circulation" until they're sold, and that's why you need volume.  Otherwise they're just more coins being held by the company. 

So if you had a total of 1 million "available" coins for $1.00, the marketcap would be $1,000,000.

But if you say an additional 2 million were "made available" and sold today, the marketcap changes to $3,000,000.

And that's what you did when you doubled the number of "available coins".  But it would be hard to justify adding so many coins if you hadn't even sold 10% of the ones already "available", so that gives you a further incentive to fudge the volume.

Stop saying you couldn't affect the marketcap by reporting fake numbers, because the numbers you report are the only thing that determines the marketcap.

The value of the coin is (supply X price).  

Just like shares in a company, the total number of shares times the price per share is supposed to equal the value of the company.  If the price of the shares go up, the value of the entire company goes up.  If the number of shares is doubled, but the value of the company stays the same, then the price of each share is cut in half.

Company worth $1,000,000
Shares total of 1,000,000
Price per share $1.00

If the company launches an IPO, they would sell 1 million shares for $1.00.  If they decided to have 2 million shares, the price would be 50 cents.  It's not just a random number somebody pulls out of nowhere - the numbers have meaning.  If you offer 1 million shares for $5 each, you are representing to the world that your company is worth $5 million.  

When you make a public announcement like Banx made, you are asking the entire world to buy what you're selling.  You didn't send out emails to a private list;  you came to Bitcointalk and said "We're selling something."  You presented an offer to everyone in the world who has internet access.

When you offer something for public sale, you are claiming that what you're selling is worth what you're asking.  When you said you had 6 million shares and you were selling some for the price of .0022BTC, you were telling us all that your company is worth 13,200BTC, which was over $5 million at the time.  

So when Banx doubled its number of shares, during the ICO, the price should've halved.  But it didn't, because the price is completely manipulated with no influence from actual market forces.

When Banx doubled the number of shares without reducing the price, they doubled the claimed value of the company.  But nothing in the real world actually happened to show that the company had increased in value, assets, or future earning potential.  They just decided to claim a higher value, and they did.

"We have a company that was worth $6 million yesterday.  Today it's worth $12 million, even though the company is exactly the same as it was yesterday."

Now CoinMarketCap says Banx is worth $12 million.  Why?  What happened in the past 12 months?  What have you doubled, other than some numbers on paper?

Are you beginning to see the problem, and why CoinMarketCap is important in this discussion?

If you were just another altcoin, nobody would care.  But you're claiming to be bigger and more valuable than almost every other altcoin in existence.  You're not.  You have nothing to show and not a single piece of concrete evidence to justify those numbers and charts.  

If you generated 12 million coins - for free, as you did - and then said they were worth $1.74 each, that would be fine.  But don't pretend that a lot of people are actually buying at that price, because they're not.  Banx is not worth $12 million, no matter what CoinMarketCap says.

There would be no argument, if you had real markets and real volume.  But you don't.  And that is why we're having this conversation.  So yes, volume is important.  

Why?  Because you've made a standing offer to the whole world to buy into a $12 million company, and it's not worth that.  You're making me an offer that is not a good deal for me.  Yes, you can offer whatever you want, and if I don't think it's worth it then I won't buy.  

But what if you lie?  What if you show me evidence that your coin is worth what you say, and that evidence is falsified?  Then are you ripping me off by getting someone else to tell me that it's worth what you're asking, when it's not?  

A lot of people have gone to CoinMarketCap, which means that a lot of people have been given incorrect information about the value of Banx.  How many of them spent money on Banx, based on false information?  If CoinMarketCap said Banx was only worth 25 cents per share, do you think all those people would have paid $1.00 or more?  

A lot of people here believe in Bitcoin.  We're heavily invested in the belief that Cryptocurrency will change our lives and change the world.  There's room for Litecoin, and it's almost as widely accepted around the world as Bitcoin.  Dogecoin has almost as many users as any other coin.  If NXT or Ethereum or Bitshares goes mainstream and is a household name, we're ready to embrace it and help it succeed.

But BanxShares doesn't belong up there with those other coins.  BanxShares isn't like Bitcoin, and it will never change the world.  Every bitcoin in existence was earned with work.  Bitcoins aren't just created out of thin air, like BANX was.  Bitcoin has a reason to exist other than dividends.  Bitcoin isn't like any other money or stock that has ever existed, while BANX is pretty much just the same thing they've been selling on Wall Street for a hundred years.

Like I said, if your market position was #300 where it belongs, nobody would care because you wouldn't be making a mockery out of everything Cryptocurrency is about.  And you wouldn't have a fake chart to help you sell shares for more than they're worth to people who thought they saw real market data.

So CoinMarketCap just has to take your word on the price and the volume.





In order to calculate the total capitalization, it is necessary to know the price.  In order to know the price, it is necessary to know what trades are being made.  In order to know what trades are being made, it is necessary to know how much and how many.  

So if we can't believe the volume, we can't believe the market cap.  And we can't believe the volume.  You've just admitted that it's whatever you say it is, with no verification from any outside party.  

That makes sense.  So what I'm looking at is all the deposits and withdrawals of all BanxShares users.  

I guess I thought there would be more than 814 transactions in the past 4 months, for the #8 biggest coin, but still there's no telling which users sent which coins to which address.

But, then again, Banx.io wasn't open for business in September of 2014, and someone used the same associated Bitcoin addresses to make about 40 transactions with 999Dice.  So it's reasonable to assume that it could be the same person, and not an anonymous user, who continued to make any similar such transactions at a later date.  There's no way to know.

But if you've only spent money twice since February, that means you aren't making investments.  You're supposedly taking in $10,000 a day of ICO capital to invest and then use the profits for dividends.  

Since you've just told us that the money isn't being invested, where are the dividends coming from?

I guess it's all happening off the exchange, since there hasn't been $10,000 worth of Bitcoin deposited in the past month, let alone in one day. 

Good, then you're qualified to answer questions about how the investors' funds are being spent.





Then you don't pay dividends on a regular basis?  That wallet sent transactions on every day of February except the 16th and 21st.  So you're saying you pay dividends pretty much every single day.  

That would mean that all of these transactions are dividend payouts, except maybe 2 of them which are something else:

1.01995BTC to an unknown address on Feb. 2
0.32419992BTC and 0.27570008BTC on Feb. 4
1.01995BTC on Feb 10th
10.09995BTC on Feb 13th - Isn't that more than all the dividends paid to all shareholders combined?  It only left 15BTC in the wallet.
6.09995BTC on Feb 24th
1.87626394BTC sent to BTC-e on Feb 24th - to address 1BLZ7Zr3hUbhh8ufJEkaYzPMvT8HdyWAJS
3.99995BTC and 3.96341274BTC on Feb 24th
1.54785441BTC on Feb 26th to BTC-e - to the same address 1BLZ7Zr3hUbhh8ufJEkaYzPMvT8HdyWAJS

Does someone get 2 dividend payouts to the same address, 2 days apart?  
Do they have 2 separate Banx.io accounts, but they receive dividend payments to the same BTC-e address?  

It's strange, because that address was never used again before or since.

They must have used 2 different receiving addresses before February, and then they switched to the same address for February, and then after that they went back to using 2 different addresses. 

Or maybe those were the 2 transactions you were talking about, that Banx spent on office supplies or something. 

But it only pays dividends if it's deposited at Banx.io, so why would anyone keep it in their own wallet?

Are there actually any users who use a Banx wallet?  Anyone?  I can't find a richlist or a block explorer.

I did find this Bitcoin address that's supposed to be Banx.io's -

https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/Banx.io

Looks like you received some transactions from C-Cex, Bleutrade, Cryptsy, Cryptonator, Bittrex, Poloniex, Huobi, BTCJam, BetCoin, BitVC, Bitfinex, Cex.io, MoonBit, Coin-Swap, Bter, Allcrypt, Paymium, Mintpal, etc.

And congrats on the .00014BTC from Faucetbox.com, but it looks like you were getting bigger drips last month.

And where did you send BTC?  Over .3BTC to C-Cex, mostly on January 18, which is after you forked to invalidate all the BANX in their accounts and said they hacked your blockchain.  Is that supposed to be a dividend payout?  Because there were other transactions, and they weren't on a regular monthly schedule. 

On October 5, over 2BTC - more than half the wallet - to CryptoTrade.com.  Was that a dividend payout? 

Did NitrogenSports gambling site have a .6BTC dividend payout, in July 2014? 

In June there was .62BTC sent to CryptoStocks.com;  maybe that, and the payments to MCXNow and MintPal, gave someone the idea for BanxShares?

Looks like this Bitcoin wallet was in use for awhile before Banx.io existed.  Unfortunately, it continued to be used for gambling after it was associated with the addresses for Banx.io.

This wallet, since the launch of Banx.io, also sent funds to Mintpal, Bleutrade, Poloniex, Bittrex, QuadrigaCX, BitX, OKCoin, CoinPayments.net, AllCoin, AllCrypt, Comkort, Coin-Swap, LocalBitcoins, BitKonan, YoBit, SatoshiMines, TheRockTrading, Rollin.io, BitVC, BTC-e, BTCJam, Bter, Cryptsy, SWCPoker.eu, Anonibet.com, HashNest, Paymium, CloudBet, AnoniBet, BetCoin.ag, PrimeDice.com, SatoshiBet, CoinRoyale, FortuneJack, Dice.Bitco.in, EvolutionMarket, and AgoraMarket.

Is someone using investor funds to buy altcoins, play online poker, and buy illegal drugs over TOR?

Except you do respond, by calling people trolls. 

You see your own business practices laid out for everyone to see, displaying the same patterns of failure and disaster that we've seen before;  you respond by dismissing it all as "out of context" or "inaccurate". 

But all of the quotes include links to the full original context, and you cannot name a single inaccuracy.

And you cannot answer the most basic of questions about what you're doing with other people's money.

That's the kind of tactic they use in cults to maintain power

That's an interesting comment about something that went from 0 to become the world's most valuable currency, in only 4 years

The official pool is back, now with account settings!