I have tried the support system twice recently, each time getting an "Activated! You may login now!" reply but unfortunately nothing changing.  After going a few months without logging into my c-cex account, all subsequent log-in attempts have failed. 

Even though I am confident in knowing my old password, I tried requesting a new one in case it would help somehow reset
the system, and that also does nothing (oddly despite how c-cex has sent other email to my email address).

If this matter could be fixed, it would be much appreciated, as my account had coins on it.

My user name on c-cex:
Selerian

If you do fix this, I'll report back as favorable feedback.  Please do not simply refer me back to the support system, as that would be just going in a repetitive loop already tried unsuccessfully.

Is there explicit confirmation from CryptoBridge that they support a NXT base coin?

The concern is indirectly this quote:


I would not interpret that quote as guaranteeing they support all possible coin types other than the exceptions listed.  They aren't lawyers.  The general, informal impression given is that they do not necessarily support any coin type other than the likes of those already on their exchange.

Since they have listed many more minor coins than NXT, the absence of NXT is notable.  Of course, they plan to list more types eventually, but it might take a lot more than 1 BTC and 2 weeks.

If not for that concern, listing on CryptoBridge would be great.

I know you're replying to someone else.  I am grateful for your volunteering.

If you want to move on, that is understandable.  Please bear in mind, though, you may also have an option of not working for free.  Another decentralized project provides an example: https://forum.getmonero.org/9/work-in-progress

Additional developers were gained for Monero by posting target goals and fundraising.  People donated significant Monero for some developers and their specific development goals, the equivalent of multiple bitcoins, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Anyone can have bills to pay.

If the miner is finished aside from non-critical optimization, maybe you don't have much to do, but, if nothing else, I could be willing to donate something to have a little documentation adjustment.  I don't mean working the rest of your life, just departing in style if nothing else.  Right now, the first source code link goes straight to the unhappy remark.  You worked on something great, so it could fittingly have an elegant conclusion as well.

Other than that, I don't know what would be suitable goals and target amounts, but it might be food for thought, perhaps worth a try and perhaps surprising in potential results.  I am probably far from the only person who would donate.  All needed is posting of a goal, a target amount, and a bitcoin address.  A separate subforum like Monero's system is not critical.  It could be simply a post in this thread.  I am sorry to hear of the number of obnoxious messages received by EK and you, but, in a way, that is an indirect sign of how many people pay attention to this project, even though some of them are the wrong people.  Dead coins simply don't have anyone posting at all, and this is very different.

In any case, thank you for your prior work.

Even now, the ~ $25+ million market cap is a number of times more than than what was donated back in 2016.  Some traders buying in much later are unhappy for now, but strategies other than long-term HODLing are tricky even on Bitcoin itself, let alone altcoins.  Usually there is also some trolling from fans of projects perceived by some to be in competition, like the Monero vs Dash rivalry.

We know reportedly that the person making the uncoordinated post has had access removed.  I don't know who all has access still to the Twitter account, but personally I wouldn't worry about it unless it happens again.

Oh indeed, which is one of the benefits of decentralization.  IIRC, I think it was someone other than the programmers, as, from their perspective, the market is not their direct concern one way or another.  Which is fair enough.

Arguably now is not yet the time for marketing, when the code is a work in progress.  People most interested in the technical potential will get it at a low price during this altcoin bear market, and that is appropriate enough.

The decentralization mindset here is reminiscent of Bitcoin in ways.  Like there is no "Bitcoin, Inc.," there is no "Elastic, Inc."

Overall, the incident seems to be a combination of a cultural misunderstanding and different people going their own directions while having had access to the same Twitter account.

Marketing could come later but could be best when with a marketing group simply having already received a BTC or XEL payment up front from the person contacting them, not expecting some kind of endorsement.

(I'm not clear exactly what this marketing group expected from the programmers, other than being disappointed by the Twitter issue.  As an analogy, any random person could advertise Bitcoin, without Satoshi Nakamoto's personal endorsement, nor EK or Coralreefer's, though waiting until more of the code is completed could be better timing).

It seems to happen on every coin when a major new feature or release comes out after prior announcement.

For instance, although GameCredits has done well recently, at first it had a downdip when a major new feature came out some weeks ago -- only to later recover and rise further.

Apparently something in investor psychology makes hope more powerful than actuality, in the short-term anyway.

Famous phrase: Buy the rumor, sell the news.

Of course, also, Bitcoin surged now, impacting altcoins at the moment.

Anyway, this is within the bounds of a normal market correction after a surge.  I'd give Belacoin time, as it is doing great in the longer-term picture so far.

As far as I know, supernodes are supposed to be reliably online, maintain a large XEL deposit as a sign of relative trustworthiness, and accept running novel foreign code (an aspect which should be safe in the restricted language used but still such that some places would feel more comfortable just running a regular node instead).

Yet the actual hardware requirements are apparently not really super extreme.  At least back on January 24th, EK made a reference to work using 5 gigabytes of RAM memory (on top of ordinary use by the operating system and so on, of course).

Since 16GB and 32GB RAM desktops are not uncommon among recent models today, that wouldn't be much at all.  The supernode vs regular node hardware requirements difference may not be "super extreme" versus "ordinary" so much as "mildly high" versus "okay even if really mediocre and outdated."  Of course, the adjectives are my own, not EK's, not a quote.

I don't know if exactly the 5 GB example is still representative.

But my earlier comment was mainly just based on the following: I think EK is coding supernodes to run on what he already has now, as the only easy way to do development and testing.  He is not programming them in a manner which would require him to get much different hardware.  There would be no reason to do the latter, as he chooses the expected complexity and memory requirements of work packages, which were originally going to be scaled down to even relatively mediocre computers.

For a fully specific answer with exact numbers, we might need to wait for EK to announce it when he is done coding.  I am no real expert, just a bystander.  Yet I bet it will be that just about any 16GB RAM (or maybe even 8GB) computer with permanent internet access could do it, if willing to have a large portion of system resources consumed running the software.

Hardware requirements for a SN are not that high.  I don't speak for EK, but there is practical certainty he has it totally covered.

Based on prior posts of his, I think he would be disappointed that not everyone has noticed he does not want to manage funds.

I agree he would be the perfect candidate for trustworthiness if he was willing, but he has emphasized not wanting to become personally responsible for handling funds.  And that, of course, is his right to choose.  If others step up, that aids the semi-decentralized aspect of the project in a way.  For others, there may be options like a 2-of-3 multisignature wallet with 3 holders, in case one person is away at a given time.

Posting it in Slack sounds fine.  But it would be best also copied elsewhere.

New visitors are the people least likely to have created a login.  Slack requires checking email and signup before first seeing its contents, with yet another login to remember or record.

Other locations could include on the website and highlighted in the opening post of Elastic's next thread, when a new thread is created, e.g. upon mainnet launch.

I don't know the absolute minimums, but I have withdrawn as little as 0.01 Btc to an external address.

The minimum trade size seems to vary by market AFAIK, e.g. what would be a 0.01 size trade in their terms would correspond with ... but it can be very small definitely.

There are also free test accounts, although playing live is more complicated than test accounts, since the real market reacts to large orders you cause, for good or ill -- by default for worse in the near-term (although using tiny amounts at a time can affect the market nearly unnoticeably).

That is what I do now.  I have 10 accounts, essentially under a single login.

But here is a question:

Someday I might exceed 40 or 50 Btc in SimpleFX and so want more than 10 accounts to maintain the maximum leverage on each.  Technically, that is quite doable, just creating a totally separate set of accounts, such as to have two sets of 10 accounts each.  But is that permissible?

Basically, is there any risk I would get banned for doing so?  This is doing so with only crypto funding for deposits and withdrawals, no fiat.  I would be deliberately bypassing your 10 real account limit, indirectly, but I think the 10 account limit is just a programming matter anyway.

In my experience at SimpleFX, fluctuation in an open position's profit/loss can decrease the amount of margin available to other positions but not increase it, not until the position is closed.

For instance, in your example, if your open position started to have a loss, that would make your free margin become less than 60.000 BIT, but there would be no difference in free margin if it zoomed up to a 3 Btc profit instead of a 2 Btc profit.  Of course, once you eventually closed the position, then profits would be available.

I have encountered some sites which work differently, which would explain why it seemed off to you, but the above seems to always be how SimpleFX works, AFAIK.

More than 10 Btc over time, usually a bitcoin or two at a time.

It has always gone through.

Very important question:

What happens if you receive much less than your 75 Btc goal?

I don't mind much the absence of an escrow, as I know that an escrow is no protection anyway when anybody can get a generic clone coin for a fraction of a Btc from a walletbuilders service -- it is always how hard and well the developer works in other ways that matters.

But no escrow will turn off other potential investors, so it is really unclear how much you will get.  I don't know that a whitepaper is strictly needed, but it helps show that a project has had serious effort already put into its details.

Second question:

If your plan is to launch the IPFS platform website on March 5th, when the ICO might last up until that exact day, then you apparently don't need ICO funds to do that initial part.

So, if that website launch date is realistic, why wouldn't you simply have the ICO extend several days beyond it, to get what might be far more funds after having more of a demonstration?  What if that made the difference between getting 15 Btc and getting 75 Btc?  I have seen some legitimate businesses be oddly careless in ICO planning, so it is not just you, but still I wonder.

I have not got around yet to completing other research like your post history and everything else I can find, but, by default, I don't have much else to evaluate or go on for your skills at business planning.

My gut feeling is that I don't think you are a scammer, but I wonder if you could get insufficient ICO funds and fail by accident.

Some aspects of the design stated in your whitepaper are good.  The whitepaper is correct when it states that loads of altcoins are correlated.

However, to put that in other words, many rose during an altcoin bubble, then crashed later.

In the opening post of this thread, the global altcoins index is plotted in a graph which ends around November 1st.  Since now is 3 months later, it should show through at least around the start of February instead.  It looks like the index was dropping after perhaps a bubble peak, so I would want to see what happened to it over subsequent months.

With that said, a second graph in your whitepaper possibly already shows what would have happened: Near the start of November and beyond, the altcoin indices crashed hard.  Since your fund apparently would have had not more than 30% of assets in Bitcoin (probably in completely unleveraged positions), even the gain in the Bitcoin portion meanwhile would probably not have prevented your total fund doing far less well from November onwards than a simple 100% Bitcoin unleveraged HODLer.

Anyway, earlier estimated percentage gains in fiat terms over the 2016-to-now time period aren't automatically particularly impressive to the crypto community.  It isn't hard to make money in a bull market.  Bitcoin itself went from $434 on January 1st 2016 to $1108 now, 255% of its original value, and that is for a mere HODLer with no use of leverage and stop-limit tactics.  Although use of stop limits is better, a simple crude 2.3:1 leverage bitcoin long position would never have been liquidated and could have been turned into 500% or more of its original value meanwhile.

You plan on a "maximum" of up to 30% investments in Bitcoin, per the whitepaper, and, again, it is not apparent that you would be using any leverage or stop limits, so someone might be as well or better off just parking their funds in their own Bitcoin wallet.

...

Besides, if you are going to choose your various altcoins well, I am not seeing clear evidence of it so far.  It  looks like a large portion of your investments will be in presently high marketcap semi-old altcoins like those in the correlation table in your whitepaper (aside from whatever exact coins are the small marketcap group).

I am not convinced that anything much like an altcoin index fund really works well, especially keeping in mind that 2017 is not necessarily going to be a repeat of 2016.  I actually tried nearly the equivalent of an index fund back when I was very new to crypto (by casually investing in and holding a huge multitude of coins), but soon learned better.

Some altcoins do make great gains, but typically the bulk of those gains are early, meaning that buying in months later after the first pumps is usually too late for much further return.  For instance, an early investor in Ethereum or Dash would have made money, but those are probably lousy choices now, in fact with the latter at a bubble peak about to crash back down to a much lower support level, IMO.

Of course, diversification still has value in risk management, e.g. not all one altcoin alone, but pros tend to invest in a very select handful at the right times, not much resembling just an index fund.

Only very few altcoins are really suitable for continuously sustained HODLing, and worthiness is determined not by already-priced-in gains long past but by a far more special characteristic: present undervaluing.

For most other coins, it is particularly key to know when it is pump time and when it is dump time.


As a somewhat experienced trader knowing how much of crypto *really* operates, I would be more interested if you were going to do them.  New players who don't think in pump and dump terms often get burnt.  If not explicitly joining big pumping-and-dumping whales, at least much success can depend on riding the waves made by them.

----------------------------

Incidentally, given thread length and other indicators of community interest (as noticeable if having seen many past Bitcointalk ICOs), your ICO is presently enroute to end with tens to hundreds of Bitcoin, or even less -- not thousands.  Hopefully you are aware of that.  It takes fancier graphics and more to obtain thousands of bitcoin in an ICO.  If your large team is real, the likelihood of being able to pay their salaries for long seems iffy.

----------------------------

With that said, the whitepaper's description of the Kepler product does sound potentially quite useful, for those who would rather make their own investing decisions but could benefit from new ways to monitor and handle a bunch of altcoins at once.  Although you are probably not going to change plans based on a random poster's comment, if I were you, I would make the ICO about Kepler itself, at least as well.

Specifically, let funds be contributed for Kepler development, and then, in return, investors receive money from future Kepler sales, as well as having a license themselves.  Tying Kepler sales revenue to a coin could be done by making purchases of in other currencies (e.g. dollars) involve the system temporarily converting the funds to the new coin (with a special exception only if negligible exchange liquidity at that moment), then permanently burning 50% of transacted coins.

In the process, the value of the rest of the coins would go up as more Kepler purchases happened.  ICO investors and early buyers would be rewarded.  The preceding is a little bit like how PEPECASH works but for a different product.

If you made an ICO for that, added a bunch of fancy graphics, and had a business plan just requiring under 100 Btc for the first stage of a two-stage ICO (the second stage gaining more funds after public demonstration of a partial alpha version), it could really work.

Now this:


... could be the good part, if the TaaS team doesn't simply run out of funds for development from their OP advertising the Iconomi-like parts more than the novel, unique parts.

Having announcements in this Bitcointalk thread would be advantageous, reaching the public more readily than everyone needing to go to many different login-requiring Slack groups, if following many coins.  A lot of us already have dozens of other logins or more.

But the developments sound interesting.


I wonder how that works.

It would be technically possible to have a decentralized, distributed database which didn't reproduce all of its data on every computer.  For instance, if 10000 computers have a blockchain, it isn't really necessary to reproduce 100% of it on each and every computer, especially for some types of data for which malicious attempts to modify are less likely.  A more moderate number of copies of each portion would suffice.

Maybe that is what Jelurida is doing.  Or maybe it is doing something else, if there is something I am overlooking.