[ANN][BCC] Bitconnect Coin - Decentralized Cryptocurrency

[AGM76]

Bitconnect was not an investment. It was a scam, it collapsed, the last ones to hold the bag got stuck with near-worthless tokens. That's how these scams work. There is no feasible way for "everyone" to make 30% per month. Such investments don't exist. It's not "bad press" that made people lose their money. It's the scammers. With some help from shills like you.

What I don't like, is idiots saying the scam 'collapsed' when they never collapsed. They always paid less BCC in interest than was lent to them in the lending system. It would have carried on fine without all these people saying it was a Ponzi etc. It is obvious to any sane person who isn't traumatised enough to have to believe these Ponzi stories to psychologically survive.

Also, as I explained before, to send just 6BTC from my wallet at a normal fee range (few hundreds satoshis per byte) I had to pay hundreds of dollars. My wallet wouldn't have charged me more than I needed to pay but obviously most wallets like electrum generate lots of inputs etc so the more you send the more the fee would be.

Oh I seem to deleted what I wrote before but basically those were normal charges for sending that amount of BTC from my wallet, in the last few days I gave examples to before.

Instead of just typing it I will copy and paste the images from electrum below from a couple of transactions in the last two days:

You're an utter idiot. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put it.

So what part don't you agree with?? Bitconnect always profited in BCC from the lending system and didn't need to take BCC from new lenders to pay old ones. So it wasn't a ponzi. When someone lent 1BCC for example, by the end of the term the capital release would only cost bitconnect say 0.1BCC if the coin had gone up 10 times in that 8 months or whatever (in practice it only took a few months to go 10X) and the interest paid was also far lower than the gain in the coin price. They could have easily paid 50% higher interest rates (I'm guessing but a lot higher than 1%) and still been in profit!!! They didn't have a guaranteed percentage for reinvests or lower amounts so could have easily carried on without even changing the terms of the loans!

Regarding the fees, my wallet lets me choose and I didn't choose the fastest, but low/medium. I set it also to dynamic fees so it can tell how much is needed for certain speeds. I would have paid even more if I wanted it to be faster but any slower wasn't much cheaper so I set it to medium speed.

EDIT: Just did the calculation and at 1.5% per day that is about 56% per month and 200X in a year. The coin was initially valued at sub-$1 in the ICO and I think fell to 16cents early on but went up to near $500 all in a year so the 1% wasn't excessive at all. 1% daily is only 35X in a year!!!

So what's your goal here?

I don't understand why you insist on trying to argue with people who know far more about Crypto than you do, all you are doing is accruing more negative trust.

This thing is dead in the water, it's over jim, sell your coins (if you have any left) and learn from your mistakes.

Here, I'll even link a couple news articles for you.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitconnect-ponzi-scheme-no-sympathy-from-crypto-community

https://www.coindesk.com/bitconnect-investors-left-lurch-tokens-price-drops-90/

https://news.bitcoin.com/not-content-with-scamming-1-5-billion-bitconnect-wants-another-500-million-for-its-ico/

There is a very good chance that current exchanges will delist BCC in order to avoid legal trouble and all remaining Coins will be worth $0

Are you serious? I already pointed out the factually incorrect statements from some of those stories (about them running off with bitcoins etc). All they had left when they closed the lending were the same BCC tokens some people are saying are now worthless - the same ones they left all the investors with as that was the only currency the lending platform used (although they were paid in relation to the USD value of the coins when they were lent or when they are withdrawn from the lending wallet). Why would they want their millions of BCC to be worthless (which they stake hundreds of thousands of each month)? I also showed they didn't dump them either (they were more than likely buying them cheap the other day). Actually if I look on the rich list, there has basically been no recent activity on many addresses and I don't think they stake from those largest wallets either.

There are hundreds of these coins and BCC is nowhere near as bad as most of the coins on exchanges. A lot of them are pure scams that get dumped on by the devs and you say you know a lot about crypto? There are no laws about these coins in most countries and bitconnect lending wasn't operating as a ponzi when they stopped it.


I am not posting for any particular reason other than to try to correct people's prejudices (which seldom works anyway due to the little understood 'backfire effect'). I just tend to go on a bit sometimes  

"The Texas SSB is wrong!!! BitConnect is NOT a Ponzi."

<as they pealed rubber upon exiting the building, leaving the lights on for Investards so to think somebody's home>

I just addressed the Texan thing in the above post but are you now doing your own lending platform (your signature):

"The cryptoverse is now populated with neophyte enthusiasts, many who were first introduced to crypto via stumbling upon the likes of BitConnect with their jury's-still-out lending programs, regarded by some as being unsustainable over the long haul. Regardless if the sentiment is accurate or not, the truth of the matter is that there are now countless folks acclimated with the lending platform model as a means to [hopefully] enrich themselves in the crypto space.

After the quasi-success of BitConnect, myriad clones of the model sprung up, many of which immediately vanished at their ICOs' end, leaving some participates spooked while others sought out, then enrolled into yet another pseudo-promising lending platform clone, both groups possessing lighter pocketbooks after participating in rogue entities.

What makes this LendFunding endeavor sound is that the person behind it is well-known in the space, i.e. not hiding his vitals, and the entity of which initial funding is sought - YuTü.Co.in - has a solid foundation business model, primed for long-term growth in tokenizing YouTuber channels of opted-in YouTubers."

I thought you were from USA too and didn't you scare another lending platform off and made them close down with everyone's money (Elektra)? If you hadn't exposed them they would have probably made many people lots of money unless it was their intention all along to disappear.

[CryptToad]

If there was no bot, they should go into hiding.

If there is a bot which became unprofitable & took huge losses, they should prove it, for safety of everyone.  Show transparency & the transactions. Explain how the bot is supposed to function & why it failed.  Maybe release the code.  No point protecting a failed algorithm/ system which cost billions in damage.

If there is a bot which remains profitable, I can understand keeping the algorithm & system design close to the chest.  But then appearances are they're keeping the bot currently to profit for themselves using BTC taken from trusting investors.  Meanwhile investors & promoters are destituted, despairing, suffering depression, humiliation, blame, perhaps homelessness & starvation.
So reinstate the bot & honor pre-existing contracts at least.

If they say they can't operate the bot due to DDOS, and Bitconnect.co & BitconnectX.co are flakey as well, to the point that I've spent 5 hours unsuccessfully trying to buy BCCX; AS others have experienced...
Then how can they be trusted to create & maintain this new exchange?  And why do they need so many millions to build it.  And what's the point? If it's a low fee exchange, how are they going to earn enough meaningful profit once  distributed spread out among hundreds of $ millions of BCCX shareholders?

If they collect $500 million for the ICO, then collect $50 million in fees pure profit by end of 2019, and then somehow reward BCCX holders that's a 10% ROI in 2 years.  That's a lot of IFs.  What's the assumed purpose or ROI of holding BCCX  which were being forced into?

[suchmoon]

What's this $110? I think someone else mentioned it but it's $150 per BCC for bitconnectx.  I also pointed out that the Cease and Desist order didn't understand what staking was (it seemed to want to know what company was responsible for paying the staked funds lol) and said it was a security. So how can you take what they say about the lending seriously?

Also, you must see that the ICO limit on bitconnectx gets sold every day?? Over a quarter of a million BitconnectX.  Have you tried buying in some of these lending ICOs (bitconnect-clones) lately?? They all are almost impossible to buy usually. I was never able to get any UnixCoin or UcoinCash as it was always too many buyers even though you usually get many days/rounds to try and buy (incidentally, they are both now worth a lot more than the ICO price).

http://i67.tinypic.com/33m09sg.png

So they know what staking is (the coins appear automatically in the wallet - started at 10% a month with BCC but reduced by 2% every six months) but are then asking for the source of the funds lol

If the C&D was somehow illegal or unlawful then Bitconnect should have sought an injunction instead of shutting it down. Surely they have funds for a legal action, don't they?

[YuTü.Co.in]

Bitconnect was not an investment. It was a scam, it collapsed, the last ones to hold the bag got stuck with near-worthless tokens. That's how these scams work. There is no feasible way for "everyone" to make 30% per month. Such investments don't exist. It's not "bad press" that made people lose their money. It's the scammers. With some help from shills like you.

What I don't like, is idiots saying the scam 'collapsed' when they never collapsed. They always paid less BCC in interest than was lent to them in the lending system. It would have carried on fine without all these people saying it was a Ponzi etc. It is obvious to any sane person who isn't traumatised enough to have to believe these Ponzi stories to psychologically survive.

Also, as I explained before, to send just 6BTC from my wallet at a normal fee range (few hundreds satoshis per byte) I had to pay hundreds of dollars. My wallet wouldn't have charged me more than I needed to pay but obviously most wallets like electrum generate lots of inputs etc so the more you send the more the fee would be.

Oh I seem to deleted what I wrote before but basically those were normal charges for sending that amount of BTC from my wallet, in the last few days I gave examples to before.

Instead of just typing it I will copy and paste the images from electrum below from a couple of transactions in the last two days:

You're an utter idiot. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put it.

So what part don't you agree with?? Bitconnect always profited in BCC from the lending system and didn't need to take BCC from new lenders to pay old ones. So it wasn't a ponzi. When someone lent 1BCC for example, by the end of the term the capital release would only cost bitconnect say 0.1BCC if the coin had gone up 10 times in that 8 months or whatever (in practice it only took a few months to go 10X) and the interest paid was also far lower than the gain in the coin price. They could have easily paid 50% higher interest rates (I'm guessing but a lot higher than 1%) and still been in profit!!! They didn't have a guaranteed percentage for reinvests or lower amounts so could have easily carried on without even changing the terms of the loans!

Regarding the fees, my wallet lets me choose and I didn't choose the fastest, but low/medium. I set it also to dynamic fees so it can tell how much is needed for certain speeds. I would have paid even more if I wanted it to be faster but any slower wasn't much cheaper so I set it to medium speed.

EDIT: Just did the calculation and at 1.5% per day that is about 56% per month and 200X in a year. The coin was initially valued at sub-$1 in the ICO and I think fell to 16cents early on but went up to near $500 all in a year so the 1% wasn't excessive at all. 1% daily is only 35X in a year!!!

So what's your goal here?

I don't understand why you insist on trying to argue with people who know far more about Crypto than you do, all you are doing is accruing more negative trust.

This thing is dead in the water, it's over jim, sell your coins (if you have any left) and learn from your mistakes.

Here, I'll even link a couple news articles for you.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitconnect-ponzi-scheme-no-sympathy-from-crypto-community

https://www.coindesk.com/bitconnect-investors-left-lurch-tokens-price-drops-90/

https://news.bitcoin.com/not-content-with-scamming-1-5-billion-bitconnect-wants-another-500-million-for-its-ico/

There is a very good chance that current exchanges will delist BCC in order to avoid legal trouble and all remaining Coins will be worth $0

Are you serious? I already pointed out the factually incorrect statements from some of those stories (about them running off with bitcoins etc). All they had left when they closed the lending were the same BCC tokens some people are saying are now worthless - the same ones they left all the investors with as that was the only currency the lending platform used (although they were paid in relation to the USD value of the coins when they were lent or when they are withdrawn from the lending wallet). Why would they want their millions of BCC to be worthless (which they stake hundreds of thousands of each month)? I also showed they didn't dump them either (they were more than likely buying them cheap the other day). Actually if I look on the rich list, there has basically been no recent activity on many addresses and I don't think they stake from those largest wallets either.

There are hundreds of these coins and BCC is nowhere near as bad as most of the coins on exchanges. A lot of them are pure scams that get dumped on by the devs and you say you know a lot about crypto? There are no laws about these coins in most countries and bitconnect lending wasn't operating as a ponzi when they stopped it.


I am not posting for any particular reason other than to try to correct people's prejudices (which seldom works anyway due to the little understood 'backfire effect'). I just tend to go on a bit sometimes  

"The Texas SSB is wrong!!! BitConnect is NOT a Ponzi."

<as they pealed rubber upon exiting the building, leaving the lights on for Investards so to think somebody's home>

I just addressed the Texan thing in the above post but are you now doing your own lending platform (your signature):

"The cryptoverse is now populated with neophyte enthusiasts, many who were first introduced to crypto via stumbling upon the likes of BitConnect with their jury's-still-out lending programs, regarded by some as being unsustainable over the long haul. Regardless if the sentiment is accurate or not, the truth of the matter is that there are now countless folks acclimated with the lending platform model as a means to [hopefully] enrich themselves in the crypto space.

After the quasi-success of BitConnect, myriad clones of the model sprung up, many of which immediately vanished at their ICOs' end, leaving some participates spooked while others sought out, then enrolled into yet another pseudo-promising lending platform clone, both groups possessing lighter pocketbooks after participating in rogue entities.

What makes this LendFunding endeavor sound is that the person behind it is well-known in the space, i.e. not hiding his vitals, and the entity of which initial funding is sought - YuTü.Co.in - has a solid foundation business model, primed for long-term growth in tokenizing YouTuber channels of opted-in YouTubers."

I thought you were from USA too and didn't you scare another lending platform off and made them close down with everyone's money (Elektra)? If you hadn't exposed them they would have probably made many people lots of money unless it was their intention all along to disappear.

I am in the US. Thanks for quoting my content, bud. Notice the lack of grammatical errors?   If by chance you were alluding to my lending program as some sort of Ponzi scheme, sadly you're mistaken, for in spite of its name - LendFunding - the lending program was limited in nature to garner initial funding and as a means to reward early adopters. That was all.

Quoting a snippet from your other post ...

Also, you must see that the ICO limit on bitconnectx gets sold every day?? Over a quarter of a million BitconnectX.

Question: Do you have the link to the blockchain depicting even one BCCX transaction, albeit seeing a quarter of a million BCCX transferred would be nice?

[AGM76]

Bitconnect was not an investment. It was a scam, it collapsed, the last ones to hold the bag got stuck with near-worthless tokens. That's how these scams work. There is no feasible way for "everyone" to make 30% per month. Such investments don't exist. It's not "bad press" that made people lose their money. It's the scammers. With some help from shills like you.

What I don't like, is idiots saying the scam 'collapsed' when they never collapsed. They always paid less BCC in interest than was lent to them in the lending system. It would have carried on fine without all these people saying it was a Ponzi etc. It is obvious to any sane person who isn't traumatised enough to have to believe these Ponzi stories to psychologically survive.

Also, as I explained before, to send just 6BTC from my wallet at a normal fee range (few hundreds satoshis per byte) I had to pay hundreds of dollars. My wallet wouldn't have charged me more than I needed to pay but obviously most wallets like electrum generate lots of inputs etc so the more you send the more the fee would be.

Oh I seem to deleted what I wrote before but basically those were normal charges for sending that amount of BTC from my wallet, in the last few days I gave examples to before.

Instead of just typing it I will copy and paste the images from electrum below from a couple of transactions in the last two days:

You're an utter idiot. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put it.

So what part don't you agree with?? Bitconnect always profited in BCC from the lending system and didn't need to take BCC from new lenders to pay old ones. So it wasn't a ponzi. When someone lent 1BCC for example, by the end of the term the capital release would only cost bitconnect say 0.1BCC if the coin had gone up 10 times in that 8 months or whatever (in practice it only took a few months to go 10X) and the interest paid was also far lower than the gain in the coin price. They could have easily paid 50% higher interest rates (I'm guessing but a lot higher than 1%) and still been in profit!!! They didn't have a guaranteed percentage for reinvests or lower amounts so could have easily carried on without even changing the terms of the loans!

Regarding the fees, my wallet lets me choose and I didn't choose the fastest, but low/medium. I set it also to dynamic fees so it can tell how much is needed for certain speeds. I would have paid even more if I wanted it to be faster but any slower wasn't much cheaper so I set it to medium speed.

EDIT: Just did the calculation and at 1.5% per day that is about 56% per month and 200X in a year. The coin was initially valued at sub-$1 in the ICO and I think fell to 16cents early on but went up to near $500 all in a year so the 1% wasn't excessive at all. 1% daily is only 35X in a year!!!

So what's your goal here?

I don't understand why you insist on trying to argue with people who know far more about Crypto than you do, all you are doing is accruing more negative trust.

This thing is dead in the water, it's over jim, sell your coins (if you have any left) and learn from your mistakes.

Here, I'll even link a couple news articles for you.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitconnect-ponzi-scheme-no-sympathy-from-crypto-community

https://www.coindesk.com/bitconnect-investors-left-lurch-tokens-price-drops-90/

https://news.bitcoin.com/not-content-with-scamming-1-5-billion-bitconnect-wants-another-500-million-for-its-ico/

There is a very good chance that current exchanges will delist BCC in order to avoid legal trouble and all remaining Coins will be worth $0

Are you serious? I already pointed out the factually incorrect statements from some of those stories (about them running off with bitcoins etc). All they had left when they closed the lending were the same BCC tokens some people are saying are now worthless - the same ones they left all the investors with as that was the only currency the lending platform used (although they were paid in relation to the USD value of the coins when they were lent or when they are withdrawn from the lending wallet). Why would they want their millions of BCC to be worthless (which they stake hundreds of thousands of each month)? I also showed they didn't dump them either (they were more than likely buying them cheap the other day). Actually if I look on the rich list, there has basically been no recent activity on many addresses and I don't think they stake from those largest wallets either.

There are hundreds of these coins and BCC is nowhere near as bad as most of the coins on exchanges. A lot of them are pure scams that get dumped on by the devs and you say you know a lot about crypto? There are no laws about these coins in most countries and bitconnect lending wasn't operating as a ponzi when they stopped it.


I am not posting for any particular reason other than to try to correct people's prejudices (which seldom works anyway due to the little understood 'backfire effect'). I just tend to go on a bit sometimes  

"The Texas SSB is wrong!!! BitConnect is NOT a Ponzi."

<as they pealed rubber upon exiting the building, leaving the lights on for Investards so to think somebody's home>

I just addressed the Texan thing in the above post but are you now doing your own lending platform (your signature):

"The cryptoverse is now populated with neophyte enthusiasts, many who were first introduced to crypto via stumbling upon the likes of BitConnect with their jury's-still-out lending programs, regarded by some as being unsustainable over the long haul. Regardless if the sentiment is accurate or not, the truth of the matter is that there are now countless folks acclimated with the lending platform model as a means to [hopefully] enrich themselves in the crypto space.

After the quasi-success of BitConnect, myriad clones of the model sprung up, many of which immediately vanished at their ICOs' end, leaving some participates spooked while others sought out, then enrolled into yet another pseudo-promising lending platform clone, both groups possessing lighter pocketbooks after participating in rogue entities.

What makes this LendFunding endeavor sound is that the person behind it is well-known in the space, i.e. not hiding his vitals, and the entity of which initial funding is sought - YuTü.Co.in - has a solid foundation business model, primed for long-term growth in tokenizing YouTuber channels of opted-in YouTubers."

I thought you were from USA too and didn't you scare another lending platform off and made them close down with everyone's money (Elektra)? If you hadn't exposed them they would have probably made many people lots of money unless it was their intention all along to disappear.

I am in the US. Thanks for quoting my content, bud. Notice the lack of grammatically errors?   If by chance you were alluding to my lending program as some sort of Ponzi scheme, sadly you're mistaken, for in spite of its name, the lending program was limited in nature to garner initial funding and as a means to reward early adopters. That was all.

Quoting a snippet from your other post ...

Also, you must see that the ICO limit on bitconnectx gets sold every day?? Over a quarter of a million BitconnectX.

Question: Do you have the link to the blockchain depicting even one BCCX transaction, albeit seeing a quarter of a million BCCX transferred would be nice?

Don't know if they have a blockchain yet, but do you not think they are actually selling that much? They were selling out before the BCC offer so that would have been $13million they were raising each day (it's actually over 260k they seem to sell each day)??

[YuTü.Co.in]

Believe or not, I corrected that and a couple other minor issues while you were quoting me, bud. Nice catch, just the same.

[zintips]

There is a very good chance that current exchanges will delist BCC in order to avoid legal trouble and all remaining Coins will be worth $0

What's this $110? I think someone else mentioned it but it's $150 per BCC for bitconnectx.  I also pointed out that the Cease and Desist order didn't understand what staking was (it seemed to want to know what company was responsible for paying the staked funds lol) and said it was a security. So how can you take what they say about the lending seriously?

Also, you must see that the ICO limit on bitconnectx gets sold every day?? Over a quarter of a million BitconnectX.  Have you tried buying in some of these lending ICOs (bitconnect-clones) lately?? They all are almost impossible to buy usually. I was never able to get any UnixCoin or UcoinCash as it was always too many buyers even though you usually get many days/rounds to try and buy (incidentally, they are both now worth a lot more than the ICO price).

======================================================
AQM76,

Is buying a BCCX coin at $50 have the same odds as winning a Lotto ticket? When all hands trigger the buy signal at the same time (+/- a few seconds) do they all go into a time out of never return? waiting for confirmation? .... to me when the exchange does not reply sold out or not, it means nothing was sold but maybe only to program insiders, not fairly handled. [/b]


The $110 was a typo meant to be $150.

No matter how you cut it bitconnect is out business and the floating bcc coins are like gypsies and no home and at some point, they will be 0.

Now Bitconnect site shows BCC at $17.99 and Bitconnect X at $150. A hallucination? it just does not make legal sense.

Those bcc coins now at $150 inside bitconnect X, are not market value and at any time they can go to 0 value (unilaterally) after the BCCX $50 ICO is complete. It's out of the control of the bcc coin holders. What is the catalyst you see that will bring bcc coins up once BCCX coins go trading? I believe that the whole idea of getting bcc coins trapped in the $150 value inside bitconnectX is to get the slack out of bcc trading in other exchanges. Maybe they want to fool the market is dead to the Cease and Desist order.

[shogun47]

My thoughts:

The Market crashed and so they have not enough $ to pay for our lending. DDOS is possible, but was just a gut Moment to exit. There was to no Time a fucking Trading Bot.

The will try to get the Price for BCC up. They will use ist still for BCC Pay and for the new Plattform.

When the Market goes up, the BCC will go up soon. It will take a while.

dont dream too much. volume shrinks i see this coin already at 4 dollars or less

Absolutely and what the heck should they do to get the price back to $200 - $300 +? That's what's required to get the system going again, and it won't happen. All those supporters who helped getting the price to where it was are now gone. And you don't really think that new people will stream in and get BCC going again...

[germsite]

I can understand the despair of the people, what I can not understand is that BCC continues to be bought and that people sell their houses to buy it...

People were crazy to sell their houses when BCC didn't crash. But anyone selling their houses now to get into BCC, LOL! I don't know what to say about them

Crazy people, this is irrational behavior, BCC prices are still at a low ebb and did not rebound absolutely

Insanely crazy and I would really love to know whether that story is true. How in the world can someone sell his house for Bitconnect Coins? Even hard to feel sad for them.

[Calidude]

Seems people are rushing to get some losses back from bitconnect. Thorn seems to be the new ICo.. which seems somewhat optimmistic  as seen at http://www.topinvest.win/2018/01/new-promising-ico-for-january-2018.html

What the odds of every investor getting a thorn in the Arse and wallet?

[tvtinh]

Is BCC dead after the lending platform closed? I think the BCCX will be dead soon. Any updates?

[canibalgb]

Seems people are rushing to get some losses back from bitconnect. Thorn seems to be the new ICo.. which seems somewhat optimmistic  as seen at http://www.topinvest.win/2018/01/new-promising-ico-for-january-2018.html

Wow, I'm going to sell my house and invest in this new opportunity. 

[arallmuus]

Is BCC dead after the lending platform closed? I think the BCCX will be dead soon. Any updates?

Pretty much dead as of now, It doesnt really matter because sooner or later all scams will end. Unless they end their operation, they wont be able to scrap big amount of money

[vipthree]

Is BCC dead after the lending platform closed? I think the BCCX will be dead soon. Any updates?

Pretty much dead as of now, It doesnt really matter because sooner or later all scams will end. Unless they end their operation, they wont be able to scrap big amount of money

Hopefully it does. The market should become more rational sooner or later.

[alexkid]

Never encourage scammers. There are so many good projects in crypto world.

[hroub]

My only questions are:

1) Why did they bother to refund BCC? They could have just kept their website off and save on domain money and not refund anything
2) Don't scammers just shut down, stop communicating and disappear?

I'm a skeptic, so I still havent decided what they are. I know they are admittedly a pyramid scheme, but pyramids aren't necessary scammers, especially if they are upfront about them being a pyramid. I believe time will tell. If they indeed refund less than 2 month old accounts, that would be a non-scammer move in my book.

[SeaSoul]

My only questions are:

1) Why did they bother to refund BCC? They could have just kept their website off and save on domain money and not refund anything
2) Don't scammers just shut down, stop communicating and disappear?

I'm a skeptic, so I still havent decided what they are. I know they are admittedly a pyramid scheme, but pyramids aren't necessary scammers, especially if they are upfront about them being a pyramid. I believe time will tell. If they indeed refund less than 2 month old accounts, that would be a non-scammer move in my book.

Are they actually publicly known in any way? They are responsible for $2 billion just disappearing. Imagine authorities find them. That could end really badly for them so maybe they are trying to limit the harm now as much as possible and demonstrate good intent. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes even with that money.

[boopy265420]

They don't have from where to refund money back but they want to keep on going for other some period and easy by easy will shut down completely. This is visible and understandable scenario the way they are moving ahead by asking another $500 million which no one with brain is going throw again.

[Crestington]

Bitconnect was not an investment. It was a scam, it collapsed, the last ones to hold the bag got stuck with near-worthless tokens. That's how these scams work. There is no feasible way for "everyone" to make 30% per month. Such investments don't exist. It's not "bad press" that made people lose their money. It's the scammers. With some help from shills like you.

What I don't like, is idiots saying the scam 'collapsed' when they never collapsed. They always paid less BCC in interest than was lent to them in the lending system. It would have carried on fine without all these people saying it was a Ponzi etc. It is obvious to any sane person who isn't traumatised enough to have to believe these Ponzi stories to psychologically survive.

Also, as I explained before, to send just 6BTC from my wallet at a normal fee range (few hundreds satoshis per byte) I had to pay hundreds of dollars. My wallet wouldn't have charged me more than I needed to pay but obviously most wallets like electrum generate lots of inputs etc so the more you send the more the fee would be.

Oh I seem to deleted what I wrote before but basically those were normal charges for sending that amount of BTC from my wallet, in the last few days I gave examples to before.

Instead of just typing it I will copy and paste the images from electrum below from a couple of transactions in the last two days:

You're an utter idiot. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put it.

So what part don't you agree with?? Bitconnect always profited in BCC from the lending system and didn't need to take BCC from new lenders to pay old ones. So it wasn't a ponzi. When someone lent 1BCC for example, by the end of the term the capital release would only cost bitconnect say 0.1BCC if the coin had gone up 10 times in that 8 months or whatever (in practice it only took a few months to go 10X) and the interest paid was also far lower than the gain in the coin price. They could have easily paid 50% higher interest rates (I'm guessing but a lot higher than 1%) and still been in profit!!! They didn't have a guaranteed percentage for reinvests or lower amounts so could have easily carried on without even changing the terms of the loans!

Regarding the fees, my wallet lets me choose and I didn't choose the fastest, but low/medium. I set it also to dynamic fees so it can tell how much is needed for certain speeds. I would have paid even more if I wanted it to be faster but any slower wasn't much cheaper so I set it to medium speed.

EDIT: Just did the calculation and at 1.5% per day that is about 56% per month and 200X in a year. The coin was initially valued at sub-$1 in the ICO and I think fell to 16cents early on but went up to near $500 all in a year so the 1% wasn't excessive at all. 1% daily is only 35X in a year!!!

So what's your goal here?

I don't understand why you insist on trying to argue with people who know far more about Crypto than you do, all you are doing is accruing more negative trust.

This thing is dead in the water, it's over jim, sell your coins (if you have any left) and learn from your mistakes.

Here, I'll even link a couple news articles for you.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitconnect-ponzi-scheme-no-sympathy-from-crypto-community

https://www.coindesk.com/bitconnect-investors-left-lurch-tokens-price-drops-90/

https://news.bitcoin.com/not-content-with-scamming-1-5-billion-bitconnect-wants-another-500-million-for-its-ico/

There is a very good chance that current exchanges will delist BCC in order to avoid legal trouble and all remaining Coins will be worth $0

Are you serious? I already pointed out the factually incorrect statements from some of those stories (about them running off with bitcoins etc). All they had left when they closed the lending were the same BCC tokens some people are saying are now worthless - the same ones they left all the investors with as that was the only currency the lending platform used (although they were paid in relation to the USD value of the coins when they were lent or when they are withdrawn from the lending wallet). Why would they want their millions of BCC to be worthless (which they stake hundreds of thousands of each month)? I also showed they didn't dump them either (they were more than likely buying them cheap the other day). Actually if I look on the rich list, there has basically been no recent activity on many addresses and I don't think they stake from those largest wallets either.

There are hundreds of these coins and BCC is nowhere near as bad as most of the coins on exchanges. A lot of them are pure scams that get dumped on by the devs and you say you know a lot about crypto? There are no laws about these coins in most countries and bitconnect lending wasn't operating as a ponzi when they stopped it.


I am not posting for any particular reason other than to try to correct people's prejudices (which seldom works anyway due to the little understood 'backfire effect'). I just tend to go on a bit sometimes  

"The Texas SSB is wrong!!! BitConnect is NOT a Ponzi."

<as they pealed rubber upon exiting the building, leaving the lights on for Investards so to think somebody's home>[/center]

I just addressed the Texan thing in the above post but are you now doing your own lending platform (your signature):

"The cryptoverse is now populated with neophyte enthusiasts, many who were first introduced to crypto via stumbling upon the likes of BitConnect with their jury's-still-out lending programs, regarded by some as being unsustainable over the long haul. Regardless if the sentiment is accurate or not, the truth of the matter is that there are now countless folks acclimated with the lending platform model as a means to [hopefully] enrich themselves in the crypto space.

After the quasi-success of BitConnect, myriad clones of the model sprung up, many of which immediately vanished at their ICOs' end, leaving some participates spooked while others sought out, then enrolled into yet another pseudo-promising lending platform clone, both groups possessing lighter pocketbooks after participating in rogue entities.

What makes this LendFunding endeavor sound is that the person behind it is well-known in the space, i.e. not hiding his vitals, and the entity of which initial funding is sought - YuTü.Co.in - has a solid foundation business model, primed for long-term growth in tokenizing YouTuber channels of opted-in YouTubers."

I thought you were from USA too and didn't you scare another lending platform off and made them close down with everyone's money (Elektra)? If you hadn't exposed them they would have probably made many people lots of money unless it was their intention all along to disappear.

I am in the US. Thanks for quoting my content, bud. Notice the lack of grammatical errors?   If by chance you were alluding to my lending program as some sort of Ponzi scheme, sadly you're mistaken, for in spite of its name - LendFunding - the lending program was limited in nature to garner initial funding and as a means to reward early adopters. That was all.

Quoting a snippet from your other post ...

Also, you must see that the ICO limit on bitconnectx gets sold every day?? Over a quarter of a million BitconnectX.

Question: Do you have the link to the blockchain depicting even one BCCX transaction, albeit seeing a quarter of a million BCCX transferred would be nice?

You are wrong that they didn't dump https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcc/#!overview go look through the days of the crash to see Millions of BCC hitting the exchange. Those green candles you saw are them selling, and can be achieved by breaking all walls down to less than 10% of the price and then placing new, bigger sell walls for people to buy into.

Seeing a number on the screen means nothing, people thought that Zenpool was mining but it turned out to just be a script.

But there is no BCCX Block explorer, and there is no escrow so you don't know anything anyways.

Most likely scenario is that they just keep all the BTC and sell all the BCC that comes in for the ICO for more BTC once walls increase because it seems like a good deal to be able to buy BCC for $17 so that later on you can sell it for $150  

[nikochanbtc]

I think that this project requires more careful observation