[ANN][BCC] Bitconnect Coin - Decentralized Cryptocurrency

[AGM76]

Of course it has a future.


A blockchain does not just DIE on its own. You technically cant get rid of it.


All these CRYBABIES neglect to mention they got so RICH off of BCC.

November of 2016 BCC ran the ICO and these CRYBABIES got 1400 BCC for a mere $750 (1 BTC at the time). That is a mere 50 cents for 1 BCC and they could EASILY sell it for over $300 just a month ago. And they probably did.


Now they say crap about BCC to buy it all back in millions.

I am going to HODL my BCC for a very long time.

People forget. Bad news die. Blockchains dont die.

WOW .....  LOL       It's at $2 now ... Looks like Hitbtc delisted it a while ago.  Writing is on the wall my friend.  Pretty soon it will be worth ZERO when no exchanges will sell it anymore. 

Have you looked at the chart? Bitconnneeeeect



Well we have to hope bitconnectx have their exchange ready soon or someone gets it listed on tradesatoshi.com for a bitcoin or so haha

[1713941249]

1713941249

[1713941249]

1713941249

[1713941249]

1713941249

[AGM76]

Oh it's already on Tradesatoshi lol it might be the only one left soon.

[anderson888]

the last tweet with Putin was a hint.)))

[YuTü.Co.in]

Why the government does not subponea Cloudfare, Inc

We don't know that. It might show up here but this is only aggregated info so no way to know for sure:

https://www.cloudflare.com/transparency/

We could also watch PACER or state court records but those wouldn't show anything until a lawsuit is filed. Investigation details are rarely public.

Besides I have little doubt that the servers behind Cloudflare are about as anonymous as possible. The only hope for law enforcement is that the scammers messed up somewhere, like Ulbricht with his gmail address.

How is it that server operators who move extremely important data across the [flat] globe are exempt from KYC et al. laws?

Investard: Yes, I would like to withdraw my U$10 from your exchange.
Exchange: Please provide 18 forms of ID and we'll get back with you in no less than two months while we conduct a review (read: sell your vitals on the Deep Web).
ISIS: I need you to anonymously host a website for me so that I can communicate with my troops on the ground.
Server Operator: No prob, dude. Would you like the server behind curtain number one, curtain number two, or ...

Meanwhile, ...

FBI: Mr. Server Dude, please provide all you have on the Silk Road website admin.
Server Dude: No prob, but please make up a believable story as to how you obtained the info.
FBI: We'll do our job as we suggest to you to shut up and do your job upon request, else it's a fake drowning in a hotel bathtub for your icy ass.
Server Dude: Hey, I have a racist Mormon friend who fucks his daughter and owns a bathtub company. Can we use one of his tubs to stage said act?
FBI: Damn, I didn't see that in the script for the upcoming FOX movie of the week. Come to think of it, I now wonder who's playin' the role of the racist daughter-fucker Mormon, Curtis Green, an active member of the BitcoinTalk forum whose Merit count thingy is on the rise due to his informative posts.
Server Dude: Speakin' of Mormons, how you're mega data mining farm structure where all pipes lead comin' along there in Utah?

[ololajulo]

This is web Bitcoin mining invest hourly
payment auto instanly with perfectmoney
https://bitservervn.com

participants should be careful most especially when money can be requested.

[AGM76]

This site is calling lending 'staking' and it only pays in coins. Obviously, this is normally done automatically with PoS coins when held in desktop wallets, but this is hosted on the website.

So all the bitconnect haters, would you call these 'ponzis' too (obviously bitcoin wouldn't be, though  )  as they pay variable interest each day? This time they pay in coins so it doesn't depend on the value of the coins at the time of the lend either.  Anyone care to explain how this 'staking' is better than lending when lending actually pays less coins back (in bitconnect's case) and makes the company and the lender actual profits ! !



It seems this 'staking' is far worse for the investor as it means constant inflation.

[Karitra1]

Bitconnect coin ded ? 

[Vint.Cerf]

Bitconnect coin ded ? 

Platform ded, coin still in ICU. Looks like he's not gunna make it.

[flashbit]

Hi,

really I can't understand how people can believe in such crypto lending programs. I can't understand how people can invest hard earned money after watching a stupid video on youtube. Or maybe I do :
Greed is the worst enemy with lack of education. Uneducated people who don't want to listen to more experimented people will always lose. People who don't want to learn by themselves will always lose.

[kurniawan05]

This is web Bitcoin mining invest hourly
payment auto instanly with perfectmoney
https://bitservervn.com

dont spam here, this is out of topic.

[kurniawan05]

Bitconnect coin ded ? 

Platform ded, coin still in ICU. Looks like he's not gunna make it.

I think The coin will be dead too, we will see what will happen in future soon.

[YuTü.Co.in]

Bitconnect coin ded ? 

Platform ded, coin still in ICU. Looks like he's not gunna make it.

I think The coin will be dead too, we will see what will happen in future soon.

[suchmoon]

some random shitcoining site

The fuck does this have to do with this ponzi thread?

[dooglus]

Coinmarketcap lists the coins with the highest market caps. BitConnect coin had a high market cap for a while when idiots were clamoring to buy it so they could buy into the BitConnect lending Ponzi scam. Coinmarketcap wasn't telling you that the lending program was legit, just that it was popular. They didn't mislead anyone. It was popular.

Then BitConnect exit scammed and the price collapsed. After that, Coinmarketcap's listing reflected the new (much) lower market cap.

What about the responsibility of the idiots who participated in the obvious Ponzi scam even though everyone was posting warnings here all along letting them know it was an obvious Ponzi scam?

How many times have you said Ponzi in that haha...

Three times. I've bolded them for you.

didn't you notice all the adverts and commissions coinmarketcap make from real ponzis like laser.online and bitpetite (their advertising is not cheap but they must also receive referral commissions as they were listed as referring millions of dollars weekly to bitpetite).

No. I don't look at ads. I use ad blocker software to avoid them online.

Did you notice how whenever anyone criticizes BitConnect you change the subject to some other Ponzi that nobody is talking about? That's offtopic. If laser.online is a scam, go tell the people on their thread about it. Nobody here is interested in it. Let's try to stay on topic here.

With Bitconnect, at one point they were around 6th place and overtaking Dash so Dash posted something on their twitter about bitconnect (you can guess what) and coinmarketcap recalculated the circulating supply and they went down to around 16th (I don't know if they guessed the supply or not or how they figured it out). I'm sure some of the less blatant scammers feel it is justified since they realise bitcoin is a Ponzi and people shouldn't be fooled by marketing.

I don't care about what some site reports as the marketcap of a scam. What is important is whether it is a scam or not. You still seem to think it wasn't, and change the subject (to how its marketcap was reported of all things?)

The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end).

That's where you're wrong, and what you should focus on. The model only works if their token keeps increasing in value faster than the interest payments accrue. When the token price stops rising fast enough the scammers have to decide whether to start taking a loss or doing an exit scam. Which of the two do you think they choose?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-07/bitcoin-may-evolve-into-what-everyone-fears-mathematicians-say
"The cryptocurrencies may simply be a mechanism for a transfer of wealth from the late-comers to the early entrants and nimble traders," the authors, Carey Caginalp and Gunduz Caginalp, said in the paper published Wednesday.

And you're offtopic again. Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme, but that's not the subject of discussion in this thread.

[AGM76]

The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end).

That's where you're wrong, and what you should focus on. The model only works if their token keeps increasing in value faster than the interest payments accrue. When the token price stops rising fast enough the scammers have to decide whether to start taking a loss or doing an exit scam. Which of the two do you think they choose?

Actually, that's where you are wrong. All that happens is that they may have to pay more coins instead of less for the interest and capital release. They don't lose money as these coins are free to them and they have a large reserve (which they never even needed to use). The problem when the coin value doesn't rise enough (they can obviously adjust interest rates) is that it will cause inflation. In these situations they also can't take any profits without stealing from other investors by dumping more coins even though they would be stupid to do this as the coin would further lose value (Davor probably did this). Remember that the coin inflates organically with mining and staking at a predictable rate but the lending would normally be deflationary (they can then sell some of the extra coins at some point)

It's not a problem if at times it isn't deflationary as they don't actually lose any profits. Do you understand now why it's a good model as it prevents the company from dumping the coins as if they did that it means they have to pay more coins for the same amount of daily interest?

[YuTü.Co.in]

The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end).

That's where you're wrong, and what you should focus on. The model only works if their token keeps increasing in value faster than the interest payments accrue. When the token price stops rising fast enough the scammers have to decide whether to start taking a loss or doing an exit scam. Which of the two do you think they choose?

Actually, that's where you are wrong. All that happens is that they may have to pay more coins instead of less for the interest and capital release. They don't lose money as these coins are free to them and they have a large reserve (which they never even needed to use). The problem when the coin value doesn't rise enough (they can obviously adjust interest rates) is that it will cause inflation. In these situations they also can't take any profits without stealing from other investors by dumping more coins even though they would be stupid to do this as the coin would further lose value (Davor probably did this). Remember that the coin inflates organically with mining and staking at a predictable rate but the lending would normally be deflationary (they can then sell some of the extra coins at some point)

It's not a problem if at times it isn't deflationary as they don't actually lose any profits. Do you understand now why it's a good model as it prevents the company from dumping the coins as if they did that it means they have to pay more coins for the same amount of daily interest?

If such an excellent business model, then why did they close up shop with its promoters headin' for the hills?

[AGM76]

The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end).

That's where you're wrong, and what you should focus on. The model only works if their token keeps increasing in value faster than the interest payments accrue. When the token price stops rising fast enough the scammers have to decide whether to start taking a loss or doing an exit scam. Which of the two do you think they choose?

Actually, that's where you are wrong. All that happens is that they may have to pay more coins instead of less for the interest and capital release. They don't lose money as these coins are free to them and they have a large reserve (which they never even needed to use). The problem when the coin value doesn't rise enough (they can obviously adjust interest rates) is that it will cause inflation. In these situations they also can't take any profits without stealing from other investors by dumping more coins even though they would be stupid to do this as the coin would further lose value (Davor probably did this). Remember that the coin inflates organically with mining and staking at a predictable rate but the lending would normally be deflationary (they can then sell some of the extra coins at some point)

It's not a problem if at times it isn't deflationary as they don't actually lose any profits. Do you understand now why it's a good model as it prevents the company from dumping the coins as if they did that it means they have to pay more coins for the same amount of daily interest?

If such an excellent business model, then why did they close up shop with its promoters headin' for the hills?

Well bitconnect could have carried on for a while. DAV probably was stealing by creating fake DAV coins and selling them on the internal exchange. You still can't withdraw them to coinexchange which doesn't make sense if they are real lol. Also, even when their internal exchange was pumping, it was very hard to sell your tokens sometimes. They probably were just scamming people in the end.

It was probably the people complaining to the authorities (not the people actually in the program) that caused the problems. The lending platforms used to get lots of people lending but since bitconnect closed the lending, they are all struggling. What they probably need to do is allow capital release at any point with a fee depending on the amount of interest that was paid already.

[suchmoon]

It was probably the people complaining to the authorities (not the people actually in the program) that caused the problems. The lending platforms used to get lots of people lending but since bitconnect closed the lending, they are all struggling. What they probably need to do is allow capital release at any point with a fee depending on the amount of interest that was paid already.

If the complaints were baseless why did they shut it down if they could have continued forever according to you? Perhaps it was more than that, maybe something illegal, like a ponzi scheme?

[dooglus]

THE ONLY REASON PPL ARE BLAMING THE YOUTUBE PROMOTERS IS BECAUSE DEEP DOWN THEY KNOW THEY FKED UP AND GOT THEMSELVES IN A HORRIBLE SITUATION.

People aren't blaming YouTube promoters, they're blaming BitConnect promoters, for promoting an obvious Ponzi scam.

I didn't invest in BitConnect, yet I still think the guys promoting BitConnect while refusing to inform their viewers that it was a scam were in the wrong.

[dooglus]

This site is calling lending 'staking' and it only pays in coins. Obviously, this is normally done automatically with PoS coins when held in desktop wallets, but this is hosted on the website.

So all the bitconnect haters, would you call these 'ponzis' too (obviously bitcoin wouldn't be, though  )  as they pay variable interest each day? This time they pay in coins so it doesn't depend on the value of the coins at the time of the lend either.  Anyone care to explain how this 'staking' is better than lending when lending actually pays less coins back (in bitconnect's case) and makes the company and the lender actual profits ! !

It seems this 'staking' is far worse for the investor as it means constant inflation.

The constant inflation is what makes staking sustainable. If I can inflate the money supply by staking 1% per day, I can afford to pay investors up to 1% per day forever and never go broke. The investors realize that they are investing in and being paid out in an inflating currency. They may find that the value of their investment goes down over time due to the inflated money supply, but at least there's no deception.

BitConnect on the other hand told its investors that they would always be getting back more dollar value than they invested, which isn't what ended up happening. It was inevitable that they wouldn't be able to pay out 0.25% or more per day to their biggest investors in dollar terms forever, because 0.25% per day is impossible to sustain long term - it multiplies your investment by 2.5x every year, or over 9000x every 10 years.

Are you beginning to understand the difference? Staking can continue forever because it isn't magically generating value out of thin air. It creates tokens out of thin air while debasing those tokens at the same time. BitConnect were claiming to be able to create at least 0.25% returns *in USD* every day. That was the red flag for me.