Spectrecoin[XSPEC] TOR+OBFS4, Ring Sig, Stealth! UNMODERATED THREAD

[cryptohunter]

SCAM COIN Spectrecoin[XSPEC]  - SCAM COIN

This thread is for unmoderated discussion of the scam coin xspec.

They are deleting any valid criticisms of their initial distribution.

This project has one of the most narrow distributions of any of the alt coin projects out there.

The ico price for this project was 80sats. The majority was sold to just a handful of people.

It has never been below 2000 sats on the exchange ever. Projects that have a wide distribution will always always at least start near or dip below their ico price at some point. Not start and stay at 25x since ??

This highlights the collusion and insiders agreement to hold the market hostage.

This is a warning to all investors - this is a dangerous project to invest in.

If you see it mentioned in any threads outside of there highly moderated thread that deletes any queries or questions relating to the terrible distribution of this coin alert this thread so that we can start to brand this as a scam coin.

I will shortly be making a detailed thread about this scam on the main alt board.

I encourage others to do so too.

I had at one point believed their terribly narrow initial distribution was due to other factors but their continual deletion of any valid and true statements regarding observable events in their past display now a controlled and rigged environment designed to defraud new investors.


If you have any real question about that project you should direct them here and notify their devs to respond here.

If not you will be held captive inside their moderated scam bubble

If you searched for xpec Spectrecoin or Spectre and found this thread you are one of the lucky ones.

[wosch76]

I don't get your point.
the ICO price was around 80 sats. That's right.
but everyone had the chance to buy coins in the ICO.
it's not the dev's fault that only a few took the chance to do so
that doesn't make it a scam. that's hilarious.
with around 16 BTC it was one of the most undervalued ICOs ever.
why should any of the investors sell near ICO price when this meant a marketcap of 16 BTC
the few lucky ones that invested did it cause they believe in the project.

XSPEC is NO SCAM

[cryptohunter]

I don't get your point.
the ICO price was around 80 sats. That's right.
but everyone had the chance to buy coins in the ICO.
it's not the dev's fault that only a few took the chance to do so
that doesn't make it a scam. that's hilarious.
with around 16 BTC it was one of the most undervalued ICOs ever.
why should any of the investors sell near ICO price when this meant a marketcap of 16 BTC
the few lucky ones that invested did it cause they believed in the project.

XSPEC is NO SCAM

Thanks for posting. Please continue to do so.

I used to almost buy this account of events by xspec whales (community managers and comment deleters )

Now though with the constant deleting of posts even those asking or stating facts regarding actual observable events it begins to look like this is an insider scam.

What is the reason nobody invested in this Spectrecoin ico?

Because they thought it was a scam. So what about if you intentionally made your ico look like a scam so you can say everyone had a chance but decided not too . You are then free to collude and market make to your hearts content.

Wide initial distribution is a REQUIREMENT to fight against collusion and market making.

Narrow distribution no matter the excuse is ripe for scamming.

Their recent actions hightlight the dangers of investing in a project where all the tokens were issued to a handful of people who now wish to protect others from the truth so that the market making and collusion can continue.

I happen to know you are are an Xspec ico investor previous pumper so that should be noted to anyone reading this thread.

[wosch76]

yes I invested a small amount in the ICO and I'm glad I did it.
I invested just a small amount cause I wasn't sure if it is a scam at this time.
I think an important matter that not many invested is that the team choosed to stay anonymous.
I saw the potential of the project so I took the risk and invested and of course tried to support it after the ICO.
that's the truth and nothing but the truth for my part.
I'm just an investor and don't know any of the devs or of any insider whatever.

I don't see any base for your accusations and really don't get what "truth" you are searching for.

[cryptohunter]

yes I invested a small amount in the ICO and I'm glad I did it.
I invested just a small amount cause I wasn't sure if it is a scam at this time.
I think an important matter that not many invested is that the team choosed to stay anonymous.
I saw the potential of the project so I took the risk and invested and of course tried to support it after the ICO.
that's the truth and nothing but the truth for my part.
I'm just an investor and don't know any of the devs or of any insider whatever.

I don't see any base for your accusations and really don't get what "truth" you are searching for.

This is the truth about Spectrecoin xspec

You can not have such narrow initial distribution whatever the excuse it leaves it wide open for collusion and market making as witnessed here.
If this had been widely distributed you would see initial exchange prices near to ico prices or even below at times never 25x minimum

narrow initial distribution - high probability to scam and high probability it is a scam.

wide initial distribution - harder to collude and market make.

it is simple as that.

deleting valid posts and statements from their thread relating to factual observable events is another indication of those in control of the thread and infomation are in control and colluding to hide the facts of the narrow distribution.

even more telling is saying these comments were deleted because of over quoting a post they were referring to
and then deleting it again after the quoting was omitted.
Showing more lies and deceit.

Anyway thanks for confirming you are a xspec ico 80 sats narrow distribution investor. Im not saying you have investor bias but it is possible that you may without realising it.

I mean would you be on this Spectrecoin xspec thread if you were not for example?

[wosch76]

I´m here cause I like the project and want to defend it from wrong accusations.
I can't say for sure that it isn't a scam cause I don't know the devs, but I see absolutely no point to think it is one.

Everybody had the same chance to take part in the ICO.
only few took the risk.
that alone doesn't make it a scam.

there are many overbought ICOs that sell near or even below the ICO price when they hit the exchanges.
but the situation is different here cause of the ridiculously low ICO outcome.
with the huge potential of the project in mind no ICO Investor would be so stupid to give away his coins near ICO prices.
would you have done it? I don't think so.

[vanillagalaxy]

seriously?you open 2 threads(one moderated at altcoin section and another unmoderated at ann) just to mislead people blindly because you see a huge potential of XSPEC with your empty hands?
just in case if you missed or you might delete my post on your moderated thread therefore i quote it here.

first of all,i don't think XSPEC is a scam project,if you are crying about narrow distribution that you missed to participate,then that is your own problem,i didn't participate as well but if i see the potential then i better stock it up before the futher late...i have been seen a lot of case like this...first they cry about unfair and hope to get the same low price like ICO when it goes to 10x....then he missed another 10X and cry again....then he missed another 10X.....finnally he gave up and then crying SCAM!...MANIPULATE!....INSIDER!...blahblahblah....
btw,you shouln't using the fait as well....it is manipulated by a group so called GOVERNMENT!

but i would like to say more here and here is it,most of the users here do not read mandarin as i could(don't get me wrong,i ain't a Chinese),so there are some informations that most of you don't even know how China define an illegal ICO,and this is the answer: an ICO that got the fund from the public if participants exceed 200 people ,so in this case XSPEC not even a scam project at all because who take the risk is less than 100 people and you said it is just 6 right?(actually i know you are wrong but just try to mislead),by that means XSPEC is legal in the China market,right now with its OBFS4 features,i know you know the huge potential behind it and thats why you are triyng so hard with your funny FUD.
god speed to those who holding XSPEC  

[cryptohunter]

seriously?you open 2 threads(one moderated at altcoin section and another unmoderated at ann) just to mislead people blindly because you see a huge potential of XSPEC with your empty hands?
just in case if you missed or you might delete my post on your moderated thread therefore i quote it here.

first of all,i don't think XSPEC is a scam project,if you are crying about narrow distribution that you missed to participate,then that is your own problem,i didn't participate as well but if i see the potential then i better stock it up before the futher late...i have been seen a lot of case like this...first they cry about unfair and hope to get the same low price like ICO when it goes to 10x....then he missed another 10X and cry again....then he missed another 10X.....finnally he gave up and then crying SCAM!...MANIPULATE!....INSIDER!...blahblahblah....
btw,you shouln't using the fait as well....it is manipulated by a group so called GOVERNMENT!

but i would like to say more here and here is it,most of the users here do not read mandarin as i could(don't get me wrong,i ain't a Chinese),so there are some informations that most of you don't even know how China define an illegal ICO,and this is the answer: an ICO that got the fund from the public if participants exceed 200 people ,so in this case XSPEC not even a scam project at all because who take the risk is less than 100 people and you said it is just 6 right?(actually i know you are wrong but just try to mislead),by that means XSPEC is legal in the China market,right now with its OBFS4 features,i know you know the huge potential behind it and thats why you are triyng so hard with your funny FUD.
god speed to those who holding XSPEC  

the thing is I post factual accounts that can be backed up by observable real life events.

You post supposition and speculation based upon your own bias.

This is a key difference.

Nobody can argue that narrow initial distribution leads to collusion and market making. This is what happened here.

Nobody can argue they are deleting all comments about the narrow initial distribution and market making saying they are deleting it because they didnt like you requoting people you are replying too.... totally stupid reason.

Nobody can argue they deleted these comments about the narrow initial distribution even after the requoting was omitted.

There fore anyone can see they are trying to hide this fact.

Trying to hide this fact for one reason they don't want people to know a handful of people control the entire market price and will do for a long period of time.

This is not decentralisation this is centralised collusion and manipulation.

SDC clone with a few tweaks trying to scam people.

If not they why delete factual posts.

[cryptohunter]

I´m here cause I like the project and want to defend it from wrong accusations.
I can't say for sure that it isn't a scam cause I don't know the devs, but I see absolutely no point to think it is one.

Everybody had the same chance to take part in the ICO.
only few took the risk.
that alone doesn't make it a scam.

there are many overbought ICOs that sell near or even below the ICO price when they hit the exchanges.
but the situation is different here cause of the ridiculously low ICO outcome.
with the huge potential of the project in mind no ICO Investor would be so stupid to give away his coins near ICO prices.
would you have done it? I don't think so.

You are not defending it with factual evidence.

Like i said if a group intentionally makes their ico look like a scam to ensure a very narrow initial distribution that is their issue. Even if it is not intentional and you end up with a crazy narrow initial distribution you can not ensure nor prevent collusion and market making.

It is a simple fact.

You have made it wide open for a scam.

This is a trustless environment you are trying to create you cant start off making it open to such manipulation and collusion.

You cant have these same people deleting factual statements from their thread either.

[l10no]

Does not everyone need real evidence for this statement? You are very sure that XSPEC is a scam, prove it, sorry, but all statements you make are not enough to prove it

[cryptohunter]

Does not everyone need real evidence for this statement? You are very sure that XSPEC is a scam, prove it, sorry, but all statements you make are not enough to prove it

With a trustless environment the onus is on proving you can't scam.

Do you not understand.

That is the point of it being trustless. If there is opportunity for collusion and market making then that is already not a trustless environment.

That coupled with the deleting of any mention of factual events regarding the narrow distribution... well.....

If I said you had to put your trust in a project that was initially distributed to 20000 people or 5 people. Which would you bank on there being less opportunity to collude and market make?

If the project distributed to 5 people deleted any mention of this fact and lied about the reason for deletion that adds further to the argument not to trust even though there should be no need to trust or not trust because it is meant to be trustless.

It really is that simple.

If you can refute these points then I await your explanation.

I never called them a scam on their thread I simply said their main issue with adoption is people fear investing in things with proven narrow initial distribution. |They deleted my commments and lied about their reason for doing so. THis is also proven.

[wosch76]

I´m here cause I like the project and want to defend it from wrong accusations.
I can't say for sure that it isn't a scam cause I don't know the devs, but I see absolutely no point to think it is one.

Everybody had the same chance to take part in the ICO.
only few took the risk.
that alone doesn't make it a scam.

there are many overbought ICOs that sell near or even below the ICO price when they hit the exchanges.
but the situation is different here cause of the ridiculously low ICO outcome.
with the huge potential of the project in mind no ICO Investor would be so stupid to give away his coins near ICO prices.
would you have done it? I don't think so.

You are not defending it with factual evidence.

Like i said if a group intentionally makes their ico look like a scam to ensure a very narrow initial distribution that is their issue. Even if it is not intentional and you end up with a crazy narrow initial distribution you can not ensure nor prevent collusion and market making.

It is a simple fact.

You have made it wide open for a scam.

This is a trustless environment you are trying to create you cant start off making it open to such manipulation and collusion.

You cant have these same people deleting factual statements from their thread either.

Ok. Now you say cause of the conditions of the ICO and the initial distribution a scam is a possibility.
that's different from "SCAM confirmed".
I'm curious where you get the number of 6 investors from. please point me to the source.
btw the ICO is about 9 months ago. the distribution doesn't look bad today imo https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xspec/#!rich

the team had choosen to stay anonymous what makes sense to me for a privacy related coin.
this can be a sign for a scam but it's definitely no proof or would you say bitcoin is a scam cause satoshi didn't reveal his identity.

[cryptohunter]

I´m here cause I like the project and want to defend it from wrong accusations.
I can't say for sure that it isn't a scam cause I don't know the devs, but I see absolutely no point to think it is one.

Everybody had the same chance to take part in the ICO.
only few took the risk.
that alone doesn't make it a scam.

there are many overbought ICOs that sell near or even below the ICO price when they hit the exchanges.
but the situation is different here cause of the ridiculously low ICO outcome.
with the huge potential of the project in mind no ICO Investor would be so stupid to give away his coins near ICO prices.
would you have done it? I don't think so.

You are not defending it with factual evidence.

Like i said if a group intentionally makes their ico look like a scam to ensure a very narrow initial distribution that is their issue. Even if it is not intentional and you end up with a crazy narrow initial distribution you can not ensure nor prevent collusion and market making.

It is a simple fact.

You have made it wide open for a scam.

This is a trustless environment you are trying to create you cant start off making it open to such manipulation and collusion.

You cant have these same people deleting factual statements from their thread either.

Ok. Now you say cause of the conditions of the ICO and the initial distribution a scam is a possibility.
that's different from "SCAM confirmed".
I'm curious where you get the number of 6 investors from. please point me to the source.
btw the ICO is about 9 months ago. the distribution doesn't look bad today imo https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xspec/#!rich

the team had choosen to stay anonymous what makes sense to me for a privacy related coin.
this can be a sign for a scam but it's definitely no proof or would you say bitcoin is a scam cause satoshi didn't reveal his identity.

Come on please be sensible you have been here long enough not to ask these questions.

Firstly a rich list - even a noob know that means NOTHING at all. Any whales can break their loot into lots of smaller wallets. Even posting that as part of your argument reveals you are not being genuine else you have learned zero since being here which in either case makes any further points you make redundant.

This is the problem. With a narrow initial distribution you can never know what happens after that point. That's why it can now never be trustless. You can't go from needing trust to trustless. Needing trust is like having faith. There is only ever need of it if there is a point of unknown or ignorance as to what is going on. Once you have this point of ignorance or point of being able to prove trustlessness it is then broken forever.

You need to start trustless.

Asking for proof of 100% scam on an unregulated ico behind the iron curtain of anonymity is a joke.  You have all the pointers there to suggest it then that is all you will ever get. The devs would have be determined themselves to prove it was a scam for it to be revealed as one 100%.

Possibility of scam is enough to need trust.

High probability of scam is enough to avoid it.

This is looking exactly like the 2nd option.

The lies for deleting the comments are my biggest worry with this project but of course no project with such narrow initial distribution can really be taken seriously as a decentralised trustless project.

I merely said that the initial distribution is their biggest issue and they start deleting this saying i was requoting too much. I repost without the requoting they deleted it again. They were lying about their reason for deletion.

Once you see it is one of the most accommodating coins for scamming and they are now the same people moderating and lying for the reason of moderation you start to see how it looks....

That last sentence (as is the rest of my post) is correct refute any part of it if you can.

NARROW INITIAL DISTRIBUTION = NOT TRUSTLESS - HIGH PROBABLITY AND VERY OPEN TO MANIPULATION AND SCAMMING. simple as that.

this needs to be dealt with in all projects but not many are as narrow as this one. Find me 10 others that are as narrow in the entire alt coin world. Actually find me 5. If you can find me 3 that are as narrow I will be shocked. When you are talking top 5 open to manipulation projects in the entire crypto world you start to see the concern.