author=Applextramile link=topic=4982802.msg45590125#msg45590125 date=1536769204]
How I tried to measure success of "UltraUpload" so far: By using Google.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q="ultraupload"&oq="ultraupload"Just checking how many results I get and what relevance they have.
"UltraUpload" was launched last year and has been online ever since.
Not much can be found. There's literally nothing going on. As an investor for a download platform that's almost online for a year you would expect something more compelling, wouldn't you?
Sorry , everthing wrong. We never promoted UU, its still in stealth mode. Thats exactly what we did NOT intend. To promote that great technology with our own means (100K) and get poor results. Thats exactly why we will publish and promote the project AFTER the ICO and WITH the means of the ICO. :-)
The costs of promoting the system to endusers (Downloader, Publisher, Uploader) are paid by investors of course. Thats why the coin is so cheap at the moment. A system generating 10 Mio a year would not been offered for 10Mio of course.
As you can calculate yourself on the website, the system makes 50% interest and is more than profitably with approx. 500K user. Even 200K are enough for BreakEven. We have experience bringing a system alive into that area. Last project bringing to 500K uses was made with a 1 Mio $ budget. So we are very sure to reach same results with 5 Mio $. Sure, we have no experience in handling users and scalabilty in range of >5 mio. Here we have to add external know how. But 500K we can handle in all circumstances (Support, server management, traffic balancing, db-balancing etc. ) and that is good enough to generate >20% interest a year. Calculate yourself on the website of SC. We made the casflow, its easy to understand.
As I said before: TCU masters the art of entertaining hopes and has never fulfilled them.
As I answered before , those allegations are wrong. I disproved every single allegation with gouing deep into the details. You don`t honour that effort and just repeat it again and again,. And than you complain of not beeing noticed?
Since their launch back in 2000. Just follow their history and cross-reference their promises with reality over the years. As a result of this I would check closely the plausibility of any answer you may get since the credibility of TCU is quite a bit flawed (just understating things here).
Again and again, you use same methods of defamation. Why?
That customer has shown, that UU integrates well in existing Storage-strategies and user accept those kinds of downloads. We managed to integrate the encrypting of >1000 files/day with the ftp-api and thats why the test was made for. Of course this test was not for switching endusers, cause their business model makes higher profit with their own storage.
Sometimes I get the impression that TCU is either a complete fraud or living in an alternative reality.
I do have same impression from you, but not limited to "sometimes". :-) just kidding, I guess I know why you are such an hater. I guess you lost some money with TC shares while the dotcom buble burst 2000.
Just one example: While bragging about their "Persistent Legal Department" they mention: "Sued by major European Pay TV operator Premiere (now Sky) 2004, pending at European court".
Well, what did happen in short? The guy posting here created a platform for distributing TV streams ("CyberSky-TV"), mostly based on P2P. So far, so good. The issues start with the beginning, because if you are not the owner of content you can't distribute it to your likings. It's usually up to the owner to decide this. It's called "copyright" and it keeps business possible. Anything else ranges from pure socialism to communism or just China in their worst cloning days.
It gets even worse when you start distributing an encrypted signal of pay TV.
So far your words are right... your ly starts in next sentence..
That's what was done.
Sorry thats wrong! a lie again. :-) CTV never sended a single signal. It was sued BEFORE it was ever online, just for providing the potential risk that someone could upload such pay tv streams. :-) Read about the case, it should be public available. The kernel of accusation was, that the article in "new york times" wouzld encourage people to use the system for illegal purpose. But we did not write that article! And we have no influence how a user will use an infrastructure. One can use any infrastructure for legal or illegal purpose. Even the postal office could transport a bomb.
You may also see immediately the conflict here. TCU wants do to business on their own, wants your money and still they don't concede this to others. They just grab what they want, the property of others and try to turn it into revenue, even if they fail all the time. Things maybe would morally be different if this had been some underground piracy group with no interest in making money. But it wasn't.
Thank you for unwillingly confirming, that those infrastructure will generate huge profit. :-) And we are cheap. SC now has a pre money value of 10 Mio for an investor. Storj.io (the other great zero knowledge storage network) is just an idea, very complicated and ambitious development goals and collected 2017 60 Mio. (ICO/VC) with an pre money evaluation of 200 Mio $.So having a zero knowledge storage infrastructure seems to have some value? :-)
Can you explain me where the difference is in the business model of SC and storj.io?
Obviously TCU/Ciburski lost the legal battle and wasn't allowed to stream Premiere/Sky ever after.
Wrong! Its never allowed to stream SKY, if that would have been the question, we would be allowed to go to german supreme court. And even Sky did not say that. It was about promoting illegal use within that article. The question was much more complex. Thats why its now at EUGH Level. (European court level). If someone is intrested in that case, its all public available.
Why the opposite? all systems are running well , its in use :-) Its only me personally (I am the only person on planet not allowed to offer the system, every other person can !! and does! :-))
Speaking of wins and success: "Cybersky-TV" doesn't exist any more.
Yes, cause the case was about advertsing, not about the technology. The technology is legal, not forbidden and widely in use :-) Difficult to understand, so please be more precise. Please read again the court sentences of german supreme court.
