[ANN] Qora | Released 16 May | 100% POS | New Source

[Mrrr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TsRdkrxl4g

[1714993620]

1714993620

[dzarmush]

Was it Emunie code??

It is bad if it was? Nas is a copy of Nxt but it launched   

Why he can't launch qora whatever clone it is?

well, for starters because NXT is opensource and emunie isnt?

how could he clone emunie if its source wasn't published yet? also emunie client doesn't look like qora client

[TwinWinNerD]

Was it Emunie code??

It is bad if it was? Nas is a copy of Nxt but it launched   

Why he can't launch qora whatever clone it is?

well, for starters because NXT is opensource and emunie isnt?

how could he clone emunie if its source wasn't published yet? also emunie client doesn't look like qora client

It is not that impossible. Google, decompiling.

[jparsley]

Has this coin launched

[dzarmush]

Has this coin launched

Nobody saw dev since yesterday

[Agestorzrxx]

It's not good.
Where is dev?

[notsoshifty]

Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him.  If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?

Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.

Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.

I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.

Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.

As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672

It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.

It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:

I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.

My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
 - prevent double spends
 - uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
 - prevent transaction replays
 - prevent transaction malleability
 - handle fork-related scenarios correctly
 - ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?

This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.

[dzarmush]

Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him.  If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?

Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.

Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.

I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.

Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.

As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672

It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.

It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:

I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.

My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
 - prevent double spends
 - uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
 - prevent transaction replays
 - prevent transaction malleability
 - handle fork-related scenarios correctly
 - ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?

This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.

It makes lots of sense what you're saying. I'm not a programer but visually I see nothing in common between eMunie, Nxt and Qora wallets.

[Issac]

Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him.  If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?

Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.

Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.

I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.

Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.

As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672

It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.

It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:

I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.

My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
 - prevent double spends
 - uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
 - prevent transaction replays
 - prevent transaction malleability
 - handle fork-related scenarios correctly
 - ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?

This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.

Can not blame notsoshifty,I believe he.

[agran]

What dev still has not turned up makes me worry.

[dzarmush]

Come back, man. Let's launch it. Even if it's clone, who gives a fuck. Look what I've drawn.

[PondSea]

Second one looks cool.

[agran]

Second one looks cool.

+1

[hyunsookmom]

Come back, man. Let's launch it. Even if it's clone, who gives a fuck. Look what I've drawn.

hahaha your awesome.

[hyunsookmom]

Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him.  If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?

Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.

Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.

I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.

Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.

As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672

It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.

It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:

I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.

My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
 - prevent double spends
 - uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
 - prevent transaction replays
 - prevent transaction malleability
 - handle fork-related scenarios correctly
 - ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?

This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.

Sorry but you did seem to give an all clear on the code as original and legit. No one is really blaming you and I admit that was a strong statement that wasn't really that serious, but I am suggesting people DID see your comments and assumed everything was all good for the coin. Ultimately more the fool them.

Whose fault is it that people paid money and lost it? Themselves of course but you should also take a bit of personal responsibility by accepting you influenced the conversation.

[niothor]

Heh. +1 for the profile message niothor.

I gambled (investing isn't the right word regarding crypto IPOs) 50 EUR worth of BTC here (no escrow, feels so much better without;). I thought about it for quite some time and then I realized that it all looked a bit to integer to be a scam.

A scam IPO would smear as much honey around the 'investors' lips as possible, without trying to be too obvious. Qora did, at no point, do this. On the contrary, this IPO might have benefited from some extra PR skills. (He didn't even think of posting screenshots until asked for example)

So either this is one of the best executed scams that I've seen in a while, and Qora has deserved my 50 EUR, or he'll pop up sooner or later and all will be well. Until proven otherwise, I still honestly believe he'll show up.

On a sidenote: All you people who 'invested' up to 1500 USD in this: you really should start asking yourselves some questions. "Why?" is the most important one.

Of course we all know what happened after the NXT IPO, but don't let the thought of all the millions you could have made back then make you empty your pockets to obtain the largest possible piece of pie you can get your hands on.

Modesty is a virtue.

Thanks for the thumbs up:).
The alt sections and the new people jumping on every coin launched every second was my source of inspiration. Sad , sad source.

[niothor]

Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him.  If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?

Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.

Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.

I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.

Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.

As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672

It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.

It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:

I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.

My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
 - prevent double spends
 - uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
 - prevent transaction replays
 - prevent transaction malleability
 - handle fork-related scenarios correctly
 - ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?

This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.

Sorry but you did seem to give an all clear on the code as original and legit. No one is really blaming you and I admit that was a strong statement that wasn't really that serious, but I am suggesting people DID see your comments and assumed everything was all good for the coin. Ultimately more the fool them.

Whose fault is it that people paid money and lost it? Themselves of course but you should also take a bit of personal responsibility by accepting you influenced the conversation.

Sorry , but what lost money when this coin was supposed to have an escrow?

[50cent_rapper]

I still don't believe that it is scam.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.

[dzarmush]

I still don't believe that it is scam.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.

Visacoin kept IPO money in the wallet for several month.

Anyhow, I see no reason not to launch it. There is a working beta. People received and sent coins. Why wouldn't he create a genesis and send coins to people. Isn't it that hard.

[hyunsookmom]

I still don't believe that it is scam.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.

Visacoin kept IPO money in the wallet for several month.

Anyhow, I see no reason not to launch it. There is a working beta. People received and sent coins. Why wouldn't he create a genesis and send coins to people. Isn't it that hard.

Thing is did people really use a working beta or did they just use a simple coded wallet transfer system that the guy either copied of another coin or just coded it himself.

I wish someone with real tech knowhow could have a look at the code and decided what this thing really is.

He might just just tell me to sod off But I thinking as I type this to maybe send a PM to someone like Come from Beyond the guy dealing with NXT to have a quick look at it. Anyone else have a good person to ask or know they can ask?