Neo & Bee talk (spam free thread)

[mmeijeri]

@mmeijeri:  As I said, "...everything other than..."

I wasn't sure you had the right number of negatives in there. I don't understand how you can complain Neo was going to have the bad properties of banks. Their goals were sound.

[waveofuture]

If losing money while contributing to mainstream negativity is your idea of success, I apologise.

I would say you haven't an idea of bitcoin's capabilities and breadth, but I don't think that's true.

Oh, so now that I'm posting on a message board and holding "conversations" regarding a matter within the bitcoin community AND not speaking entirely positive on the matter, that's ... that's the problem. Ok? You aren't even sticking to your original assertion from your preceding post. You aren't maintaining any consistency, Chop. In your previous post you stated that this is "disastrous" for me, I rebutted the only way possible at this time, yet you don't acknowledge it and reply with some notion that because I'm here posting in a less-than-positive manner means bitcoin is doomed? I don't understand? I'm not going to be blind to the issues or problems with bitcoin and/or Neo & Bee -  as in, stick my head in the sand. Is that what you're advocating? Of course not. So, again, your post is illogical.

[NotLambchop]

@mmeijeri:  As I said, "...everything other than..."

I wasn't sure you had the right number of negatives in there. I don't understand how you can complain Neo was going to have the bad properties of banks. Their goals were sound.

Care to sum up their goals, along with how profit was going to be generated by achieving those goals?  The TL;DR i could see is all of the bad qualities of a bank ("running off with the fiat") were compounded by "the customer is 100% uninsured."

[NotLambchop]

If losing money while contributing to mainstream negativity is your idea of success, I apologise.

I would say you haven't an idea of bitcoin's capabilities and breadth, but I don't think that's true.

Oh, so now that I'm posting on a message board and holding "conversations" regarding a matter within the bitcoin community AND not speaking entirely positive on the matter, that's ... that's the problem. Ok? You aren't even sticking to your original assertion from your preceding post. You aren't maintaining any consistency, Chop. In your previous post you stated that this is "disastrous" for me, I rebutted the only way possible at this time, yet you don't acknowledge it and reply with some notion that because I'm here posting in a less-than-positive manner means bitcoin is doomed? I don't understand? I'm not going to be blind to the issues or problems with bitcoin and/or Neo & Bee -  as in, stick my head in the sand. Is that what you're advocating? Of course not. So, again, your post is illogical.

You claimed that this "investment" was not a disaster for u.
I offered an apology.  Apparently losing money and bad press 4 Bitcoin are a desirable outcome 4 u.
Where do you see a problem?

P.S:  Taking the outlandishly improbable hypothetical -- NeoBee succeeds beyond your wildest dreams:  Your "investment" could now be bought at a tiny fraction of the coin you have invested.  Tiny.  So there is no question of losses here, only whether your losses are total.

[mmeijeri]

Care to sum up their goals, along with how profit was going to be generated by achieving those goals?  The TL;DR i could see is all of the bad qualities of a bank ("running off with the fiat") were compounded by "the customer is 100% uninsured."

That only applies to the pegged accounts. For BTC accounts the promise was Bitcoin payments with the convenience of electronic euro payments, including protection from theft, combined with a protection from bail-ins. In order to run a profit they'd have to charge fees, just like banks.

[waveofuture]

You claimed that this "investment" was not a disaster for u.
I offered an apology.  Apparently losing money and bad press 4 Bitcoin are a desirable outcome 4 u.
Where do you see a problem?

Well, from the onset of this exchange between you and I, I clearly stated that we're both working off of incomplete information.

Nevertheless, we seem to be holding this conversation from different starting points. Your above post is totally wrong and another twisting of the issue. You're like a professional spinner, either intentionally or unintentionally.

[NotLambchop]

Care to sum up their goals, along with how profit was going to be generated by achieving those goals?  The TL;DR i could see is all of the bad qualities of a bank ("running off with the fiat") were compounded by "the customer is 100% uninsured."

That only applies to the pegged accounts. For BTC accounts the promise was Bitcoin payments with the convenience of electronic euro payments, including protection from theft, combined with a protection from bail-ins. In order to run a profit they'd have to charge fees, just like banks.

To sum up:
Uninsured pegged accounts with all the drawbacks of conventional banks + uninsured.
Extra fees for using Bitcoin.
Not a bank.

[NotLambchop]

You claimed that this "investment" was not a disaster for u.
I offered an apology.  Apparently losing money and bad press 4 Bitcoin are a desirable outcome 4 u.
Where do you see a problem?

Well, from the onset of this exchange between you and I, I clearly stated that we're both working off of incomplete information.

Nevertheless, we seem to be holding this conversation from different starting points. Your above post is totally wrong and another twisting of the issue. You're like a professional spinner, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Nah.  Moar like ur a professional rube who don't quite logic.

[waveofuture]

Nah.  Moar like ur a professional rube who don't quite logic.

Ok, dude. Ok. You're brilliant and your intelligence is beyond the pale of anyone on the Earth. You can't lower your self to accepting that the shit you say may possibly be wrong. Because, well... you're just, like, the most brilliant person ev4r.

Edit: Your hubris, egotistical on-line personality seethes through your posts. Quite off-putting. If you want to help people, make friends, sound the alarm, I recommend you find another way to behave. Because, at this rate, I don't know if you're just a fucking jack-ov that likes to speak negatively about people and bitcoin for fun, or someone truly interested in the success of bitcoin. Since there's confusion on my part, that doesn't bode well for you, as if you were one to truly care about bitcoin's success, I don't think you'd behave the way you do (in this thread, with me, at least).

[mmeijeri]

To sum up:
Uninsured pegged accounts with all the drawbacks of conventional banks + uninsured.
Extra fees for using Bitcoin.
Not a bank.

You keep coming back to the pegged accounts. That's the only part that had the disadvantages of a bank. I'm talking about the rest of their activities. Also: even the pegged accounts could have limited counterparty risk to the peg itself, with the peg itself being conditional on the BTC being released to Neo. Then they still couldn't have run off with your BTC.

[NotLambchop]

To sum up:
Uninsured pegged accounts with all the drawbacks of conventional banks + uninsured.
Extra fees for using Bitcoin.
Not a bank.

You keep coming back to the pegged accounts. That's the only part that had the disadvantages of a bank. I'm talking about the rest of their activities. Also: even the pegged accounts could have limited counterparty risk to the peg itself, with the peg itself being conditional on the BTC being released to Neo. Then they still couldn't have run off with your BTC.

Look, i made tried to make it clear with the "saving kittens" bit.  If a slaughterhouse lists "saving kittens" as a part of its business model, it neither stops being a slaughterhouse, nor does it explain how it intends to make money by saving kittens.
And yes, many hypotheticals could be created where Neo is a good thing.  Sure, money could be made with honest money services -- it happens.  Unfortunately, nothing in the Neo prospectus describes how it plans to go about doing that.  Don't send your coin to strangers who make nice sounding vague promises.

[NotLambchop]

...you're just a fucking jack-ov that likes to speak negatively about people and bitcoin...

This Neoscam is as much about Bitcoin as a child molesting priest is about Christianity.
The thing that pisses me off is Bitcoin is dragged down into the gutter just like Christianity -- assholes use it, it BAD!

[waveofuture]

Look, i made tried to make it clear with the "saving kittens" bit.  If a slaughterhouse lists "saving kittens" as a part of its business model, it neither stops being a slaughterhouse, nor does it explain how it intends to make money by saving kittens.
And yes, many hypotheticals could be created where Neo is a good thing.  Sure, money could be made with honest money services -- it happens.  Unfortunately, nothing in the Neo prospectus describes how it plans to go about doing that.  Don't send your coin to strangers who make nice sounding vague promises.

I think that a lot of things you're saying make a lot of sense. There were certainly red-flags. I read the prospectus and had many of the same sentiments, but decided to take the risk because the potential to make a real difference, both monetarily and socially, was worth it. Regardless, you're right: don't send your coin to strangers who make nice sounding vague promises, unless you're ready to take a, what?, 80/20 chance of losing it. This is hopefully a learning experience for everyone involved.

Edit: When I read the tweet that Danny made while in the parliamentary (a la something about den of sin) I should have known that that guy was not the proper NB CEO start-up material. I agree with the substance of the tweet, but a leader of something as potentially game-changing as NB doesn't need to be publicly announcing stuff like that. I justified it away... let's learn from this MFers.

[waveofuture]

The thing that pisses me of is Bitcoin is dragged down into the gutter...

Technically, like you said, I think it's a disaster, too. And it's damn near rage-inducing when the gutter keeps making appearances. But, do you really think that this issue/fraud/mismanagement is really the death knell of bitcoin? That's what I took from one of your posts.

[mmeijeri]

Look, i made tried to make it clear with the "saving kittens" bit.  If a slaughterhouse lists "saving kittens" as a part of its business model, it neither stops being a slaughterhouse, nor does it explain how it intends to make money by saving kittens.
And yes, many hypotheticals could be created where Neo is a good thing.  Sure, money could be made with honest money services -- it happens.  Unfortunately, nothing in the Neo prospectus describes how it plans to go about doing that.  Don't send your coin to strangers who make nice sounding vague promises.

OK, that makes sense.

[NotLambchop]

... But, do you really think that this issue/fraud/mismanagement is really the death knell of bitcoin? That's what I took from one of your posts.

NO way, but it's a disease, and things that don't kill us don't always make us stronger.

[NanoAkron]

Small correction. 37,000 was the import tax on the car (50%).

Put another 74,000 for the purchase price from the UK and you've got the true cost.

And do you have any EVIDENCE that this was purchased from company funds? i.e. embezzlement.

No? Then what does it matter whether he bought a 100k Bentley or a 5k Ford focus? If it's his money, he can do wtf he likes with it.

[waveofuture]

NO way, but it's a disease, and things that don't kill us don't always make us stronger.

Fair enough. There's some truth in that, definitely. This disease will be overcome eventually, but whether it's in our lifetime's or not is another story. Honestly, this is my first real "burning" in bitcoin land and I can definitely relate much more easily to others now. I can see how one may do a 180 turn on bitcoin and push against it. Though, there's just too much true, real positivity, for lack of a better word, in the protocol itself to turn back now.

[bite111]

37,000 was the car?

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

From other point of view. Something is not right here.

1. They were sponsoring conferences.
2. They invested into expensive Oracle product(long-term vision).
3. They paid for development of own software.
4. They invested into POS terminals.(This was actually working product)
5. That branch, offices, PR campaign, billboards, opening, yes web-pages are shit.
6. They trained people for info-desk and branches.
---
7. Parliamentary hearings
---
8. silence
9. CEO running from island

Somewhere between 7. and 8. point "shit hits the fan".

Possible movie scenarios(yes I know I have huge imagination, so sorry for very possible bullshits) :

Someone recognized(maybe thanks to that hearing, maybe someone from parliament) what is happening in Cyprus and he pass the information/alert to some very importation person or group.

a)Corrupted government(like any government) simply told him, that they will not give him permission on what he wants to do. "No way, why us, we don't want to be first in this, no licenses for you and no recognition of bitcoin in our law, go away, we don't want you and we don't support you"

b)Banksters and Russian mafia underworld(they control everything on that island) were threatening Brewster. That he must stop everything now. Like NOW. Because he wants to play on theirs playground. They still have massive profits and benefits from Cypriot status-quo financial sector and offshore accounts there.

c)His daughter was taken by some scumbags as a hostage and they demand a ransom in Bitcoin, so something like ... "we'll harm her, or give us your private key, we know that you have at least 10 000 BTC. You have 24hours." Not easy position indeed.

Its alternative scenario to "he just run away with money", that all recent events like btctc,weex,SR,bitfunder,ukyo,gox ... everything is happening like behind closed doors, in shadow, we as community have very few information what exactly is happening. Also big names from community are disappearing one after another. Very strange.