[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos

[prospect]

TBH there needs to be incentive to get XC to buy blocknet shares.. I see that Dan is most likely leading the project

I can think of no greater incentive than it being Dan's vision, and it being an amazing idea with massive resources.

But evidently some people seem not to think the same. Boggles my mind how that's possible, but hey. :-)

Well there are alot of talent and brilliant minds out there, you seem to think that the xc holders are sheeps and should be following XC-crews every word.. like "we know whats best for you".

No I don't. I said that it "boggles my mind" how people aren't incentivised to buy XC to get Blocknet tokens. This doesn't mean you should follow me; it just means I don't see any sense in not buying XC to buy Blocknet tokens.

You will have to listen to investors as well. That is how you reach out. Not some "trust us, we are from the internet, everything is going to be fine." hehe. I will hold my XC, no time to sell anything right now.

So do you think it's a bad idea to buy XC in order to buy Blocknet tokens? If so, why?

Believe me, I'm listening.

Well, will the blocknet tokens only be able to be bought with XC? Since you will be holding this at NHZ asset exchange, will you set up a gateway for this?

[hoertest]

TBH there needs to be incentive to get XC to buy blocknet shares.. I see that Dan is most likely leading the project

I can think of no greater incentive than it being Dan's vision, and it being an amazing idea with massive resources.

But evidently some people seem not to think the same. Boggles my mind how that's possible, but hey. :-)

Well there are alot of talent and brilliant minds out there, you seem to think that the xc holders are sheeps and should be following XC-crews every word.. like "we know whats best for you".

No I don't. I said that it "boggles my mind" how people aren't incentivised to buy XC to get Blocknet tokens. This doesn't mean you should follow me; it just means I don't see any sense in not buying XC to buy Blocknet tokens.

You will have to listen to investors as well. That is how you reach out. Not some "trust us, we are from the internet, everything is going to be fine." hehe. I will hold my XC, no time to sell anything right now.

So do you think it's a bad idea to buy XC in order to buy Blocknet tokens? If so, why?

Believe me, I'm listening.

Well, will the blocknet tokens only be able to be bought with XC? Since you will be holding this at NHZ asset exchange, will you set up a gateway for this?

dude just take 5 minutes to read the blocknet op. everything there.

[prospect]

TBH there needs to be incentive to get XC to buy blocknet shares.. I see that Dan is most likely leading the project

I can think of no greater incentive than it being Dan's vision, and it being an amazing idea with massive resources.

But evidently some people seem not to think the same. Boggles my mind how that's possible, but hey. :-)

Well there are alot of talent and brilliant minds out there, you seem to think that the xc holders are sheeps and should be following XC-crews every word.. like "we know whats best for you".

No I don't. I said that it "boggles my mind" how people aren't incentivised to buy XC to get Blocknet tokens. This doesn't mean you should follow me; it just means I don't see any sense in not buying XC to buy Blocknet tokens.

You will have to listen to investors as well. That is how you reach out. Not some "trust us, we are from the internet, everything is going to be fine." hehe. I will hold my XC, no time to sell anything right now.

So do you think it's a bad idea to buy XC in order to buy Blocknet tokens? If so, why?

Believe me, I'm listening.

Well, will the blocknet tokens only be able to be bought with XC? Since you will be holding this at NHZ asset exchange, will you set up a gateway for this?

dude just take 5 minutes to read the blocknet op. everything there.

I know, and i also know that you can buy tokens with any of the participating currencys. Reacted to this argument "So do you think it's a bad idea to buy XC in order to buy Blocknet tokens? If so, why?".. no i do not. You can buy them with several others.. so this project has nothing to do with XC at all, just the same developer if im right.. and the name Xbridge, which could sort of be connected to XC

[erok]

Can you stake on the mobile?

[hoertest]

XC Mobile - the freedom gateway in you pocket

XC Mobile - free speach, private purse, at you fingertips everywhere!

XC Mobile - cause Satoshi probably uses a phone!

XC Mobile - leading privacy for on the go payments and communication!

[hoertest]

Can you stake on the mobile?

i think so, but wait for synechist to clear that up. the biggest treat is the Anonymity though. bringing that to mobile is what bitcoin still missed to compete with cash or pm

[synechist]

Can you stake on the mobile?

i think so, but wait for synechist to clear that up. the biggest treat is the Anonymity though. bringing that to mobile is what bitcoin still missed to compete with cash or pm

Yes, XC Mobile does stake.

[SouthernBTC]

what ever happened to good ol

XCurrency = PrivXC

So simple!

[Este Nuno]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holdings are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

[hoertest]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

[Este Nuno]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

If someone wanted to use NXT for example and use BTCD's teleport then that would be different. But if they didn't want to use any of BTCD's technology then BTCD doesn't gain anything directly. That being said teleport is considered an essential part of the anon solution(similar to how I'm reading here that XC is with blockNET).

[hoertest]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.

[Este Nuno]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.

As far as I know, yes.

[hoertest]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

If someone wanted to use NXT for example and use BTCD's teleport then that would be different. But if they didn't want to use any of BTCD's technology then BTCD doesn't gain anything directly. That being said teleport is considered an essential part of the anon solution(similar to how I'm reading here that XC is with blockNET).

the blocknet itslef doesn't have an anon solution. the coins on it just happen to provide some. XCs privacy while beeing best imo still has to stand the competition on the blocknet as off. it doesn't has a monopoly on privacy on the blocknet. it just offers its own and keeps it to the users to decide.

[qawzsx]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.

As far as I know, yes.

You know shit...
This is what James said...

"100,000+ nodes will do quite a lot of InstantDEX, Teleport, Privatebet, Tradebots, etc. Plus add in dozens of additional services from other coins. In the center of all this is BTCD. We are the center of the spiral. Let other coins make their money, everybody needs money. I think that is why it is called money.

BTCD is what allows all this to happen and even if just a small percentage of the overall commerce spills into BTCD revenue share it will be a giant boost to the value of BTCD. I have not worked out all the numbers, but with all this revenues being generated, we can definitely make it a cash positive decision for the other coins, while sharing in the business each coin adds."

SuperNET is just a centralized shit, controlled by James alone.


Bragging about how is Pumped BTCD, and dumped afterwards it seems if you take a look at the charts.

"BTCD was $100,000 marketcap when I joined it. Now it is about 60x more. 6 weeks, 60x. But it was “only” 6 million USD, which if BTC gained that much would be a gain of .001. So the same amount of marketcap is 6000% for BTCD and 0.1% for BTC. The next 60x for BTCD will certainly take a bit longer than 6 weeks"

Yea, go SuperNET

[SouthernBTC]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

[Este Nuno]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.

As far as I know, yes.

You know shit...
This is what James said...

"100,000+ nodes will do quite a lot of InstantDEX, Teleport, Privatebet, Tradebots, etc. Plus add in dozens of additional services from other coins. In the center of all this is BTCD. We are the center of the spiral. Let other coins make their money, everybody needs money. I think that is why it is called money.

BTCD is what allows all this to happen and even if just a small percentage of the overall commerce spills into BTCD revenue share it will be a giant boost to the value of BTCD. I have not worked out all the numbers, but with all this revenues being generated, we can definitely make it a cash positive decision for the other coins, while sharing in the business each coin adds."

SuperNET is just a centralized shit, controlled by James alone.


Bragging about how is Pumped BTCD, and dumped afterwards it seems if you take a look at the charts.

"BTCD was $100,000 marketcap when I joined it. Now it is about 60x more. 6 weeks, 60x. But it was “only” 6 million USD, which if BTC gained that much would be a gain of .001. So the same amount of marketcap is 6000% for BTCD and 0.1% for BTC. The next 60x for BTCD will certainly take a bit longer than 6 weeks"

Yea, go SuperNET

What he's saying there is essentialy the same thing that people have been saying in this thread. Mainly that the anonymity tech provided to the network is key. Just as XC plans to provide it's mixing for blockNET, BTCD will provide people with teleport.

And I'm not bragging about anything as I hold none of the core currencies involved with superNET. Not because I don't think they are good though. I'm just trying to look at it from a logical perspective. Perhaps there's something I'm missing and I'll see that it's in fact not as good as it sounds.

[Este Nuno]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

Thank you. I just want the information itself to be clear and correct on both sides. I don't blame anyone for not understanding exactly how everything works.

[hrshak462]

Well when I bought at 156k I didn't expect it to get cut almost in half so quick.  Oops

edit: holding btw, have faith

[xxxgoodgirls]

Well when I bought at 156k I didn't expect it to get cut almost in half so quick.  Oops

Yeah, chart looks bad.