☷ [ANN] ☷ [MODERATED] ☷ CLSTR ☷ ClusterCoin ☷ the Future of Money ☷

[dandruff1138]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Paying 10,000 sats for a coin that doesn't do anything yet could be considered stupid. IMHO they were smart for getting out ASAP, better at 6000 than 4800.

[ICO Dude]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Because people were and are still not sure if this coin is a scam.

But WHY would you buy it in the first place if you are not sure?? It doesn't make any sense! Don't trust a coin - fine, move along. Why the panic buy? Why did the ICO got completely sold out?

[tom14cat14]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Because people were and are still not sure if this coin is a scam.

But WHY would you buy it in the first place if you are not sure?? It doesn't make any sense! Don't trust a coin - fine, move along. Why the panic buy? Why did the ICO got completely sold out?

This is exactly my point. If you are not sure you dont buy. When you buy into the ICO you better be confident enough that you can ride out a dump. You may end up being wrong but sometimes you lose. This just shows people do not know what they bought. They just thought it sounded cool and hoped it would go up right away.

[dawj20]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Because people were and are still not sure if this coin is a scam.

But WHY would you buy it in the first place if you are not sure?? It doesn't make any sense! Don't trust a coin - fine, move along. Why the panic buy? Why did the ICO got completely sold out?

I think people thought it was going to rocket and they'd be able to quickly 2x or 3x their investment (like with CLD). When that didn't happen and stayed at/below ICO price, they panic sold at a loss.

[tom14cat14]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Paying 10,000 sats for a coin that doesn't do anything yet could be considered stupid. IMHO they were smart for getting out ASAP, better at 6000 than 4800.

It would be better to not buy in unless you think this coin will be worth more then 10k. Most people will not time it perfectly to hit the bottom and catch the bounce. Therefore they should have held if they think it was worth the ICO.

[ICO Dude]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Because people were and are still not sure if this coin is a scam.

But WHY would you buy it in the first place if you are not sure?? It doesn't make any sense! Don't trust a coin - fine, move along. Why the panic buy? Why did the ICO got completely sold out?

I think people thought it was going to rocket and they'd be able to quickly 2x or 3x their investment (like with CLD). When that didn't happen and stayed at/below ICO price, they panic sold at a loss.

well this is a pretty retarded strategy.. throw money at whatever without any resarch and then accuse dev and bittrex for scamming them. Yeah, pretty retarded

[tom14cat14]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Because people were and are still not sure if this coin is a scam.

But WHY would you buy it in the first place if you are not sure?? It doesn't make any sense! Don't trust a coin - fine, move along. Why the panic buy? Why did the ICO got completely sold out?

I think people thought it was going to rocket and they'd be able to quickly 2x or 3x their investment (like with CLD). When that didn't happen and stayed at/below ICO price, they panic sold at a loss.

well this is a pretty retarded strategy.. throw money at whatever without any resarch and then accuse dev and bittrex for scamming them. Yeah, pretty retarded

Sadly I think this is the new standard. I really hate how people want a refund but do not even know any of the terms bittrex has listed in order for the developers to get the money.

[cryptworld]

why a self moderated topic now? 

[tom14cat14]

why a self moderated topic now? 

Fud was too crazy. And it was obvious that some was form a P&D Group

[ICO Dude]

why a self moderated topic now? 

Fud was too crazy. And it was obvious that some was form a P&D Group

you may see even now fudders spam some crap here, but dev doing a great job filtering it out

[Essex343]

Essex, I have three questions for you.

(i) What will prevent two or more people from double spending by using the same wallet.dat in two or more different geographic locations?

In your whitepaper, you claimed that the Cluster protocol will automatically split blocks within the network according to geographic regions (undefined) and create multiple valid blockchains.
You further stated that sync blocks will be generated only once certain thresholds are reached. To me, this 'synch gap' creates a perfect environment for network-wide double spending.

(ii) What will prevent entities from creating blockchain forks within their own geographic region?

Since the hashrate from individual geographic regions will be relatively small, a person or organization with a significant enough hashrate could easily create forks to facilitate double spending.

In addition, said entity could fool the protocol to allocate a geographic region for itself by spamming dusts to create the illusion of trade volume. In your whitepaper, you stated:

[...] we believe that the most important part of the clustering algorithm is to cluster large economic hubs that have a lot of financial activity in order to maintain fast transaction confirmation time.

As you can see, the threat is very valid.

(iii) Did you buy this Bitcointalk account?

If yes, may I know your original Bitcointalk account?

If no, can you explain why your earlier posts consists almost entirely of asking for giveaways (wallet address + 'Thanks!' or 'Awesome'!)?
Your four months absence between post #147 and #148 also raises some questions.

First of all, I want to thank you for contributing to the coin development by asking valid questions.
i) wallet.dat file can be used in different regions/clusters but the balance in each region will be different (i.e. in each region there will be region-specific balance), so double spending will not be possible. It is possible to transfer funds across different regions but no using them at the same time twice

ii) creating a fork in a given region will not be simpler nor harder than creating a fork for any other crypto as in each region clustercoin behaves pretty much the same apart from synchronization blocks. We have seen many different coins, with big and small network hashrates, and forks are not created by attacks but typically by bad coin implementation. Although, the usual fork risk exists as with any other crypto, it is not bigger so it doesn’t seem to be a major point of concern.

iii) geographic regions will be created based on latency, not on transaction volume (potentially high transaction volume regions will be used as starting regions for clusters). Even if one of the clusters has been created by a group of nodes by collusion it is not clear how these nodes can benefit from having additional cluster. Whatever coins have been mined in their cluster would have to be transferred to another cluster (via sync blocks) and because per cluster block reward will be proportional to cluster’s hashrate (this is still one of possible solutions around this) it shouldn’t be profitable to engage in such activity.

lastly I didn't buy this account. I was experimenting with crypto back then, looking what others were doing. Away time was due to some rough time at my former job.

[ekdromoi]

Essex, I have three questions for you.

(i) What will prevent two or more people from double spending by using the same wallet.dat in two or more different geographic locations?

In your whitepaper, you claimed that the Cluster protocol will automatically split blocks within the network according to geographic regions (undefined) and create multiple valid blockchains.
You further stated that sync blocks will be generated only once certain thresholds are reached. To me, this 'synch gap' creates a perfect environment for network-wide double spending.

(ii) What will prevent entities from creating blockchain forks within their own geographic region?

Since the hashrate from individual geographic regions will be relatively small, a person or organization with a significant enough hashrate could easily create forks to facilitate double spending.

In addition, said entity could fool the protocol to allocate a geographic region for itself by spamming dusts to create the illusion of trade volume. In your whitepaper, you stated:

[...] we believe that the most important part of the clustering algorithm is to cluster large economic hubs that have a lot of financial activity in order to maintain fast transaction confirmation time.

As you can see, the threat is very valid.

(iii) Did you buy this Bitcointalk account?

If yes, may I know your original Bitcointalk account?

If no, can you explain why your earlier posts consists almost entirely of asking for giveaways (wallet address + 'Thanks!' or 'Awesome'!)?
Your four months absence between post #147 and #148 also raises some questions.

First of all, I want to thank you for contributing to the coin development by asking valid questions.
i) wallet.dat file can be used in different regions/clusters but the balance in each region will be different (i.e. in each region there will be region-specific balance), so double spending will not be possible. It is possible to transfer funds across different regions but no using them at the same time twice

ii) creating a fork in a given region will not be simpler nor harder than creating a fork for any other crypto as in each region clustercoin behaves pretty much the same apart from synchronization blocks. We have seen many different coins, with big and small network hashrates, and forks are not created by attacks but typically by bad coin implementation. Although, the usual fork risk exists as with any other crypto, it is not bigger so it doesn’t seem to be a major point of concern.

iii) geographic regions will be created based on latency, not on transaction volume (potentially high transaction volume regions will be used as starting regions for clusters). Even if one of the clusters has been created by a group of nodes by collusion it is not clear how these nodes can benefit from having additional cluster. Whatever coins have been mined in their cluster would have to be transferred to another cluster (via sync blocks) and because per cluster block reward will be proportional to cluster’s hashrate (this is still one of possible solutions around this) it shouldn’t be profitable to engage in such activity.

lastly I didn't buy this account. I was experimenting with crypto back then, looking what others were doing. Away time was due to some rough time at my former job.

Would you consider maybe holding off on a small part of the ICO until after cryptoasian is done reviewing you? even just like 50btc. Bittrex has already said they would agree to it

[SeaSoul]

I consider that bittrex has to transfer only 20 BTC for initial development of a coin, it is quite enough of it. Further we will look as the developer will arrive. We have to write in large quantities to richiella

[fox19891989]

Essex, I have three questions for you.

(i) What will prevent two or more people from double spending by using the same wallet.dat in two or more different geographic locations?

In your whitepaper, you claimed that the Cluster protocol will automatically split blocks within the network according to geographic regions (undefined) and create multiple valid blockchains.
You further stated that sync blocks will be generated only once certain thresholds are reached. To me, this 'synch gap' creates a perfect environment for network-wide double spending.

(ii) What will prevent entities from creating blockchain forks within their own geographic region?

Since the hashrate from individual geographic regions will be relatively small, a person or organization with a significant enough hashrate could easily create forks to facilitate double spending.

In addition, said entity could fool the protocol to allocate a geographic region for itself by spamming dusts to create the illusion of trade volume. In your whitepaper, you stated:

[...] we believe that the most important part of the clustering algorithm is to cluster large economic hubs that have a lot of financial activity in order to maintain fast transaction confirmation time.

As you can see, the threat is very valid.

(iii) Did you buy this Bitcointalk account?

If yes, may I know your original Bitcointalk account?

If no, can you explain why your earlier posts consists almost entirely of asking for giveaways (wallet address + 'Thanks!' or 'Awesome'!)?
Your four months absence between post #147 and #148 also raises some questions.

First of all, I want to thank you for contributing to the coin development by asking valid questions.
i) wallet.dat file can be used in different regions/clusters but the balance in each region will be different (i.e. in each region there will be region-specific balance), so double spending will not be possible. It is possible to transfer funds across different regions but no using them at the same time twice

ii) creating a fork in a given region will not be simpler nor harder than creating a fork for any other crypto as in each region clustercoin behaves pretty much the same apart from synchronization blocks. We have seen many different coins, with big and small network hashrates, and forks are not created by attacks but typically by bad coin implementation. Although, the usual fork risk exists as with any other crypto, it is not bigger so it doesn’t seem to be a major point of concern.

iii) geographic regions will be created based on latency, not on transaction volume (potentially high transaction volume regions will be used as starting regions for clusters). Even if one of the clusters has been created by a group of nodes by collusion it is not clear how these nodes can benefit from having additional cluster. Whatever coins have been mined in their cluster would have to be transferred to another cluster (via sync blocks) and because per cluster block reward will be proportional to cluster’s hashrate (this is still one of possible solutions around this) it shouldn’t be profitable to engage in such activity.

lastly I didn't buy this account. I was experimenting with crypto back then, looking what others were doing. Away time was due to some rough time at my former job.

Would you consider maybe holding off on a small part of the ICO until after cryptoasian is done reviewing you? even just like 50btc. Bittrex has already said they would agree to it

actually I am agree with you, DEV we trusted you and fund you, if you are kind and honest, you can take into account our suggetions, now the price is fucked by FUDders, you should help us. BECAUSE WE HELP YOU TO GET A LARGE FUND, right? Help each other plz. Tks

[GamingUnleashed]

People need to admit they didnt research the coin and thought they could just get a quick pump to make some money.

People bought clusters for 10k and sold em for 6k at the very moment they've got an ability to do so (market opened). These people need to admit they are dumb as a doorknob. Why on earth would you buy something to instantly sell it cheaper? There was just no reason to do it, but I guess one should never underestimate human stupidity

Well from the resurch in my trade group we discovered it was dumped to go into another coin that mooned ... in the end their action triggered everyone selling off, bittrex sys ops could further clarify this to the community  , but why should they, someones going to be making a kiling from all the cheap coins being gathered , I am already at double my ICO coins playing the waves  

[Cornett]

Fuck it. I sold mine off at a loss. Goodbye and good riddance.

What a joke this coin is!

You have weak balls...

[Cornett]

There are two sides - Black warriors and White warriors. Black warriors claiming it's scam - White warriors see the unique project. Let's see who'll win. If Cryptoasian resource will deliver POD in 2 days - WW will win. If not - They'll loose

[cawson]

bittrex  should Returns all investors btc. if clstr didn't reach his  promise function .

[ZacharyComstock]

I consider that bittrex has to transfer only 20 BTC for initial development of a coin, it is quite enough of it. Further we will look as the developer will arrive. We have to write in large quantities to richiella

OMG Lol this idea is stupid.
Do you realize that if Bittrex will release any part of the ICO to the DEV there will be now chance to refund? What will they tell? "Hey we decided to give dev 40 BTC, and rest return to you guys, so both you and dev will feel being screwed by us?"

This is nonsense.

[ZacharyComstock]

bittrex  should Returns all investors btc. if clstr didn't reach his  promise function .

Sure! Except they already fullfilled agreement with Bittrex. DEV actually delivered everything he promised before ICO (and you agreed that when you invested) so there is no reason for any refund. Neither POD nor partial payment was in terms. Read OP. YOu better think how to make this coin fly up, instead of asking for thomething you wont get anyway.