BitBay | Decentralized Marketplace | Unmoderated Thread

[toknormal]

Once again: There's no NDAs, there's no Alibaba connections of any kind -except the "chinese" guy maybe purchasing some batteries on the Alibaba market- whatsoever. None. It is all vapor. It is all a scam.

I'd have to agree that that's what it looks like.

There might be an element of genuine technical interest but not that does justice to the original valuation or promotion right now.

[altcoinUK]

I think it is worthwhile to copy here toknormal's post from the official thread as it points out very valid issues with the ICO, and therefore the Bitbay team very likely will delete it.

How would you have run things better?  I mean, this is a genuine question.

I would have..

[1] -  expressed the IPO as a marketcap instead of a price in the main announcement. This is a more honest expression of the valuation because price is meaningless without taking into account coin supply. It's also what lets investors immediately compare the IPO alongside equivalent marketcap coins which are currently trading

[2] - not mentioned stuff like Alibaba without fully qualifying what the nature of those associations were

[3] - had something working that investors could evaluate before investing (hence mitigating the accusations of "vapourware" IPO)

[4] - been transparent about IPO interim and final capital holders, who they are and given blockchain addresses which could be audited and let investors verify the integrity of the custody chain of capital which they are supplying the project

[5] - launched the IPO at a half million cap at the most (in the absence of any significant completed development work). One of the main problems for this project is that it still has it "all to do". It's jam tomorrow as far as deliverables is concerned but jam today as far as investors money goes. It's somewhat of a step in the right direction to have phased releases of the capital upon completion of certain development milestones, but it's far from being an escrow situation. For a start, what happens if those milestones are not reached - is capital returned to investors ? I doubt it. Do investors have any input over the arbitration of marginal achievements ? No.

If the whole IPO was indeed bought by 3rd party investors it means that north of half a million dollars of investor's money has gone up in smoke. That's no mean sum of money and investors have taken this loss, not developers or other project stakeholders.

Given that fact, I think there is some basis for the FUD which I think would have been mitigated if some of the items above had been paid more attention.

Please ... you are asking too much from the Bitbay team ... none of your sensible and very valid points would be compliant with a classic money collecting party as your points make sense and assumes transparency. Transparency and tricking naive but greedy investors into the operation don't walk hand in hand.

[Decentradical]

I'm okay with proceeding the discussion here. If we can just leave the hype and fud and see if you guys can poke holes into it then that would be really valuable to future ICO plans.

[1] -  expressed the IPO as a marketcap instead of a price in the main announcement. This is a more honest expression of the valuation because price is meaningless without taking into account coin supply. It's also what lets investors immediately compare the IPO alongside equivalent marketcap coins which are currently trading

There always was a market cap. They sold it all and would burn any coins they didn't. If there was no such limit we'd probably be looking at a much bigger ico.

[3] - had something working that investors could evaluate before investing (hence mitigating the accusations of "vapourware" IPO)

Fair, but then again, apart from a few (I think acceptable and expectable) issues they've got a working wallet with smart contracts. Not really much of a surprise there because Blackhalo is working beautifully as well.

[4] - been transparent about IPO interim and final capital holders, who they are and given blockchain addresses which could be audited and let investors verify the integrity of the custody chain of capital which they are supplying the project

That would indeed improve the transparency. And you're right that investors usually possess over this information. This kind of information is rare public knowledge however. I don't think anyone else, including you, would expose himself to this level of transparency. Especially not with so many copy cats and competitors prowling about. You'd basically be running a charity then.

[5] - launched the IPO at a half million cap at the most (in the absence of any significant completed development work).One of the main problems for this project is that it still has it "all to do". It's jam tomorrow as far as deliverables is concerned but jam today as far as investors money goes.

But the first milestone reward is much less than that so far.

It's somewhat of a step in the right direction to have phased releases of the capital upon completion of certain development milestones, but it's far from being an escrow situation. For a start, what happens if those milestones are not reached - is capital returned to investors ? I doubt it. Do investors have any input over the arbitration of marginal achievements ? No.

I think this is your most interesting point. After all, you don't want to rely on the middle-man in your pursuit to get rid of him. This is the main role of escows in the financial sector. The problem though is that a small startup doesn't really posses over this kind of liquidity.

Maybe in the future we're going to see mass smart contracts where investors and startups are engaged in escrows over these milestones. I just can't see how it can be done today.

[travis72682]

You all should not let you fool by barabbas aka IconicExpert. Either he have interests in getting this coin cheap or he is pissed because nobody want to buy his Bytecent scam and Bay is stealing volume on his coin  

How much of a retard can you be? BYC is trading at 100% plus its ICO price and hss never even come near its ICO price since the mess of a launch that it was. Amzing, simply amazing...

And not only was I the strongest critic of IE's pretending that the mess of the launch was "normal", but actually forced the refund from bittrex... which I took... by the way not my most brilliant decision since I could have more than trple my investment.

You must be some new kind of stupid, really.

Call me stupid but I have seen your posts in libertycoin thread as you forgot to log out and posted with your wrong ID. A lot of other people also seen it. You better make a new account bimbo. Your crap talk is not longer working here  

Now you are a NEW kind of stupid, undiscovered until now.

And a blatant liar.

But that would be the extent of my engaging. Over and out.

hey barbie!!  I wasnt going to buy any bay... then I noticed you were fud'ing here so I sold off a couple seed (you know that failure) for 15k a piece and bought a little. for every seed I sold I got about 150 bay btw

keep fuding. I may start using your posts to help be decide what to buy.

[youngmike]

I can't invest before Bob removes his fake buy walls. Fully manipulated markets like Bitbay are too risky & overpriced.

https://twitter.com/EMC2Whale/status/541279711633354752

[jl777]

Does anybody know if http://www.coindesk.com/bitmarkets-launches-decentralised-bitcoin-marketplace-tor-support/ is similar tech to BAY?

James

[Decentradical]

It differs from Bitmarkt in the same way it differs from OpenBazaar

Q: How does BitBay differ from OpenBazaar? How is OpenBazaar “pseudo centralized”?

A: David is of the opinion that uTorrent may be correlated to other things in order to reveal the ip addresses of the parties involved in a contract. Its unclear whether or not OpenBazaar will truly be secure. Tor itself has a known security vulnerability on exit nodes.
Open Bazaar uses arbiters which are horribly inefficient and dangerous. As an example, eBay arbiters are never able to tell who is telling the truth when someone gets scammed. Also, a botnet could easily generate 100’s of arbiter accounts and collude with themselves, stealing escrows. So OpenBazaar’s system is much more vulnerable than eBay. I hope they will one day add double escrow as an option.
BitBay uses decentralized escrow, there are no arbiter judges or human error involved. Just two parties with a completely unbreakable agreement. It is the most perfect form of escrow in existence.

[jl777]

It differs from Bitmarkt in the same way it differs from OpenBazaar

Q: How does BitBay differ from OpenBazaar? How is OpenBazaar “pseudo centralized”?

A: David is of the opinion that uTorrent may be correlated to other things in order to reveal the ip addresses of the parties involved in a contract. Its unclear whether or not OpenBazaar will truly be secure. Tor itself has a known security vulnerability on exit nodes.
Open Bazaar uses arbiters which are horribly inefficient and dangerous. As an example, eBay arbiters are never able to tell who is telling the truth when someone gets scammed. Also, a botnet could easily generate 100’s of arbiter accounts and collude with themselves, stealing escrows. So OpenBazaar’s system is much more vulnerable than eBay. I hope they will one day add double escrow as an option.
BitBay uses decentralized escrow, there are no arbiter judges or human error involved. Just two parties with a completely unbreakable agreement. It is the most perfect form of escrow in existence.

I dont understand. are you saying bitmarkets is the same as openbazaar? If so, have you even read the article where it says that bitmarkets is different from openbazaar due to its usage of bitmessage and double deposit escrow?

What else uses bitmessage and double deposit escrow? BAY or OpenBazaar?

I have no idea if the BAY and bitmarket is just similar at the high level or identical, that is why I asked.

James

[barabbas]

Does anybody know if http://www.coindesk.com/bitmarkets-launches-decentralised-bitcoin-marketplace-tor-support/ is similar tech to BAY?

James

It is EXACTLY the same (requires double deposit--from the buyer and the seller, just like BAY). Only "difference" seems to be the use of TOR as opposed to the encryption provided by BAY which is not only vulnerable to hacking but already in the hands of the Bobsurplus hackers --the Taiwanese connection.

And both are bound to fail miserably because no seller is going to put an amount similar to the price of whatever goods or services are being sold and no buyer is going to deposit DOUBLE the amount of the price of those goods and services. It is quite absurd in BOTH cases and none will survive.

But BAY is not designed to survive at all, it is designed to scam money from stupid investors. And on that racket, it has succeeded already... albeit at a much lower level than intended.

On a separate matyter since we have you here, the plans for Vericoin on the SuperNET still include decentralized cloud storage? maybe another ad-hoc decentralized market? I'm sure you have heard of STORJ, since Supernet's OPAL will rent their HDD... it is obvious that there's duplication there...

[barabbas]

I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by  'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.

[jl777]

Does anybody know if http://www.coindesk.com/bitmarkets-launches-decentralised-bitcoin-marketplace-tor-support/ is similar tech to BAY?

James

It is EXACTLY the same (requires double deposit--from the buyer and the seller, just like BAY). Only "difference" seems to be the use of TOR as opposed to the encryption provided by BAY which is not only vulnerable to hacking but already in the hands of the Bobsurplus hackers --the Taiwanese connection.

And both are bound to fail miserably because no seller is going to put an amount similar to the price of whatever goods or services are being sold and no buyer is going to deposit DOUBLE the amount of the price of those goods and services. It is quite absurd in BOTH cases and none will survive.

But BAY is not designed to survive at all, it is designed to scam money from stupid investors. And on that racket, it has succeeded already... albeit at a much lower level than intended.

On a separate matyter since we have you here, the plans for Vericoin on the SuperNET still include decentralized cloud storage? maybe another ad-hoc decentralized market? I'm sure you have heard of STORJ, since Supernet's OPAL will rent their HDD... it is obvious that there's duplication there...

"cloud storage" is quite a large field.
also storj is actually storage agnostic and their GUI will have built in support for various different storage providers. OPAL using storj and VRC using SuperNET DHT storage are different destination networks.

It seems that the decentralized cloud storage market is fragmenting, before it even really gets started. There are also several other players in this space.

Maybe there is a need to unify them into a single network? Not sure of all the details yet, I am debugging the low level functionality of SuperNET now. The thing to realize is that "cloud storage" is quite a large space and that many different solutions can and will coexist. I doubt anybody believes that any single vendor will get 90%+ marketshare.

James

P.S. On the decentralized markets, again the fragmentation and the need to create a combined single market to the users, even though there are multiple actual markets. This is the foundational idea of SuperNET to create a superset out of all the different fragments and thus creating greater value for all.

[jl777]

I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by  'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.

I do not support illegal activities and I think that the problem here was the illegal activities, not that it was a decentralized market. Law enforcement wouldnt particularly care if it is centralized, decentralized or distributed, if it is illegal they go after it. If it is not illegal, then why would they go after it.

Privacy is something that the world needs. If you are content with the govt knowing everything you do, spend, etc. that is your choice. However there are some people that dont particularly want all their personal details available to any low level clerk (or whoever bribes them) and if the data is in a govt database it will be low level clerks that have access to it.

Anyway, you are pro-govt rights, thats fine I have no problem with you having your own views on that, just let me have my own. Fair enough?

James

P.S. I suppose you feel that online poker is a horrible crime that SWAT teams should be sent to shutdown, since it is illegal in your USSA. Let us ignore the giant bribes that lasvegas peoples are paying the politicos to make online poker illegal, such things only happen in third world countries.

[barabbas]

I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by  'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.

I do not support illegal activities and I think that the problem here was the illegal activities, not that it was a decentralized market. Law enforcement wouldnt particularly care if it is centralized, decentralized or distributed, if it is illegal they go after it. If it is not illegal, then why would they go after it.

Privacy is something that the world needs. If you are content with the govt knowing everything you do, spend, etc. that is your choice. However there are some people that dont particularly want all their personal details available to any low level clerk (or whoever bribes them) and if the data is in a govt database it will be low level clerks that have access to it.

Anyway, you are pro-govt rights, thats fine I have no problem with you having your own views on that, just let me have my own. Fair enough?

James

P.S. I suppose you feel that online poker is a horrible crime that SWAT teams should be sent to shutdown, since it is illegal in your USSA. Let us ignore the giant bribes that lasvegas peoples are paying the politicos to make online poker illegal, such things only happen in third world countries.

Oh I "let" you have any personal views you want, what I don't "let" you is getting away with the INEVITABLE consequences of bot decentralized markets and storage since, inevitably, they will attract illegal activities and, therefore, law enforcement with disastrous effects for everyone involved, including those dealing in legal activities (loss of money and loss of stored property).

I am well aware of the pitfalls of government and democracy itself, but history teaches us that even with those pitfalls it triumphs over anarchy -which is totally inviable- and dictatorship so as long as people support democracy in the US -which is where I live, but not "mine" in any way shape or form- and most of the rest of the world, the world is going to have to live according to laws and rules supported by evolving and alternate majorities. That is a FACT, especially in Law Enforcement, regardless if I like it or not.

As you are fully aware of, regulation is coming imminently to crypto in both the US and Europe. Necessary and positive in the end so, yes I fully support it. And, as long as those are set by democratically elected governments, I support the enforcement of the laws against those who provide playing fields for the crooks and deranged of the world under the cover of "protecting privacy". Every individual I know of, except maybe Howard Hughes, through history, has been more than willing to give up any trace of privacy in exchange for fame and fortune, so, in the end, it is all fake and a monumental lie...

But those are higher philosophical matters not necessarily appropriate for discussion here. What should be discussed, with facts at hands -as I have tried- are both the inevitability of illegal activities in any decentralized environment and the corresponding Law Enforcement action that will follow, since they will have dire effects in the quality of people's investments.

PS.- my personal position on political corruption is not very relevant, is it? But if you know of any decentralized or not solution to it, that would be a net, super or not, that I would fully support. Meanwhile, by voting people that I believe are not corruptible (Ha!) or by not voting anyone, I try to choose the best one to rule -temporarily-. And it bis a privilege still absent in most of the world, by the way... but since you seem to have all the knowledge and the key to full fairness -as well as the financial resources- why don't you come to the forefront and change the world by way of publicly decrying its many pitfalls? You know, Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg and others are in fact doing it (or trying at least). You seem to be doing... what, creating "assets" like Kevondo's radio, to string people for their money?

[jl777]

I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by  'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.

I do not support illegal activities and I think that the problem here was the illegal activities, not that it was a decentralized market. Law enforcement wouldnt particularly care if it is centralized, decentralized or distributed, if it is illegal they go after it. If it is not illegal, then why would they go after it.

Privacy is something that the world needs. If you are content with the govt knowing everything you do, spend, etc. that is your choice. However there are some people that dont particularly want all their personal details available to any low level clerk (or whoever bribes them) and if the data is in a govt database it will be low level clerks that have access to it.

Anyway, you are pro-govt rights, thats fine I have no problem with you having your own views on that, just let me have my own. Fair enough?

James

P.S. I suppose you feel that online poker is a horrible crime that SWAT teams should be sent to shutdown, since it is illegal in your USSA. Let us ignore the giant bribes that lasvegas peoples are paying the politicos to make online poker illegal, such things only happen in third world countries.

Oh I "let" you have any personal views you want, what I don't "let" you is getting away with the INEVITABLE consequences of bot decentralized markets and storage since, inevitably, they will attract illegal activities and, therefore, law enforcement with disastrous effects for everyone involved, including those dealing in legal activities (loss of money and loss of stored property).

I am well aware of the pitfalls of government and democracy itself, but history teaches us that even with those pitfalls it triumphs over anarchy -which is totally inviable- and dictatorship so as long as people support democracy in the US -which is where I live, but not "mine" in any way shape or form- and most of the rest of the world, the world is going to have to live according to laws and rules supported by evolving and alternate majorities. That is a FACT, especially in Law Enforcement, regardless if I like it or not.

As you are fully aware of, regulation is coming imminently to crypto in both the US and Europe. Necessary and positive in the end so, yes I fully support it. And, as long as those are set by democratically elected governments, I support the enforcement of the laws against those who provide playing fields for the crooks and deranged of the world under the cover of "protecting privacy". Every individual I know of, except maybe Howard Hughes, through history, has been more than willing to give up any trace of privacy in exchange for fame and fortune, so, in the end, it is all fake and a monumental lie...

But those are higher philosophical matters not necessarily appropriate for discussion here. What should be discussed, with facts at hands -as I have tried- are both the inevitability of illegal activities in any decentralized environment and the corresponding Law Enforcement action that will follow, since they will have dire effects in the quality of people's investments.

What is your feeling about the Internet? It enables all sorts of crimes, shouldnt it be shutdown? What about the telephone? What about automobiles? What about restaurants?

I think this tendency to criminalize anything that criminals use is quite a bit of overreaction. Why not just go after criminals? Presumably you believe in the right to free speech? Arguably most things on the internet is similar to free speech, but for criminal activity at some point it morphs into a physical thing. [some exceptions, but you understand what I say] So, why not criminalize the physical instantiation of the crime, not the technology that is shared by the criminals and the innocents.

Anyway, I can see we are very far apart on this, so I will stop with this. No sense in taking this thread further offtopic.

Back to my original posting here, it sounds like the bitmarkets is already live? So they are first to the market before the BAY using the same/similar tech.

James

[barabbas]

The obvious and quick answer, that you choose to ignore through cheap demagogy James is that all of those are REGULATED. Just like crypto is about to be. Everything has its good and its bad and one should hope-admittedly many times against the obvious evidence- that the positives of progress will outweight the negatives.  Demagogy though always has led and always will lead to the latter.

First to market in this case will mean first to failure ... but it is unfortunately an inevitable process.

[JohnTheSalch]

BitMarkets is basically a BitBay killer before BitBay was ever born, it has for all intents and purposes performed an abortion on BitBay.

Imagine you are a seller/buyer, would you rather use a marketplace with shady beginnings, have to buy a particular coin to use it and then not be able to freely exchange that money for FIAT because it got "pegged" (supply gets fixed so you can't freely sell the coins you should own).  Or would you rather just use the bitcoins you already have and which can be freely traded as it is your right?

p.s. that bitmarkets wallet looks way sexier than the clunky BitBay one.

[barabbas]

BitMarkets is basically a BitBay killer before BitBay was ever born, it has for all intents and purposes performed an abortion on BitBay.

Imagine you are a seller/buyer, would you rather use a marketplace with shady beginnings, have to buy a particular coin to use it and then not be able to freely exchange that money for FIAT because it got "pegged" (supply gets fixed so you can't freely sell the coins you should own).  Or would you rather just use the bitcoins you already have and which can be freely traded as it is your right?

p.s. that bitmarkets wallet looks way sexier than the clunky BitBay one.

While I fully agree with everything you just posted here, still you are comparing a legitimate product with a scam, and that's somehow legitimizing it. There's no market, decentralized or otherwise, behind BAY. There will be "clunky software pretending to facilitate such just to allow the distribution of the last 33% of the BTER "sale", but nothing else. No merchants, no sellers of anything, no nothing. It is a SCAM, period. Wall to wall. Comparisons to legitimate projects are simple ludicrous.

[JohnTheSalch]

BitMarkets is basically a BitBay killer before BitBay was ever born, it has for all intents and purposes performed an abortion on BitBay.

Imagine you are a seller/buyer, would you rather use a marketplace with shady beginnings, have to buy a particular coin to use it and then not be able to freely exchange that money for FIAT because it got "pegged" (supply gets fixed so you can't freely sell the coins you should own).  Or would you rather just use the bitcoins you already have and which can be freely traded as it is your right?

p.s. that bitmarkets wallet looks way sexier than the clunky BitBay one.

While I fully agree with everything you just posted here, still you are comparing a legitimate product with a scam, and that's somehow legitimizing it. There's no market, decentralized or otherwise, behind BAY. There will be "clunky software pretending to facilitate such just to allow the distribution of the last 33% of the BTER "sale", but nothing else. No merchants, no sellers of anything, no nothing. It is a SCAM, period. Wall to wall. Comparisons to legitimate projects are simple ludicrous.

You are right, I keep comparing BitBay to legitimate projects and by doing that I am only lowering the expectations of what a serious CryptoCurrency project should be. 

[jl777]

BitMarkets is basically a BitBay killer before BitBay was ever born, it has for all intents and purposes performed an abortion on BitBay.

Imagine you are a seller/buyer, would you rather use a marketplace with shady beginnings, have to buy a particular coin to use it and then not be able to freely exchange that money for FIAT because it got "pegged" (supply gets fixed so you can't freely sell the coins you should own).  Or would you rather just use the bitcoins you already have and which can be freely traded as it is your right?

p.s. that bitmarkets wallet looks way sexier than the clunky BitBay one.

While I fully agree with everything you just posted here, still you are comparing a legitimate product with a scam, and that's somehow legitimizing it. There's no market, decentralized or otherwise, behind BAY. There will be "clunky software pretending to facilitate such just to allow the distribution of the last 33% of the BTER "sale", but nothing else. No merchants, no sellers of anything, no nothing. It is a SCAM, period. Wall to wall. Comparisons to legitimate projects are simple ludicrous.

regardless of anything else, I would think that the official bitbay thread would be buzzing about bitmarket...

my curiosity was about the tech being so similar and the possibility of the halo software to have been used for the bitmarket. strange that so close to each other, such combo is released. double deposit escrow is not your everyday sort of thing, especially combined with bitmessage. Didnt Bay get a non-compete agreement for its license? or can anybody just license it for 100 BTC?

James

[barabbas]

BitMarkets is basically a BitBay killer before BitBay was ever born, it has for all intents and purposes performed an abortion on BitBay.

Imagine you are a seller/buyer, would you rather use a marketplace with shady beginnings, have to buy a particular coin to use it and then not be able to freely exchange that money for FIAT because it got "pegged" (supply gets fixed so you can't freely sell the coins you should own).  Or would you rather just use the bitcoins you already have and which can be freely traded as it is your right?

p.s. that bitmarkets wallet looks way sexier than the clunky BitBay one.

While I fully agree with everything you just posted here, still you are comparing a legitimate product with a scam, and that's somehow legitimizing it. There's no market, decentralized or otherwise, behind BAY. There will be "clunky software pretending to facilitate such just to allow the distribution of the last 33% of the BTER "sale", but nothing else. No merchants, no sellers of anything, no nothing. It is a SCAM, period. Wall to wall. Comparisons to legitimate projects are simple ludicrous.

regardless of anything else, I would think that the official bitbay thread would be buzzing about bitmarket...

my curiosity was about the tech being so similar and the possibility of the halo software to have been used for the bitmarket. strange that so close to each other, such combo is released. double deposit escrow is not your everyday sort of thing, especially combined with bitmessage. Didnt Bay get a non-compete agreement for its license? or can anybody just license it for 100 BTC?

James

My understanding from Zimbeck -who has proven to be quite shaky regarding truth, spotty at best- is that he is under no ob;ligation whatsoever beyond the delivery of the Bay-adapted Halo client with "smart contracts" and the "pegging" and decentralized market software. No exclusivity at all. As a matter of fact he has gone to some lengths to state that he is, first and foremost, a BlackCoin guy.

Are you implying he also sold Halo to Bitmarket? Anything is possible but personally I doubt it. And, in answering your question, theoretically, yes, Halo is available to anyone who pays whatever price Zimbeck sets. Since he says he's in it NOT for the money, he would need additional convincing, I presume.

If I have to gess, the double deposit idea, if anything would have been copied by Zimbeck from bitmarket, rather than the other way around, but that's just my opinion -or hunch, if you will-. Matters very little since in neither case it will be even remotely successful.