BitBay | Decentralized Marketplace | Unmoderated Thread

[qawzsx]

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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

[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.

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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

Actually you are a liar. Blatant one at that. I "flame" -or speak of- not a single coin above the trading level of BYC. Not a single one (BC goes above and beyond and my beef with that scam is quite old and it appears, although I am not sure for I have no further interest in it, that the scammers are out). I do criticize PROVEN scams, such as PINK -after having been quite a supporter, before I discovered the scam- and SEED, both of which trade much less than BYC. And I also criticize a few others (specifically NAUT, VRC, PESA and BRIT) all of which have significantly lower volume than BYC.

But you are a known liar and bob kiss ass, so nobody will be surprised this time around. Your reputation only grows and grows...

[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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here.

Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow
Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo?

This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more.

So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for....
If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see  a massive global something something soon?

Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers?

James

[jl777]

It is proof positive about the sockpuppet army as several of them are posting here and clearly know of bitmarkets, but not a single post about it in the official thread.

Sad that this turned out to be what it is...

James

[qawzsx]

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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here.

Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow
Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo?

This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more.

So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for....
If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see  a massive global something something soon?

Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers?

James

A1. Well, the idea is similar, we don't know about the tech. From what I know, David is willing to dump the Bitmessage (if I remember well) and create something which is not that heavy on POW and not that bloated. Any competent dev can create a decentralized marketplace on top of bitmessage with a double escrow idea. So, as much as the idea goes, yes, they are pretty much similar. Let's see the working BitBay tech first.

A2. Well, since bitmarket will work on Bitmessage alone, I don't see it as a competitor. The POW of bitmessage is a killer for such an approach. A marketplace is a heavy traffic usage function if you include pictures and all. Basically you can't grow a successfully marketplace on Bitmessage EVER


P.S. Is TOR still a seller? Why bother with TOR if truly decentralized/encrypted? That's sounds like a bad addition

[dzimbeck]

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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here.

Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow
Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo?

This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more.

So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for....
If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see  a massive global something something soon?

Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers?

James

A1. Well, the idea is similar, we don't know about the tech. From what I know, David is willing to dump the Bitmessage (if I remember well) and create something which is not that heavy on POW and not that bloated. Any competent dev can create a decentralized marketplace on top of bitmessage with a double escrow idea. So, as much as the idea goes, yes, they are pretty much similar. Let's see the working BitBay tech first.

A2. Well, since bitmarket will work on Bitmessage alone, I don't see it as a competitor. The POW of bitmessage is a killer for such an approach. A marketplace is a heavy traffic usage function if you include pictures and all. Basically you can't grow a successfully marketplace on Bitmessage EVER


P.S. Is TOR still a seller? Why bother with TOR if truly decentralized/encrypted? That's sounds like a bad addition

Bitmessage is currently the only decentralized option out there. Thats why im fixing it with custom whitelists which is unique. However, i have been given some interesting leads like TOX. Lots of different concepts but nothing has emerged yet that strikes my fancy.

Whitelists in bitmessage is my hope that by doing that and even having a server to fall back on, i can get a robust solution. Also this way in theory we could use the same IP addresses from any bitcoin/blackcoin seeder to help pool together a stronger network. Its all part of what im working on. It just comes in stages.

[dzimbeck]

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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here.

Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow
Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo?

This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more.

So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for....
If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see  a massive global something something soon?

Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers?

James

A1. Well, the idea is similar, we don't know about the tech. From what I know, David is willing to dump the Bitmessage (if I remember well) and create something which is not that heavy on POW and not that bloated. Any competent dev can create a decentralized marketplace on top of bitmessage with a double escrow idea. So, as much as the idea goes, yes, they are pretty much similar. Let's see the working BitBay tech first.

A2. Well, since bitmarket will work on Bitmessage alone, I don't see it as a competitor. The POW of bitmessage is a killer for such an approach. A marketplace is a heavy traffic usage function if you include pictures and all. Basically you can't grow a successfully marketplace on Bitmessage EVER


P.S. Is TOR still a seller? Why bother with TOR if truly decentralized/encrypted? That's sounds like a bad addition

Bitmessage is currently the only decentralized option out there. Thats why im fixing it with custom whitelists which is unique. However, i have been given some interesting leads like TOX. Lots of different concepts but nothing has emerged yet that strikes my fancy.

Whitelists in bitmessage is my opinion that by doing that and even having a server to fall back on, i can get a robust solution. Also this way in theory we could use the same IP addresses from any bitcoin/blackcoin seeder to help pool together a stronger network. Its all part of what im working on. It just comes in stages.

Bitmessage does suffer from attack vectors and again whitelists may be a help. Also i combine with burning coins too a way to maintain the whitelists without a server and to prevent spam.

[qawzsx]

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

Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.

I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here.

Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow
Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo?

This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more.

So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for....
If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see  a massive global something something soon?

Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers?

James

A1. Well, the idea is similar, we don't know about the tech. From what I know, David is willing to dump the Bitmessage (if I remember well) and create something which is not that heavy on POW and not that bloated. Any competent dev can create a decentralized marketplace on top of bitmessage with a double escrow idea. So, as much as the idea goes, yes, they are pretty much similar. Let's see the working BitBay tech first.

A2. Well, since bitmarket will work on Bitmessage alone, I don't see it as a competitor. The POW of bitmessage is a killer for such an approach. A marketplace is a heavy traffic usage function if you include pictures and all. Basically you can't grow a successfully marketplace on Bitmessage EVER


P.S. Is TOR still a seller? Why bother with TOR if truly decentralized/encrypted? That's sounds like a bad addition

Bitmessage is currently the only decentralized option out there. Thats why im fixing it with custom whitelists which is unique. However, i have been given some interesting leads like TOX. Lots of different concepts but nothing has emerged yet that strikes my fancy.

Whitelists in bitmessage is my hope that by doing that and even having a server to fall back on, i can get a robust solution. Also this way in theory we could use the same IP addresses from any bitcoin/blackcoin seeder to help pool together a stronger network. Its all part of what im working on. It just comes in stages.

I see, so fixing not using a different thing. My bad.

[barabbas]

Zimbeck isnt even in the ball park regarding any of this tech with about 100 real projects already well advanced in the works with real, usable, solid solutions... that will face the same legal obstacles that eill make them of no (decentralized) use in the real world. It is of no value whatsoever, sorry. Shooting blanks. But, besides this, Zimbeck's back door is already open and fully controlled (when and if it works) by the crook hackers (surplus' minions) in Taiwan. It's all part if a staged conspiracy being funded wigh the current scam. By the time BITER releases the last 33% the coin and the project will be completely dead and trading in singles.

Talking of tech in this environment is a total exercise in futility.

And, bg the way, it is going to require some actual investment -from the scammed money- from Bobsurplus to even reach the thresold oc thd release of the last 33%. BAY is already technically death.

And James, this quacrx-whatever guy is a fanboy of incredible dedication, more than probably a foot soldier of Bob. A total waste of time in any case.

[dotcoin.info]

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

James

Bay is pure scam from a puerile kid dev. don't compare real tech with this unadulterated shitbay.   

[Diabolic]

Although I am new to crypto, I've been looking seriously into some coins to invest in. BitBay was one of those coins and now I am having some serious concerns. I have my own methods of gathering information when it comes to doing business. My day job is as a PI / Internet Investigator.

Upon researching BAY and reading a lot of posts in this thread and from Mr. Zimbeck. It is pretty clear at this point the David has had some interaction with "BobSurplus" which there are multiple threads online pointing to him being a market manipulator / scammer.

Has David Zimbeck answered this simple question directly? If he could just come out and say who is partners in this coin were I think it would clear up a lot of misconceptions. Otherwise, anyone can clearly see he is being deceitful about his partners and/or scheme collaborators. Otherwise, why continue to avoid giving clear and concise responses?

On one hand, he says he is being honest and "licensed" his technology for a flat fee (in BTC). On the other hand, he is hiding who he has been working with while simultaneously dumping coins. How many coins do you have to dump Zimbeck? Answer the questions clearly and precisely.

#1. Are you working with BobSurplus, AKA: "Bob the pumper" and his powerful team?

#2. How many total BTC / BAY coins did you get for your "license"? Give clear totals in BTC and BAY. Now.

If you really care about the truth and investors as you say you do, just answer the questions. Beating around the bush and not replying only adds to your obvious deceit. That should be enough to settle investor concerns and help put BAY back into the right direction. Thank you.

[Bobfuckedus]

Although I am new to crypto, I've been looking seriously into some coins to invest in. BitBay was one of those coins and now I am having some serious concerns. I have my own methods of gathering information when it comes to doing business. My day job is as a PI / Internet Investigator.

Upon researching BAY and reading a lot of posts in this thread and from Mr. Zimbeck. It is pretty clear at this point the David has had some interaction with "BobSurplus" which there are multiple threads online pointing to him being a market manipulator / scammer.

Has David Zimbeck answered this simple question directly? If he could just come out and say who is partners in this coin were I think it would clear up a lot of misconceptions. Otherwise, anyone can clearly see he is being deceitful about his partners and/or scheme collaborators. Otherwise, why continue to avoid giving clear and concise responses?

On one hand, he says he is being honest and "licensed" his technology for a flat fee (in BTC). On the other hand, he is hiding who he has been working with while simultaneously dumping coins. How many coins do you have to dump Zimbeck? Answer the questions clearly and precisely.

#1. Are you working with BobSurplus, AKA: "Bob the pumper" and his powerful team?

#2. How many total BTC / BAY coins did you get for your "license"? Give clear totals in BTC and BAY. Now.

If you really care about the truth and investors as you say you do, just answer the questions. Beating around the bush and not replying only adds to your obvious deceit. That should be enough to settle investor concerns and help put BAY back into the right direction. Thank you.

Bobsurplus hired David Z to make the coin, BitBay is bob's coin. I'm in bob's pump and dump group. Up until Bay, every coin bob has told us to buy he has pumped and made us a great profit. This time though, bob had us buy up as much bay as we could, which all went right in to bob's pocket. Every Bay that went unsold was purchased by bob, so not only did he make a ton of Bitcoin off of our group, he has hundreds of millions of BAY he can dump on us at will to make even more profit. He has made so much from this coin already, through his own group buying it, that he has no reason to pump it. Bob fucked us. The few new accounts that you see in the moderated thread that are trying to hype the coin up are all part of our group. They don't believe in bay, they just want bob to pump it. Once they realize that there isn't ever going to be a pump, you will start to see more people like me come out of the woodwork to expose what is going on.

[randywald]

A pump and dump group . Probably in your children's room . LMFAO. Get a life.

[Bobfuckedus]

A pump and dump group . Probably in your children's room . LMFAO. Get a life.

Yeah, this one right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730494.msg8256168#msg8256168
It's not a secret or anything, there are a lot of us in it.

[randywald]

A pump and dump group . Probably in your children's room . LMFAO. Get a life.

Yeah, this one right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730494.msg8256168#msg8256168
It's not a secret or anything, there are a lot of us in it.

Ok, now i understand. Seems to make good profit for some people. I know that market manipulation is part of every market. Even if i don't like this idea it seems to be normal.

[dzimbeck]

Although I am new to crypto, I've been looking seriously into some coins to invest in. BitBay was one of those coins and now I am having some serious concerns. I have my own methods of gathering information when it comes to doing business. My day job is as a PI / Internet Investigator.

Upon researching BAY and reading a lot of posts in this thread and from Mr. Zimbeck. It is pretty clear at this point the David has had some interaction with "BobSurplus" which there are multiple threads online pointing to him being a market manipulator / scammer.

Has David Zimbeck answered this simple question directly? If he could just come out and say who is partners in this coin were I think it would clear up a lot of misconceptions. Otherwise, anyone can clearly see he is being deceitful about his partners and/or scheme collaborators. Otherwise, why continue to avoid giving clear and concise responses?

On one hand, he says he is being honest and "licensed" his technology for a flat fee (in BTC). On the other hand, he is hiding who he has been working with while simultaneously dumping coins. How many coins do you have to dump Zimbeck? Answer the questions clearly and precisely.

#1. Are you working with BobSurplus, AKA: "Bob the pumper" and his powerful team?

#2. How many total BTC / BAY coins did you get for your "license"? Give clear totals in BTC and BAY. Now.

If you really care about the truth and investors as you say you do, just answer the questions. Beating around the bush and not replying only adds to your obvious deceit. That should be enough to settle investor concerns and help put BAY back into the right direction. Thank you.

Bobsurplus hired David Z to make the coin, BitBay is bob's coin. I'm in bob's pump and dump group. Up until Bay, every coin bob has told us to buy he has pumped and made us a great profit. This time though, bob had us buy up as much bay as we could, which all went right in to bob's pocket. Every Bay that went unsold was purchased by bob, so not only did he make a ton of Bitcoin off of our group, he has hundreds of millions of BAY he can dump on us at will to make even more profit. He has made so much from this coin already, through his own group buying it, that he has no reason to pump it. Bob fucked us. The few new accounts that you see in the moderated thread that are trying to hype the coin up are all part of our group. They don't believe in bay, they just want bob to pump it. Once they realize that there isn't ever going to be a pump, you will start to see more people like me come out of the woodwork to expose what is going on.

Bob did NOT hire me. Lets get that very clear.

That can be proven.

I was hired by someone else and i protect their privacy.

Bob is such an irrelevant subject. Everyone knows what level and class of person he is. I'm sure his own group knows more than anyone how greedy and thievish he is.

Any association that is rumored is not material (i can assure you his relevance currently is not worth mentioning) and does nothing for the physical growth of the coin which the person who started it intends to do and is the reason they hired me.

[dzimbeck]

Also my license was discussed earlier in the thread. Of course in reality, that is not something im obligated to discuss i was kind enough to post about that.

I have never seen a person post anything like that ever on a coin they were working on so i think barking up a different tree would be the gracious way of proceeding.

My fee was very small considering the scope of the work and what they had asked of me.

Also discussed was the fact that i did/do not control the coin, only the tech end of it. (so i can fork it and plan out whatever tech schedule)

again discussed was the fact that i never wanted to be lead dev. The OP I changed personally to project management under the assumption that funds would be used to hire people. Some people threw my name around irresponsibly and thus ive had to work harder. So i do in fact currently do all the dev for them it certainly was meant to be managerial and some coding and has turned into something else. Pegging is a feature that was part of it and that is a great example.

[dzimbeck]

Zimbeck isnt even in the ball park regarding any of this tech with about 100 real projects already well advanced in the works with real, usable, solid solutions... that will face the same legal obstacles that eill make them of no (decentralized) use in the real world. It is of no value whatsoever, sorry. Shooting blanks. But, besides this, Zimbeck's back door is already open and fully controlled (when and if it works) by the crook hackers (surplus' minions) in Taiwan. It's all part if a staged conspiracy being funded wigh the current scam. By the time BITER releases the last 33% the coin and the project will be completely dead and trading in singles.

Talking of tech in this environment is a total exercise in futility.

And, bg the way, it is going to require some actual investment -from the scammed money- from Bobsurplus to even reach the thresold oc thd release of the last 33%. BAY is already technically death.

And James, this quacrx-whatever guy is a fanboy of incredible dedication, more than probably a foot soldier of Bob. A total waste of time in any case.

You are implying there is a back door in the bitbayd? IF you think so can you explain to me why? I'm going to have to build it myself if you think thats the case. That is a pretty serious accusation.

BlackHalo has no back doors im always willing to let people build from it. So im curious as to why you think this.

[Decentradical]

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.

'Decentralised'  and 'unregulated' are two different things. You can have a centralised unregulated operation just as you can have a decentralised regulated operation.

The appeal of exchanges like Nighttrader and Bitbay is not that they're unregulated. If it has to be regulated so be it. The appeal is that there is no middle man and that the merchants and buyers control their own transactions and have leverage on each other.

As for regulation. That's the authority's problem. I'd like to seem them try.

[Diabolic]

Deceiving and long winded answers again from Zimbeck. This is exactly why investors are dropping out and questioning you here. Many of whom I've already contacted personally.

Again, be clear and concise if you want to gain respect from the people who have believed in you.

#1. Have you worked with, currently work with, or had any association with BobSurplus while creating BitBay? Past or present. Answer clearly and to the point. Investors continue to look for you to answer this. Stop avoiding the simple answers. "Yes" or "No" will suffice. Please don't tell us "it's not an issue" or "Bob is such an irrelevant subject" - Clearly it is.

#2. What exact amounts have you received for your "license" paid in both BTC and BAY? Written as actual figures (numbers).

Please David, stop trying to mislead us. We are the ones trying to understand the situation at hand and asking real questions. So far, the lack of solid responses are giving huge red flags. If your next reply does not appease me, I will have to use deeper researching tactics to unearth the truth for those who deserve it. Also, you claim to only the license the technology, but the coin FAQ clearly states that you are lead dev. What is it?