BitBay | Decentralized Marketplace | Unmoderated Thread

[Mig-23]

envy envy envy and envy,...
i found like this at many time...

Congratulation man, you pulled out this scam, well done if living and making money like this makes you happy, but one thing is sure, no one should be envy David Zimbeck, the public face of this scam.

ok,gift for you again 

[altcoinUK]

The scam is epic and the scammers are entered into panic mode, they delete all posts like this:

The scam is not epic at all. It is a total failure, as a matter of fact and when all is said and done and BTER is paid their commission, they will probably be in the hole after having paid Zimbeck his 100BTC and 20 million BAY (which he won't be able to cash for anything of significance. I am going to guess that no more than 300BTC -and quite probably much less- was sole between 250-300 sat. And they have had a few expenses. Plus BTER charges commission whether they are in on the back end deal or not, so the "chinese" guy is in for a very rude awakening when this goes to 25 sat well before Christmas and declared technically dead before the new year.

Not to mention that Zimbeck still has to come up with some semblance of a marketplace before BTER releases the final 33%.

So no, as far as scams go, even the guys at XBOT got close to 100 BTC clean. This guys will more than  probably end in the red.

As for Bobsurplus, I don't believe he is in on this one... yet. Now he's trying to get people to bet on a price and, supposedly, he will bet on a higher price than anyone. It could be interested because this will be another scam, quite a different one... and a very risky one... unless the "chinese" fully participates, because while Bob buy massively, the "chinese" will be dumping like mad (unless he is in on it). If "he" is in on it -most likely- it sounds like a master stroke as scams go because a lot of people will believe in Bob pump -with good reason, for it will be real- and would want to participate on the run up.

Now, if that materializes, it is going to be quite epic with both the "chinese" and Bob dumping on the people (after collecting the bets, of course). Macchiavelian scheme and scam, indeed. Needless to say, I'll be watching every step of the way.

I think we have an issue here :-)))  Since I have a very different figure from David, David Zimbeck was either not truthful with you or me. I have a lot higher payment figure than the 100 BTC you mentioned. It would be great to get clarification from David how much he received for "licensing" and developing the software. I never asked him how much here received, you never asked him as well, but since here revealed it and the figures are different it would be great to get some transparent clarification from him - mainly to establish his trustworthiness.

I would disagree on Bob. Once he advertise that he is buying, up to this date never happened that he buys - when he says he buys in fact he is dumping already. I don't see why this natural method of a P&D operator would be different with Bitbay.

Sure i can clarify this, the original offer for the license was 100 BTC and that was increased during the ico there was an extra 91 which a portion of that was supposed to go towards developing which i was fine with some of it was moved into a joint dev fund only 20 btc. They were supposed to set up a 5 of 5 multisig for that but they never did. I still have the difference set aside on my end.

Thanks David for clarifying about your payment. It still doesn't make sense terms of the figures as you have mentioned earlier a very different figure, and I really don't want to be pedantic about 100-200 BTC differences, but the few legit investors who put their hard earned cash into your project has the right to know about the expenditure of the ICO fund and at least you are - unlike the Bitbay team - trying to be transparent about it.

It's not my role to tell you what to do, but since this scam will be obvious for everyone very soon and there will be quite a few very-very unhappy people it's your primary interest to come forward with transparent information. I think everyone understand that you are passionate about your software and you want your hard work to be widely used, still probably it's not the best way to realize your dream via an association with a very shady project. Do you really need to give your name to such a project and its thread? The moderated thread, the deleted posts, the army of secondary, third and newbie nicks mobilized by the Bitbay team that desperately trying to hype the project is the sign of a proper scam and since you have been in the altcoin business for long you know it very well what's happening there is the sign of a proper scam. Do you really need to associate your name with such a desperate money collecting party? You are a very intelligent individual, how can you be part of a project when the investors are presented with such a tragicomic professional team bio, like Nico from Russia who loves dog and Holly from Taiwan who has the family - this is the team who supposed to build a 1 billion $ business and take on eBay, however investors can't know more about them because there's an alleged NDA in place. Please ... such bullocks don't even acceptable in an Uganda based ponzy scheme ... how can you accept such project handling in your venture? We understand the nature of this altcoin market, but your Bitbay project takes the bullocks to the very highest level and you have an active role in this.

It's clear that you are very unhappy about this operation, you expected a different attitude from the Bitbay team in many aspects of the project. In my opinion it is better if you are vocal about the issues, because if you don't then you mislead a few legit investors who put their money into your project.


   

[Mig-23]

because envy

There is nothing to be envy about what you try to achieve with the Bitbay operation. No rational person is envy of pushing a scam alongside with dozens of desperate newbie nicks and idiots like yourself to make 1-2 BTC the most from that scam or being envy of having a partnership with P&D operators like Bobsurplus to trick naive investors into desperate ICOs.

ok,..gift for you again and again 
wish you happy 

[altcoinUK]

I posted this in the moderated BAY thread and for some strange reason it was deleted. I will just leave it here instead.

All of the positive posts about BAY in this thread come from the few remaining hopeful members of our pump and dump group that were promised BAY was going to go to the moon a month ago. Most of the bitcoin from the ICO went directly in to bob's pocket. He does not care what happens to the rest of us, he is already rolling in profit. How do you guys in our group (you know who you are) plan to get out of this coin at even break even now? It is quite obvious that there is no outside interest in this coin, all of the volume has come from within our group itself. The legitimate investors have gotten wise to these scams, they are not going to be here to pump up the price for you and take the bags out of your hands this time. It's funny, every time bob mentions there might be a pump, you guys get a massive hard on for bay, the thread starts getting bumped frequently, the buys pick up in anticipation for the pump, then what happens? You get dumped right in to, again and again from bob himself, because you are fools that keep believing every word that he says. You guys are a joke. If you still believe his bullshit, you deserve to lose your coins. I am extremely happy that I stayed the fuck out of this one. I came very close to going all in with what I earned from previous pumps with this group, good thing I didn't get blinded by greed like the rest of you.

No worries, feel free to post in this thread, this is an unmoderated thread, and all opinions, both supporters and skeptics are welcomed.

[altcoinUK]

@Mig-23, what you do in that official thread and what you do here says a lot about the nature of the Bitbay scam. Soon will be here an army of shill accounts to troll this thread and that will be just the final verification that the Bitbay scammers are desperate  and the 108 satoshies price is indeed the result of a scam.

[dzimbeck]

Altcoin UK

you seemed to have asked earlier for me to make it clear that im not in control of the project finances and details and if that isnt already clear(i thought that was obvious) so of course im not nor did i ever imply not even tacitly.

The parts of the tech end of course were mine and people come to me for tech questions. The fact that im the only public figure makes it a little stressful but im working with it.

In the temperament of things, my time is shifting to pegging Ive just started looking over the c++ source now.

[altcoinUK]

Altcoin UK

you seemed to have asked earlier for me to make it clear that im not in control of the project finances and details and if that isnt already clear(i thought that was obvious) so of course im not nor did i ever imply not even tacitly.

The parts of the tech end of course were mine and people come to me for tech questions. The fact that im the only public figure makes it a little stressful but im working with it.

In the temperament of things, my time is shifting to pegging Ive just started looking over the c++ source now.

Great David, and unfortunately the fact that you are the public figure will make your life very-very difficult in the coming months - except that you can make some damage limitation by trying to be transparent and in my opinion you are doing the right thing by being transparent.

On the technicality note, actually I am quite interested in the pegging model, I have read the Nubits white paper and while it's not in the league of Buterin or Gavin Wood, and while it's not clear yet whether the pegging could work at all, it's a quite interesting piece of material. Could you please push a public link of the c++ source? I have over a few decades c++ experience under my belt and just as a pure professional interest it would be great to see the implementation details of Nubits.

[Mig-23]

@Mig-23, what you do in that official thread and what you do here says a lot about the nature of the Bitbay scam. Soon will be here an army of shill accounts to troll this thread and that will be just the final verification that the Bitbay scammers are desperate  and the 108 satoshies price is indeed the result of a scam.

ohh yea?...
 

[dzimbeck]

The scam is epic and the scammers are entered into panic mode, they delete all posts like this:

The scam is not epic at all. It is a total failure, as a matter of fact and when all is said and done and BTER is paid their commission, they will probably be in the hole after having paid Zimbeck his 100BTC and 20 million BAY (which he won't be able to cash for anything of significance. I am going to guess that no more than 300BTC -and quite probably much less- was sole between 250-300 sat. And they have had a few expenses. Plus BTER charges commission whether they are in on the back end deal or not, so the "chinese" guy is in for a very rude awakening when this goes to 25 sat well before Christmas and declared technically dead before the new year.

Not to mention that Zimbeck still has to come up with some semblance of a marketplace before BTER releases the final 33%.

So no, as far as scams go, even the guys at XBOT got close to 100 BTC clean. This guys will more than  probably end in the red.

As for Bobsurplus, I don't believe he is in on this one... yet. Now he's trying to get people to bet on a price and, supposedly, he will bet on a higher price than anyone. It could be interested because this will be another scam, quite a different one... and a very risky one... unless the "chinese" fully participates, because while Bob buy massively, the "chinese" will be dumping like mad (unless he is in on it). If "he" is in on it -most likely- it sounds like a master stroke as scams go because a lot of people will believe in Bob pump -with good reason, for it will be real- and would want to participate on the run up.

Now, if that materializes, it is going to be quite epic with both the "chinese" and Bob dumping on the people (after collecting the bets, of course). Macchiavelian scheme and scam, indeed. Needless to say, I'll be watching every step of the way.

I think we have an issue here :-)))  Since I have a very different figure from David, David Zimbeck was either not truthful with you or me. I have a lot higher payment figure than the 100 BTC you mentioned. It would be great to get clarification from David how much he received for "licensing" and developing the software. I never asked him how much here received, you never asked him as well, but since here revealed it and the figures are different it would be great to get some transparent clarification from him - mainly to establish his trustworthiness.

I would disagree on Bob. Once he advertise that he is buying, up to this date never happened that he buys - when he says he buys in fact he is dumping already. I don't see why this natural method of a P&D operator would be different with Bitbay.

Sure i can clarify this, the original offer for the license was 100 BTC and that was increased during the ico there was an extra 91 which a portion of that was supposed to go towards developing which i was fine with some of it was moved into a joint dev fund only 20 btc. They were supposed to set up a 5 of 5 multisig for that but they never did. I still have the difference set aside on my end.

Thanks David for clarifying about your payment. It still doesn't make sense terms of the figures as you have mentioned earlier a very different figure, and I really don't want to be pedantic about 100-200 BTC differences, but the few legit investors who put their hard earned cash into your project has the right to know about the expenditure of the ICO fund and at least you are - unlike the Bitbay team - trying to be transparent about it.

It's not my role to tell you what to do, but since this scam will be obvious for everyone very soon and there will be quite a few very-very unhappy people it's your primary interest to come forward with transparent information. I think everyone understand that you are passionate about your software and you want your hard work to be widely used, still probably it's not the best way to realize your dream via an association with a very shady project. Do you really need to give your name to such a project and its thread? The moderated thread, the deleted posts, the army of secondary, third and newbie nicks mobilized by the Bitbay team that desperately trying to hype the project is the sign of a proper scam and since you have been in the altcoin business for long you know it very well what's happening there is the sign of a proper scam. Do you really need to associate your name with such a desperate money collecting party? You are a very intelligent individual, how can you be part of a project when the investors are presented with such a tragicomic professional team bio, like Nico from Russia who loves dog and Holly from Taiwan who has the family - this is the team who supposed to build a 1 billion $ business and take on eBay, however investors can't know more about them because there's an alleged NDA in place. Please ... such bullocks don't even acceptable in an Uganda based ponzy scheme ... how can you accept such project handling in your venture? We understand the nature of this altcoin market, but your Bitbay project takes the bullocks to the very highest level and you have an active role in this.

It's clear that you are very unhappy about this operation, you expected a different attitude from the Bitbay team in many aspects of the project. In my opinion it is better if you are vocal about the issues, because if you don't then you mislead a few legit investors who put their money into your project.


   

What you are asking for from me is not appropriate regardless of the dismay.

It wasnt a difference my license was in fact 100 i have txids backing up what i just told you. There was an extra amount which the entire group would hold in reserve which i just mentioned. I would like to be entitled to the shred of privacy im reserving for myself to have left. If it was my project, it would be as transparent as every reddit post and comment ive ever published you know that. But with other people at stake it would mindlessly selfish of me to discuss anything else beyond that point. What you think would protect investors will not protect them.

Again, this is why i have extreme interest in pegging to end this investor protection debate once and for all.
I care about them, they are all that matters to me.

I find it interesting that crypto people who talk about "freedom" and "privacy for all" cannot respect the privacy of others.

What things are technically, none of my business. Ive been hired to do coding work and it makes it especially hard to do that when im constantly distracted by obstacles.

[dzimbeck]

Altcoin UK

you seemed to have asked earlier for me to make it clear that im not in control of the project finances and details and if that isnt already clear(i thought that was obvious) so of course im not nor did i ever imply not even tacitly.

The parts of the tech end of course were mine and people come to me for tech questions. The fact that im the only public figure makes it a little stressful but im working with it.

In the temperament of things, my time is shifting to pegging Ive just started looking over the c++ source now.

Great David, and unfortunately the fact that you are the public figure will make your life very-very difficult in the coming months - except that you can make some damage limitation by trying to be transparent and in my opinion you are doing the right thing by being transparent.

On the technicality note, actually I am quite interested in the pegging model, I have read the Nubits white paper and while it's not in the league of Buterin of Gavin Wood, and while it's not clear yet whether the pegging could work at all, it's a quite interesting piece of material. Could you please push a public link of the c++ source? I have over a few decades c++ experience under my belt and just as a pure professional interest it would be great to see the implementation details of Nubits.

The way pegging works is like this:
you bought in 1000 coins lets say for one dollar
so 1000=1

So now, i add checklocktimeverify. And using this, i add new mining rules.

One of the rules is, after the fork, everyones funds are forced to do the same thing. If spent, they must lock X% lets for arguments sake say 99.9% of their funds back to themselves.

So the TX would pay to themselves 999 locked for X time. And one coin would be "tagged" as liquid

Now I set $1 buy wall for our new liquid coin.

Mind you, the exchange cannot sell the 999 since its frozen so withdrawing it would get declined by miners. (thus im recommending to the exchange to force withdraws before the force to avoid complex accounting)

If the coin is sold lets pretend its the only liquid coin. So now the guy who bought at $1 will sell at 1.02 for 2% arbitrage.

The cycle continues.

Now I add two more rules.

Because the guy who sold the dollar technically HAS 999 in reserve. So is it frozen forever? No.

Instead, we add rules to how locks must be done on liquid and reserve coins.

One rule will allow for unlocking of reserve coins. And spending anew. (a supply increase)
The rule will respond to variables that the master key sets by sending messages to the client (yes, its centralized at first because users would always choose the path of least resistance)

The rule says "You can unlock your coins now beginning at block X BUT you can only spend X% of them." So now, you can spend lets say 99.9% again.

So the controlled supply increase would allow one more coin in.

Also, there is a rule that goes like this: "Liquid coins from block X need to spend X% Back into a lock"
So that is a supply DECREASE and it effects all coins.

Thus we can do the reverse and force the new coin to lock back.


Control of supply allows for control of price since the walls can be set to managable levels

The reason NuBits doesnt go below is because it cant.

This is my goal to protect investors from the "same old same old" crypto bullshit.

[dotcoin.info]

David. why don't you peg zimbabwean shit coin with dollar.

even a 3 year old non brain baboon can tell the monkey shit can't be pegged with banana.

stop fooling yourself and pay your debt with the commission. your so called reputation is just like monkey shit that will never pegged to any altcoin success.

[JohnTheSalch]

I never understood how libertarian cryptography enthusiasts would voluntarily subject themselves to such a centralized scheme as pegging a coin to a value. Isn't that the very manifestation of big government style interference with the economy that crypto was supposed to bypass?  Why can't the market decide by itself what is the value of a coin?

[altcoinUK]

Altcoin UK

you seemed to have asked earlier for me to make it clear that im not in control of the project finances and details and if that isnt already clear(i thought that was obvious) so of course im not nor did i ever imply not even tacitly.

The parts of the tech end of course were mine and people come to me for tech questions. The fact that im the only public figure makes it a little stressful but im working with it.

In the temperament of things, my time is shifting to pegging Ive just started looking over the c++ source now.

Great David, and unfortunately the fact that you are the public figure will make your life very-very difficult in the coming months - except that you can make some damage limitation by trying to be transparent and in my opinion you are doing the right thing by being transparent.

On the technicality note, actually I am quite interested in the pegging model, I have read the Nubits white paper and while it's not in the league of Buterin of Gavin Wood, and while it's not clear yet whether the pegging could work at all, it's a quite interesting piece of material. Could you please push a public link of the c++ source? I have over a few decades c++ experience under my belt and just as a pure professional interest it would be great to see the implementation details of Nubits.

The way pegging works is like this:
you bought in 1000 coins lets say for one dollar
so 1000=1

So now, i add checklocktimeverify. And using this, i add new mining rules.

One of the rules is, after the fork, everyones funds are forced to do the same thing. If spent, they must lock X% lets for arguments sake say 99.9% of their funds back to themselves.

So the TX would pay to themselves 999 locked for X time. And one coin would be "tagged" as liquid

Now I set $1 buy wall for our new liquid coin.

Mind you, the exchange cannot sell the 999 since its frozen so withdrawing it would get declined by miners. (thus im recommending to the exchange to force withdraws before the force to avoid complex accounting)

If the coin is sold lets pretend its the only liquid coin. So now the guy who bought at $1 will sell at 1.02 for 2% arbitrage.

The cycle continues.

Now I add two more rules.

Because the guy who sold the dollar technically HAS 999 in reserve. So is it frozen forever? No.

Instead, we add rules to how locks must be done on liquid and reserve coins.

One rule will allow for unlocking of reserve coins. And spending anew. (a supply increase)
The rule will respond to variables that the master key sets by sending messages to the client (yes, its centralized at first because users would always choose the path of least resistance)

The rule says "You can unlock your coins now beginning at block X BUT you can only spend X% of them." So now, you can spend lets say 99.9% again.

So the controlled supply increase would allow one more coin in.

Also, there is a rule that goes like this: "Liquid coins from block X need to spend X% Back into a lock"
So that is a supply DECREASE and it effects all coins.

Thus we can do the reverse and force the new coin to lock back.


Control of supply allows for control of price since the walls can be set to managable levels

The reason NuBits doesnt go below is because it cant.

This is my goal to protect investors from the "same old same old" crypto bullshit.

While coin generation by mimicking real world processes like forging (NXT) or mining (BTC, LTC, etc) is vital element of digital currencies, I am not sure that mimicking the lack of supply by putting a trade lock on the coins would work. As I said it is a very interesting idea, and it make sense that if a commodity is not available then the value of the commodity increases, but you are introducing a very new concept by basically taking away from the owners the right of spending the currency. If I own company shares, then it can be sold on the market any time, similarly I have access to my savings account any time, if I have Bitcoin I can sell it any time (the any time sell most of the time is realized with loss, but I still can sell them whenever I want), but if I understand you correctly, you would not allow the sell by placing a lock on the coins, which will be a dramatically new concept that the users would have to accept. The price of a financial product normally is established via trust, and the users would not necessarily trust the system, as they know that once the 99.9% supply is available then the price will crash. Still, very interesting concept, but I am not sure if it could work.

On the implementation details, what would determine when the 99.9% is available and for which users? Does the the master key variable depends on timing, i.e. those coins will be unlocked which are locked for the longest or it depends on activity or what?

[JohnTheSalch]

Altcoin UK

you seemed to have asked earlier for me to make it clear that im not in control of the project finances and details and if that isnt already clear(i thought that was obvious) so of course im not nor did i ever imply not even tacitly.

The parts of the tech end of course were mine and people come to me for tech questions. The fact that im the only public figure makes it a little stressful but im working with it.

In the temperament of things, my time is shifting to pegging Ive just started looking over the c++ source now.

Great David, and unfortunately the fact that you are the public figure will make your life very-very difficult in the coming months - except that you can make some damage limitation by trying to be transparent and in my opinion you are doing the right thing by being transparent.

On the technicality note, actually I am quite interested in the pegging model, I have read the Nubits white paper and while it's not in the league of Buterin of Gavin Wood, and while it's not clear yet whether the pegging could work at all, it's a quite interesting piece of material. Could you please push a public link of the c++ source? I have over a few decades c++ experience under my belt and just as a pure professional interest it would be great to see the implementation details of Nubits.

The way pegging works is like this:
you bought in 1000 coins lets say for one dollar
so 1000=1

So now, i add checklocktimeverify. And using this, i add new mining rules.

One of the rules is, after the fork, everyones funds are forced to do the same thing. If spent, they must lock X% lets for arguments sake say 99.9% of their funds back to themselves.

So the TX would pay to themselves 999 locked for X time. And one coin would be "tagged" as liquid

Now I set $1 buy wall for our new liquid coin.

Mind you, the exchange cannot sell the 999 since its frozen so withdrawing it would get declined by miners. (thus im recommending to the exchange to force withdraws before the force to avoid complex accounting)

If the coin is sold lets pretend its the only liquid coin. So now the guy who bought at $1 will sell at 1.02 for 2% arbitrage.

The cycle continues.

Now I add two more rules.

Because the guy who sold the dollar technically HAS 999 in reserve. So is it frozen forever? No.

Instead, we add rules to how locks must be done on liquid and reserve coins.

One rule will allow for unlocking of reserve coins. And spending anew. (a supply increase)
The rule will respond to variables that the master key sets by sending messages to the client (yes, its centralized at first because users would always choose the path of least resistance)

The rule says "You can unlock your coins now beginning at block X BUT you can only spend X% of them." So now, you can spend lets say 99.9% again.

So the controlled supply increase would allow one more coin in.

Also, there is a rule that goes like this: "Liquid coins from block X need to spend X% Back into a lock"
So that is a supply DECREASE and it effects all coins.

Thus we can do the reverse and force the new coin to lock back.


Control of supply allows for control of price since the walls can be set to managable levels

The reason NuBits doesnt go below is because it cant.

This is my goal to protect investors from the "same old same old" crypto bullshit.

While coin generation by mimicking real world processes like forging (NXT) or mining (BTC, LTC, etc) is vital element of digital currencies, I am not sure that mimicking the lack of supply by putting a trade lock on the coins would work. As I said it is a very interesting idea, and it make sense that if a commodity is not available then the value of the commodity increases, but you are introducing a very new concept by basically taking away from the owners the right of spending the currency. If I own company shares, then it can be sold on the market any time, similarly I have access to my savings account any time, if I have Bitcoin I can sell it any time (the any time sell most of the time is realized with loss, but I still can sell them whenever I want), but if I understand you correctly, you would not allow the sell by placing a lock on the coins, which will be a dramatically new concept that the users would have to accept. The price of a financial product normally is established via trust, and the users would not necessarily trust the system, as they know that once the 99.9% supply is available then the price will crash. Still, very interesting concept, but I am not sure if it could work.

On the implementation details, what would determine when the 99.9% is available and for which users? Does the the master key variable depends on timing, i.e. those coins will be unlocked which are locked for the longest or it depends on activity or what?

It's a new concept for crypto but governments have been doing it for a while and failing at it, making black markets for their currency.

Say I want out of the coin but my funds are locked in the pegging scheme. I just sell him my wallet.dat and he sends me btc for it. We can use a trusted escrow and presto I have bypassed the pegging.

[Mig-23]

what ?
fuder ?......
ohhhhh,.please 

[altcoinUK]

It's a new concept for crypto but governments have been doing it for a while and failing at it, making black markets for their currency.

Say I want out of the coin but my funds are locked in the pegging scheme. I just sell him my wallet.dat and he sends me btc for it. We can use a trusted escrow and presto I have bypassed the pegging.

That's indeed an elegant solution to bypass the pegging. :-)))

[Mig-23]

[altcoinUK]

@Mig-23

How is the price going Miggy boy? Who is dumping the coin with a 70% loss ... or perhaps there's no loss as the Bitbay team bought the majority of the ICO and now they dumps the coin at any price ... while you few hardcore cheerleader idiots in that thread celebrate the 1 billion $ project.

[Mig-23]

 

[barabbas]

I have had it with Zimbeck and his half truths/outright lies. He volunteered the figures that ultimately he admits here were lies since besides the 100BTC he got for licensing and implementing Halo/pegging/marketplace, he now admits that he got 91BTC more on the side AND doesn't mention the 20 million BAY he also admitted before to getting as part of the deal. He also should know, by now, who he is really working for in scamming the investors of the house of cards that has been launched around his name.

Here it is, Zimbeck, so you cannot claim ignorance: The "Chinese" guy -you know who that is, don't you?- agreed with Bobsurplus and his team that they would pump and dump BAY. Bobsurplus approach is straight forward ("we only pump worthwhile projects..."). The fully control the operation. Fully. Even from the tech side with hackers having access to every back door (yes Zimbeck, including Halo). In total BAY got 550 BTC from unsuspecting investors in the ICO. Mind you, that is ALL profit because the Chinese and Bobsurplus own the rest, so they paid themselves for it. And they have unloaded quite a bit of it son far... with hundreds of millions of BAY still to go. Even if they end up selling all of them at 10 sat or even lower, they will still make out as bandits, get it [people? Get it Zimbeck? That's how the scam has been perpetrated. Bobsurplus has his team of minions and puppets posting 24/7 the kool aid to get every single drop of money from the greedy, blind, stupid people and meanwhile pressure you Zimbeck to keep your mouth shut in the official thread and keep on delivering on what you were contracted for. You hate Bobsurplus, I know because you have told me... well, it is your boss, in case you did not know. And you are lining up his pockets. Worst case scenario -and it has already materialized-, he will get around 1,000 BTC clear when all is said and done. It's much, much less than he expected, but it is still a nice chunk. And on to the next one. Bob, Bobby, Robert, I have predicted you will wake up some day hanging from your balls. I still do. Watch your back because most people is on to you already. In your line of "work" you should pay your people much better... or just pay them, but hey, you are doing "good" so far... it's only the clock is ticking. And no Ryan and the girlfriend, not a great help, potentially quite the contrary, alright?

So there you have it Zimbeck. Stop claiming ignorance. Stop confusing people with half-assed admissions that turn out to be half-assed lies. You have the full picture now. And the part you, willingly, play on that picture. Now you do know.

And so does everyone.