Quote from: rude_boy on April 02, 2017, 02:56:42 PM

I don't know which post you're talking about. Because, i didn't copied anyone's idea afaik. I just researched about few topics on internet and wrote with with what i've understood/learnt. I'm using bitcointalk.org since Nov 2014, I do even have some knowledge. So, please remove my ban. And i'll try to be more unique from now.

Most of your posts seem to be copied:

Quote from: Rude Boy on March 22, 2017, 12:55:00 PM

Yes, any data can be embedded in a blockchain using transaction metadata, and then all participants in the chain will then receive a copy of this data.

Having said that, blockchains only make sense for file sharing where it makes sense for every node to receive a copy of every file, and (at least in current implementations) every node keeps every file permanently. Otherwise you'll want something based on distributed hash tables, where files are stored with just a few copies and retrieved only on demand.

https://www.quora.com/Can-blockchain-be-used-for-file-sharing

Quote from: Rude Boy on March 22, 2017, 11:36:05 AM

btcjam is by far the worst lending service I know.

The site is full with scammers and the staffs are not even doing anything to prevent this from happening.

Btcjam is a cesspool for scammers and I would advise anyone considering to invest in their loans not to. I am not really sure about the other Bitcoin related websites however I would think it would be the case generally speaking.

One major problem with Btcjam is that they force you to collect on defaulted loans. If someone borrows $5,000 from 100 people, borrowing $50 from each person, then each person would need to invest additional money to only potentially recover a small amount, likely needing to invest the entire amount they are attempting to collect. A better solution would be for BTCjam to collect on behalf of the borrowers as a whole (or employ a collection agency) which would allow them to realize economies of scale when collecting on delinquent debts and it would obviously be much more worthwhile to collect on a $5,000 loan.

Itgot really bad with lota of defaulters. btcjam was never any help. no way to recover the money

Quote from: Quickseller on April 16, 2016, 03:55:32 AM

Btcjam is a cesspool for scammers and I would advise anyone considering to invest in their loans not to. I am not really sure about the other Bitcoin related websites however I would think it would be the case generally speaking.

One major problem with Btcjam is that they force you to collect on defaulted loans. If someone borrows $5,000 from 100 people, borrowing $50 from each person, then each person would need to invest additional money to only potentially recover a small amount, likely needing to invest the entire amount they are attempting to collect. A better solution would be for BTCjam to collect on behalf of the borrowers as a whole (or employ a collection agency) which would allow them to realize economies of scale when collecting on delinquent debts and it would obviously be much more worthwhile to collect on a $5,000 loan.

Quote from: Rude Boy on March 22, 2017, 11:32:48 AM

Bitcoin Core was Satoshis implementation of his novel Nakamoto consensus algorithm.
Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to utterly destroy Nakamoto Consensus in Bitcoin.
The new bitcoin unlimited implemented without community standards.It developed to destroy the original bitcoin core.Now a days forking affects the bitcoin price,this is the reason bitcoin price decrease a lot and the situation is unstable.This condition very risk for traders and minors.Finally,Bitcoin unlimited is just a diversion not a alternative.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Bitcoin-Core-and-Bitcoin-Unlimited

Quote from: Rude Boy on March 19, 2017, 04:51:59 PM

This is kind of a chicken and egg problem.

For someone to come years later and wonder about this, the coin must be alive still. This means there must not have been any moment in its history where the vast majority of people thought there was no point mining this coin. This is the reason why there is more incentive given to early miners to support the coin, since it has not proven itself yet, and so it is seen as very risky to mine this coin and hold it.

Moreover, the percentage of coins already issued at a given moment is only a factor if you're going to be mining (note: I'm not talking about the relative holdings of different people, just the percentage of issued coins, these are very different things to consider). If you're not going to mine, but are considering buying instead, then the price/market cap is much more salient.

Additionally, whether people have profited or lost in the past should have no bearing on whether a coin is good to buy and/or mine, all other things being equal.

Note: the things I said above are what I said, and nothing more. For example, "whether people have profited or lost in the past should have no bearing..." does NOT mean that the particular circumstances in which this may have happened should not have bearing. Just make sure I an not misundedrood

http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1145/is-it-possible-to-increase-the-total-supply-and-how-equally-distributed-is-moner/1148

I could go on.