I'll leave you with this:
Cryptodevil claimed SIGT is a clone-coin. When asked what coin it's a clone of he finally looks at the code and sees it's derived from Blakecoin. He had no idea before then. Being a "clone-coin" is a meaningless standard for claiming SIGT is a scam since EVERY coin is derived from BTC or a derivative of BTC. Every coin is a "clone-coin". Nobody is going to rewrite the blockchain code from scratch. That would be idiotic.
He claims the exchange is being manipulated by bots and that this is evidence that SIGT is a scam. Even if it was being manipulated that is not evidence the devs are manipulating it. It's not evidence of scam. Almost every coin's price gets manipulated by bots or whales at various times.
He claims that a new algorithm is not "innovative" because SIGT has a short PoW timeframe. A new algorithm IS innovative regardless of the length of time it's used. Regardless, lack of innovation would not be evidence of a scam.
He claims anyone that questions his "evidence" is somehow in on the scam he has no evidence of.
EDIT: And of course I just got negative trust ratings. LOL This forum is a joke when people like Cryptodevil get to run around unchecked. He should be banned.
Any particular reason you think that post is worthy of repeating?
You start out by claiming I had no idea which coin Signatum was cloned from, albeit I was not wrong that it was a clonecoin and my subsequent reading of both the address format leading 'B' suspicion of it being Blackcoin was, indeed, confirmed as correct when I looked at the source code.
I don't see what point you think you are making with that.
You then complain about me pointing out that selecting a new set of algorithms to use for the brief PoW period is not innovative and then assert that it is innovative without actually explaining what was so innovative about it.
"Do you want you wallet skinned in grey or blue?"
"Blue"
"Wow, how innovative!!!1!1!"
Then you weakly claim that lack of innovation wouldn't make this coin project a scam, something I have already clearly explained is false, given that this coin was entirely predicated on being revolutionary and innovative. It is neither.
The rest of your post is just whining about being tagged as the obvious shill account that your post history proves you to be.
Your parting words lack anything of substance.