Quote from: gipbkt on October 06, 2017, 09:18:20 AM

It's all about getting things mainstream. If EOS is good enough and runs well who know it might even be worth more than Ethereum or other blockchainbased solution. Dan has proved to be able to bring things mainstream with steemit.

Thats a good reason to be interested.

Let me make one final summary post in this thread of my objections to EOS.

Im just making readers aware of:

There is a reasonable expectation that the EOS Platform tokens are going to eventually end up being illegally issued securities and banned, c.f. my posts in the prior two pages of this thread.
Steemits DPoS was offline for over an hour before I slept. And when I awoke it has still been down several hours later. The DPoS centralized ledger design is not robust enough to scale out to the world. It works for some small shit like Steemit sometimes.
Steems voting is a horrible design that cant scale, because non-linear rewards are required to prevent cheating yet these disproportionate rewards go to the whales (so the system unavoidably ends up ever more concentrated). Voting is a low entropy paradigm.
Thus Steem is a pyramid scheme.
Vitalik already explained astutely why a pooling of transaction fees to give the illusion of them being free is an idiotic design. EOS enemy #1 when it tries to scale to challenge Mossads Bitcoin is going to be DDoS attacks by the Mossad (most DDoS is originating from Israel).
I believe our project is going to kick EOS ass into the abyss (both adoption wise and technologically) and it will not be issued by ICO nor as an illegal security (thus I can legally make such speculative statements).
My opinion is our project name (same as the token/cryptocurrency name) is far superior.
Our onboarding plan and business model for apps is far superior.
I have experience creating million user software for the mainstream.
Afaics, my (soon to be our) design (is the only one that) securely scales decentralized with millisecond confirmations (and it can withstand massive DDoS).

Im putting my effort on the ~$5 million market cap which is legally issued, not the $200 million market cap with an inferior design, plan, and illegally issued.

No ICO will ever end up being the token used all over the world due to the legal encumbrance. The gimmick of separating the issuance token from the platform token is an obfuscation of the actual reality of the investment contract and investor expectations and thus will be void. Why are we in crypto turning our ecosystem into a scammers haven public relations disaster and incriminating ourselves with centralized shit that thus (due to centralization and scamming) cant create scalable network effects?

Create instead decentralized paradigms that avoid legal entanglement:

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 05, 2017, 05:11:16 PM

The law is the domain of the Great Harlot. Come out of her.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 06, 2017, 04:44:48 PM

My point is about transparency. And about not issuing illegal securities and then not providing all the material facts for the insiders.

If indeed @tonych was given kickbacks, then this could violate laws about securities or consumer protection laws about proper disclosure.

These tokens which have non-transparent issuance problems are not going to be reliable when the nation-states start using their laws to attack cryptocurrency.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 04, 2017, 06:12:58 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 01, 2017, 05:43:26 PM

So the "devs" might have 50 sockpuppet accounts they ask coins to. It's basically the next iteration of the "x% premined" scam as it is not that transparent.

Apparently that is what NEM did. They try to deny it, but when it is pointed out that they refused to even use Facebook verified accounts, they just claim that verifications were done but dont provide any independently verifiable objective proof.

And Byteball airdropped to exchanges who held so much BTC, so guess for yourself if any kickbacks were involved.

EOS runs a year long ICO no rights token sale ostensibly so they can buy said tokens from themselves.

Readers should be allowed to read dissenting opinions. If you cant handle free speech, then WTF are you doing any way in the arena of permissionless, decentralized paradigms.

Any way, good luck with your pump. May you shill enough profits to pay for your legal protection in the future when TSHTF about illegal securities.

Quote from: chryspano on October 05, 2017, 09:45:03 PM

sladering your superior doesn't earn you any credibility points

Cut out the crap, I was teaching and refuting @bytemaster (aka Daniel Larimer) on these forums back in 2013/2014 way before he became a big time scammer doing premeditated illegal securities issuance.

Dan has always been making the same fundamental mistake since 2013. He always wants to pool everything in collectivism. His Steem voting design suffers from this flaw as well as the his zero transaction fees concept, which are both making it impossible for these systems to scale in terms of the economics and threats against them.

I remember back in 2013 he was proposing some interest rate payment scheme for hodlers his Protoshares, and I explained to him why that was unsustainable and flawed. Youll find that Charles Hoskinson was also involved in the discussions on BCT back then.

Btw, Charles Hoskinson told me all the details about how Dan Larimer broke his verbal contracts when he kicked Charles Hoskinson out. But I have never and will never repeat those details to anyone.

I do acknowledge that Dans TaPoS invention is conceptually astute, but I was there in the thread when he announced the first ideas for it and pointed out to him that he had some flaws.

You should expect that when you go raising $200+ million in a scammy ICO thus creating a public relations disaster, that some people who care about our ecosystem are going to criticize you. If you do not want to be criticized, then do not overtly try to scam the ecosystem.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 03, 2017, 01:01:34 AM

Quote from: williamevanl on October 02, 2017, 04:46:27 PM

Yep that's what I mean, I don't think people realize how small Bitcoin still is. John Mcaffee, CEO of the antivirus security company went so far as to say he would eat his dick live on tv in 3 years if Bitcoin ISN'T worth 500,000$

http://nypost.com/2017/07/19/cybersecurity-legend-i-will-eat-my-d-k-if-i-lose-500k-bitcoin-bet/

Giving BTC to ICOs which are going to fail, is indeed not wise when in fact BTC will continue to rise significantly over next years.

Presuming BTC hits $10,000 in Q1 2018, that would be a 1000X gain from $10 in 2013 when I agreed with my business acquaintances (such as @rpietila) to buy BTC. He sold $100,000 of silver and bought 10,000 BTC then became a multi-millionaire by the end of the year. (He then apparently proceeded to lose it all somehow)

So taking the 5th root of 1000, give us about an average compounded gain of 4X per year. So 3 years from 2018 and $10,000 would be $10,000 x 64 = $640,000.

But that requires that BTCs rise in price is not slowing down, which would be not the normal pattern for an S curve adoption so I presume it is decelerating. Also Mcaffees 3 years was from earlier this year, not Q1 2018.

I do think BTC will exceed $50,000 within 3 years, i.e. exceed $1 trillion market cap.

But some altcoins will go from $10 million to $1 billion market cap in 3 - 5 years. And perhaps one will go to $1 trillion market cap within 5 years (still lagging Bitcoins market cap though).

Which one?

Remember this. PhDs did not create Apple Computer nor Microsoft. PhDs did not create Facebook. PhDs did not create WeChat. PhDs DID create Google. But that should not be taken as an excuse to give $10 million of play money to junior-level programmers who lack the discipline/focus/experienced oversight of those aforementioned examples who created those hugely successful companies.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 02, 2017, 09:20:36 PM

Quote from: Ging on October 02, 2017, 07:32:13 PM

for me the whitepaper give it all from it you can see the idea behind the ICO

Disagree. 99% of the investors are not qualified to evaluate a whitepaper. They can be easily fooled by technobabble that sounds great but is actually fundamentally bullshit.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 02, 2017, 09:50:50 PM

Quote from: jjdub7 on October 02, 2017, 09:47:34 PM

Just need to use common sense.

That is not sufficient. As has already been explained by myself above and @kkofor, but you are not addressing my point that most investors are incapable of accurately judging the difference between slick presentation and actually sound technology.

Another smell test are ICOs which make claims which are not objectively provable material facts. They obviously do not care that they are stating claims about the future which they can not be sure of (which is also an illegal activity if the ICO is issued as a security, as is nearly always the case).

99% of ICOs will fail these smell tests, because just as in the Dot.com bubble and bust, 99% of them will be entirely useless other than to FOMOiate a bubble of selling empty bags to greater fools.

Yall have anal, circle-jerk fun attacking me personally. I will not reply. Go for it!

Dont fail to post some medical websites photo from Google Images of Angiokeratoma of the scrotum and erroneously claim its my scrotum. Shelby posted a photo of his balls! Sorry kiddies, no, it wasnt his scrotum.