Quote from: normana on February 10, 2019, 07:17:39 PM

Quote from: coinfanatic on February 10, 2019, 05:25:32 PM

Quote from: normana on February 10, 2019, 04:54:20 PM

Contributions on GitHub include comments, issues, code reviews.... Nimiq Team does make little use of these features on GitHub, instead they use other communication channels

Yet another lie of Marvin (aka normana) debunked:
Issues and pull requests will appear on your contribution graph [and] Commits will appear on your contributions graph.

Obviously, Marvin lied when he claimed "communication" is counted as contributions. Bitcoin developers don't "communicate" more, they simply work 10x more than the nimiq scammers.

There is no conflict between what I said and what GitHub says. GitHub contributions are communication and commits. I never said otherwise. You failed to proof that bitcoin devs have significantly more commits. This concludes that the significantly higher number of contributions consist mainly of communication. Learn to apply basic logic.

Quote from: wentian.cn on February 10, 2019, 05:14:57 PM

There are even open source projects that have more work committed. One example is the nimiq's biggest competitor, namely WebDollar. According to its github repository, WEBD devs had over 3,000+ commits in a year with no funding

Thanks for confirming again where this FUD is coming from.

Quote from: Scamiq on February 10, 2019, 05:52:10 PM

Ok fine it's a failed project. Now can we please have some accountability from the team!!!!!!

In my opinion there are four possible situations an ICO project might be in:
(1) The project failed. They are unable to produce what they intend to due to lack of funding. All the team can do is publicly announce and excuse for their failure.
(2) The project failed. The team did not produce anything or only very few of what was announced during the ICO and stopped further development.
(3) The project is in progress. The team is producing what is intended to be produced by the ICO investors.
(4) The project is succesful. The team produced all the things the ICO investors wanted them to produce. There is no reason for refunds as the investors got what they paid for.

It's now up to you to decide which of the four best describes the current situation.
(1) is not the case given the financial insights the team provided in their latest blog post
(2) is invalid given they are still actively developing and also developed a fully functional blockchain completely from scratch and launched a mainnet, which is kind of the main thing they proposed to do with the ICO funds.
So only (3) and (4) are possible options. Decide which one you prefer.

Warning: yuluxugi32132, nimiqshitcoin, coinfanatic, andrewjaxx, john.btc, sasha.new, Scamiq, robin.nimiq are sockpuppet accounts, proven liars and FUDers. All of them were only created this year and only for the purpose of spamming this thread (check their profile). They claim substantial losses due to their Nimiq investments, yet fail to provide any proof that they actually invested. Rumors say that they come from another crypto project, assuming they are a direct competitor to Nimiq. Don't expect anything mentioned by them to be true. If you want real insights, check out Nimiq community channels (Discord, Telegram).

They were supposed to promote the coin, get it on good exchanges and grow the community, instead they scammed us and failed to do all of these things. Without users or developers this coin falls in price towards zero and miners will stop mining, making the blockchain stop. In other words they didn't deliver what they were supposed to, a sustainable blockchain.

Also they promised us a fiat p2p exchange for 2019 in the original roadmap, but they just dropped it. And then they are constantly reengineering stuff without first ensuring the coin grows in value through promotion. They could take a leaf from litecoin and what they're doing to promote the coin.