Dude, I'm not sure if it was you that I watched in telegram, but if it was:
You came into the channel that is full of people playing on herosphere and claimed nobody was playing on herosphere. I would have banned you right there if I was an admin. Instead they asked you to provide proof. You only posted a link to a page with like 30 contests, each having between 3 and 15 players joined and continued claiming bullshit stuff. I mean, yeah, you are right, KuCoin volume is largely fake - as for any other coin that I hold. Surprise! But that's rarely the teams fault, what should they do about it?
And in all my time in the herocoin channel they have RARELY ever banned one. And in your case (if that was you) people actually applauded the admins for banning you. And so do I. Calm your tits man, you are making a total fool of yourself.

Edit: Also your ST claim is bullshit. Are you even sure you are in the right thread?!

1. Embeco
2. https://www.herosphere.gg/counter-strike-global-offensive/esea-premier-season-31-australia-group-stage-round-robin-ghg-vs-dinq-2000-45-x-2-1

(The first game I entered one team gave up. Does it still count? If so, nice, another free entry  Love your page btw!)

1) Embeco
2) https://www.herosphere.gg/counter-strike-global-offensive/esl-pro-league-9-apac-group-stage-round-2-oceania-ord-vs-ath-2000-45-x-2

That looks cool, especially considering that there is no token, because there is no usecase for it! Good job!
Can you guarantee that you or the trader can not steal me funds?

Joined, however I could not find the instructions for the proof of authentication. Could you point me towards it? Cheers

Thank you for your reply, really appreciate that stance!
Regarding your first point: I don't think I have contradicted myself, I may just not have sufficiently explained what I mean: There is no scientific proof, that the underlying principles of TA work for any other reason than the widespread belief that it works, meaning that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy and similar patterns would not form if they were not believed in by a large group of people, making them completely independent of the underlying economics.


I absolutely think so. However, those fundamentals are time discrete. I cannot decide to do an analysis of the fundamentals right now, I can just analyze news coming out. That's opposed to traditional markets, where I can analyze fundamentals at any given time. i'm not saying this is bad, but it definitely powers volatility and TA.



I have no evidence, hence the question in the thread title. For me, it is a question that I am asking myself and would like to get opinions - such as yours - on.
Regarding your last point I just wanted to throw in, that this exact same argument was the favorite argument of High Frequency Traders in traditional markets:
"We are not damaging the market, we are just supplying liquidity".
Turns out that was not the entire truth.

I have to say upfront that I'm no fan of technical analysis, even in traditional asset markets. There are 2 main reasons for this:
1) There is no scientific proof that technical analysis works at all. The only correlation between technical analysis and true market movements is that it is widely believed. And this leads to the next point
2) TA is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people stopped believing in it, it would stop working right away. If people find new patterns they only start actually working once they get enough traction for other people to believe in them.

This is somewhat of a problem in traditional assets, but it is just a minor nuisance. The fundamental values of traditional assets always strike back, no matter what TA says. Found resistance? Doesn't matter if the underlying value shoots way up due to increasing sales, usage or whatever. Glad a value has some support? Doesn't matter if sales drop to near-zero, the price does not care about support.

At cryptocurrencies, however, those fundamental values don't work as there are rarely any. Most companies behind cryptocurrencies either have no product that is close to justifying their volume and value. Some of them (Bitcoin amongst them) do not even want to have one. Therefore they are subject to constant influence by those religiously believing in TA, which makes them an object of pure speculation. The fundamental values are "news", no matter the level of reliance.

In my opinion, this holds cryptocurrencies from being a usable and reliable method for everyday transaction use.

What is your view on this?

This is a log I got:

Hi,
I made the mistake of buying a D3, but as it is still profitable after power costs I let it run. For a couple of days now it has stopped mining multiple times, it displayed 0MH/S in the dashboard. Thinking this may be a problem caused by the lousy internet connection I just kept rebooting. However, today it only shows one ASIC in the dashboard, even after rebooting



https://imgur.com/a/VsmpD

Does this mean the miner is defect?

If so, should I even bother sending it back or just write off the money? IIRC bitmain does not even do refunds, they only change the miner, so it would probably not be worth the hassle of sending it back, waiting weeks over weeks for a mere dollar a day...

Hi Rabbot,
I am the one you wrote with in your support tickets and you accuse of being a scammer (which I kindly ask you to stop). If you want to, I would be happy to share our correspondence here.
As you all know by now, we have done everything we could to make this ICO compliant to local legislation. Therefore for our accounting we had to include a KYC light, which Rabbot was hesitant to comply with, accusing us of violating the Federal Law of the Russian Federation (which we don't and never did) and threatening to have us blocked in Russia. He then said he would like to send information of another person, which is basically tax evasion. Being under the surveillance we are right now, we cannot take the risk of evading tax as a company. 9 mails have been written.

I am not a scammer and nobody else on this team is. I deny any accusations regarding this. We are a company and we have laws to comply with.

Overall I have to say that this bounty campaign was among the worst organized of all that I have taken part in.
Changing the rules at will, announcing continuation but then again announcing it has ended and no definitive answer... Hope the actual project goes a bit better. I do see some potential in this coin and would really appreciate more insights and better organization.
At least I have to say the bounty payout went very quickly! Appreciate that!

That's so not true. You can use an escrow, but why would you if you can have a smart contract fulfill the same role? And I do not know a case of a smart contract getting greedy and running of with ICO funds... Also, to stay ontopic: Those escrow mechanisms in smart contracts are very common and almost every ICO has it in a kind of soft-cap implementation. If an ICO does not have this I would consider twice to invest in it as it is an additional layer of user protection.

And as so often the best way to do it lies in between. You can fail miserably in Bitcoin as you can in stocks. Educate yourself, learn what it is you are dealing with and then invest an amount you are not sad about if it's lost.

At least you know that you can only blame yourself. That puts you in a superior position compared to so many others who blame companies for their mistakes like messing up addresses, sending to ICOs from exchanges and so on...

They were too slow. China always said they only wanted to ban ICOs and exchanges until they found a better solution for protecting its users. (If you believe this or not is another thing, but it doesn't matter in this case) They had people from the  crypto community in der commitee (like the founder team of NEO), but obviously they did not manage to find a better solution.

So is China, and they understood they can't ban crypto, so they have to support it and use it to their own advantage. I am sure Russia will not make stupid mistakes here as well...

This does not surprise me the least. Compare that to non-blockchain open source projects. Would surprise me A LOT if these had a higher percentage...

Not a rollercoster, but I think this time it was very hard to see where this is going. Segwit2x had lots of support in the beginnen, then failed to deliver to the expectations. Cancelling the fork may have gone both ways: Drop in price since people expected free money from the fork or increase because people are reassured regarding the security of Bitcoin...

I advanced to a Member now, could you update this in my signature campaign?

Interesting Point of View. I'd like to see how he compares this to the Gartner hypecycle.