The founders kept silent about the problems, in fact pretended to be building MMUs, while things went awry as soon as the ICO was finished. They are complicit. I still don't see a future for this 'company'.

Both the founders and Woestmann may have already left the country, together with the money raised from the ICO as well as the money from tokens they sold on the exchange while pretending everything was okay.

Stop thinking thinking this will end alright.

All people involved with Envion should be treated as criminals.

I advise Envion ICO investors to sue the Envion founders and CEO for not producing the expected amount of MMUs and thereby not being able to provide the advertised ROI.

Demand your money back. The tokens are worthless if there are no mining operations. Focus on the funds they raised, which have not been used for their intended purpose.

For months Envion kept silent and pretended to be building MMUs. They have lied to you.

There have been lawsuits over much smaller Kickstarter projects that failed to deliver.


That was a $25,000 fund raiser. The Envion ICO was over a $100 million fund raiser. Go figure.

The feud and lawsuit between the founders and Woestmann is irrelevant to the investors. Envion for all intents and purposes is forever dysfunctional. The only thing that matters, investors, is getting your money back.

I didn't trust Envion since I posted on the second page of this thread and I certainly don't trust them now. I never owned any Envion tokens and I never will. But I feel sorry for the investors, even though they should have been aware of the red flags before investing.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is an orchestrated show. How come both the founders and Woestmann break the news on the 16th, including a website, press coverage and videos? Now there's a so called legal battle, which is a distraction to mask the question: where is the $100 million?

Has anyone tracked down those $100 million?

What investors should do is organize a class-action suit and reclaim those ICO funds.

In crypto you're responsible for the safety of your own funds. Therefore you have to take some time to secure your computer and take preventive measures:

Don't enter your private key on untrusted websites.
Don't click links in e-mails.
Use bookmarks.
Metamask for Ethereum blocks many phishing sites, but you still need to watch where you spend.

You really can't compare traditional banking fees with Bitcoin transaction fees. Cryptocurrency transactions and bank transactions aren't the same thing, and as a frequent visitor of BitcoinTalk you ought to know that. Otherwise I really don't know what you're doing here. Bitcoin transactions are decentralized, immutable and secured through a cryptographic proof-of-work consensus algorithm.

You're right, it has been blown way out of proportion by the press. In fiat terms, yes it was high, but it should have been put in perspective. Even so there was a point where the BTC price for transactions was higher than desirable too. There has been a lot of research to improve scaling and lower the transaction fees. It's cutting edge, a work-in-progress, but the mainstream press has been merciless, painting Bitcoin as a finalized product.

Blockchain is not the only interesting technique of cryptocurrencies. There's the p2p networking, the actual cryptography, the consensus algorithms like proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, privacy features like zk-snarks and ring signatures.

If you look at the Bitcoin price chart there's a big chance the price is moving in the opposite direction, all the way back to $1000. You stand to lose 80% of your house's value.

Not sure if you mean Bitcoin is vying for attention in general or that altcoins are detracting from Bitcoin.

Both could be true, but I think the prior is the biggest problem right now. Cryptocurrencies have fallen out of favor with the press and the mainstream populace. While the well of investments dries up, all coins are fighting for scraps.

The rate of ETH/BTC has been falling from a high of 0.120 to 0.055. From here on it could go down to 0.025 or even lower if there's no reason to buy Ether. The Bitcoin keyword in Google Trends has peaked in January, so I think there's not a lot of new investors but we're just trading with each other, while some of us are cashing out, having a net negative effect on the total market cap.

Exactly. Demand for Ether isn't coming by itself. There needs to be a reason to buy it. The past few months we're seeing more sell pressure. It has been reasoned that ICOs like EOS are selling their Ether, although I wonder why they waited this long instead of selling when it was $1300.

Whether or not there is a cartel working against Bitcoin, that just exposes a flaw: namely that Bitcoin isn't cartel-proof. Instead of looking for who to blame for the bear market, we should improve Bitcoin so that it can't get attacked and there's no way around it.

In short, Bitcoin fails because it fails. Let's make it better.

Come on, use your brain. Blocking cryptocurrency and ICO ads is not contradicting their development of a blockchain. You can have blockchains without cryptocurrencies and ICOs too, you know?

Few if any people in this thread understand what's going on.

These enterprises are not developing their own blockchains and patenting the technology to make people like us rich.

It's like saying closed source databases are good for open source magic internet money.

(Ironically, MySQL isn't that bad off under Oracle...)

I bumped into this question in the ZenCash thread. This issue is not unique to Bitcoin. It affects all blockchains.

My answer is that this issue isn't unique to cryptocurrencies. Steganography can be applied to many forms of data storage and communication. Be it stock market prices, radio waves, favicons and web ads... I'm sure it's possible to encode illegal data with sesame seeds on hamburgers.

If this issue is being used to bring down cryptocurrency, it opens a Pandora's Box for every possible carrier and unwilling recipient of steganography.

I don't know how you can have both censorship and censorship resistance in an immutable database.

In fact I wonder if it's possible to have censorship at all. Even if there are no fields for arbitrary user data, it'd be possible to encode data in the amount field.

What would a bank or stock exchange do if they found out illegal data is encoded in their databases through a sequence of stock market prices? Roll back all the transactions?

Pay close attention. Google are not 'with' us. They are defending their position.


There are different types of blockchain. Please educate yourself before becoming too optimistic.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/

ZenCash has been doing pretty well all things considered. A serious and friendly community without the drama that plagues some other Equihash projects. They have a great development team and a partnership with IOHK.

The whole point behind cryptocurrencies was to make them trustless.

"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with hardly a fraction in reserve."

- Satoshi Nakamoto

G20 financial heads are now trying to put the cat back in the bag by forcing cryptocurrencies to become trust-based.

If those G20 financial heads really cared about consumers, why are they forcing those consumers to send their identification documents to untrusted parties while at the same time warning they are likely to be cyber criminals?