Here you go, in bold my response:
Burak, as promised I made a list of points which determine why I believe in CS. This is written at a point were no code or main net has been released:
- I do think that they have to correct approach by having offices and take blockchain out in the open with a team to help partners/dapps/the target group on implementing their systems on the CS blockchain
Every project has offices. Doesn't mean anything. Every project has partners and dapps running. Doesnt mean anything. It's still one in a dozen project- I do think that visiting a lot of blockchain summits and other fairs regarding blockchain related services is a good thing that the team have been doing since ICO to draw attention for the usecase of CS and their product.
Every project visits blockchain summits lol. Even DETH, which worth like 700k$ lol, is visiting everything from events in Amsterdam to in Hawai. Must be nice to travel all over the world and spend that nice ICO $$$ on luxurieus life.- I do think that having focus on development, instead of direct listings after ICO, is a good way of creating a blockchain like CS is trying to create. Tech first, listings at second/third/etc. place.
That's literally nonsense. Price + ranking on CMC has a direct impact on partner selection for dapps. Who would you coopoerate with, a random nobody-has-ever0heard-of credits, or something like EOS which is on #5, while both boasting incredible speeds.
Anyway, no listing = worhtless operational tokens = out of money = bankrupt. - I do think that the team listens very carefully to what the market is demanding. The other products from CS, sub-chain/private-chain/DBMS, are an example of listening to the demands of their target group. These other products, besides the main chain, can help CS to become adopted faster compared to having only a main/public chain (
https://creditsenterprise.com/)
Nobody has every requested side chains. A private chain further destroys the use case of CS token, as they will issue their own token on their own network.
Enterprise blockchains are a stupid idea, just use a standard database if you want to use it intenrally. Blockchains are meant for using between parties that doe not trust and do not know each other.
If you have trust issues within your enteprise, a blockchain implementation will hardly be a solution lol- I do think that a product which can handle 50.000 TPS at release, and the possibility to reach 1 million TPS later on, is something which is much needed to welcome ‘old-economy-organisations’ to blockchain with their systems/software/databases.
there are projects claiming 50k+ tps atm than I can count. Might have been a USP 2 years ago, but because of the delay after delay, credits is no longer unique. Again, one in a dozen.- I do think that the role of IBM Blockchain Labs, in person by Nitin as advisor, can help opening doors for CS which normally would be closed. Accepting Nitin as an advisor is something that’s a good thing in my opinion
Nitin is just being paid to tweet and mention credits sometimes in interviews. He is hardly even involved in the project, other than visiting the office 1 time for 30 minutes lol.- I do think that using IBM cloud solutions for running nodes is a good thing. American/European countries are very negative regarding Russia and or Russian companies. Letting IBM cloud processing the node-data is a very good step in taking away any fear regarding the Russian roots of this project.
Thats not how a blockchain works. Everyone should be able to run a node.
https://hackernoon.com/sharding-centralizes-ethereum-by-selling-you-scaling-in-disguised-as-scaling-out-266c136fc55d
Read this, you might learn something.
Again, this is a BAD things that IBM nodes are being used, not a good thing. it just means that the network cannot be run on regular computers = CENTRALISED- I do think that CS have done a great job in communicating what their chain can do and which use cases are suitable for the CS chain
I do hope you are being sarcastic here. They haven't communicated anything, except for some high level general use cases.
Every project does this. Again, one in a dozen. Nothing special.- I do think that staking CS in order to run a node (in consensus) is very important to keep a certain safety for the network
Sure it does. It also creates a centralisation aspect, as now you need $$ to run a node.
Also CS can change stakingamount at any time, basically blocking everyone from being a consensus node.- Last but not least; I do think that the consensus algorithm is a solid algorithm which helps this chain to scale for wide adoption
You have NO idea how the consensus algoritm works.
In fact, NO ONE knows how it works.
It's CLOSED SOURCE.
Do you know what that menas?
It means, that until they OPEN SOURCE you have no idea what you have bought.
Just imagine you think you have bought a Lambo, but when you open the hood you see a toyota aygo engine xDHope it's clear for you know why this is (currently) a worthless investment.
There are far better alternatives on the market than this closed source, centralised, poorly managed crap.
All you have that is something out of the ordinary are IBM tweets about credits, but if you read them carefully, each one of them ends with an AD FOR IBM.
