Topic: [ANN] Qora | Released 16 May | 100% POS | New Source - page 475. (Read 748234 times)
Since we all got here anyway maybe it would make sense to make something of it. For example we can do at least a simple fork of Nxt. Like Nas. At least it's something. People will get coins, nobody lost money. Additionaly to 10B planned coins we can release 1B dev fund and 1B marketing fund. Is there any chance we can have a couple of develoreprs that can do such thing?
Escrow for many IPOs make people think it's legit. Whether they are stupid to is neither here nor there, people DID pay straight to the guy....a lot.
I have suggested also earlier why people tend to avoid Anon1 Escrow due to not knowing how to use private keys.
I think the whole thing about this IPO is people once they saw or 'thought' they saw a working beta with a completely new code and offering Escrow they thought it was a cast iron legit opportunity.
But yes they should of Escrowed but the fact is 80btc did get sent direct. I expect many have learned a lesson from this. Bit I do hope the Escrow thing gets explained a bit more in laymans terms so not to deter any noobs from using it. Bear in mind Escrow was only available near the end of the IPO.
People sending directly are asking to be robbed.
I really don't get it , after the visacoin madness in january and the wave of ipos why aren't people learning?
Or is this board attracting idiots ?
Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him. If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?
Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.
Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.
I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.
Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.
As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672
It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.
It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:
I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
Sorry but you did seem to give an all clear on the code as original and legit. No one is really blaming you and I admit that was a strong statement that wasn't really that serious, but I am suggesting people DID see your comments and assumed everything was all good for the coin. Ultimately more the fool them.
Whose fault is it that people paid money and lost it? Themselves of course but you should also take a bit of personal responsibility by accepting you influenced the conversation.
Sorry , but what lost money when this coin was supposed to have an escrow?
Escrow for many IPOs make people think it's legit. Whether they are stupid to is neither here nor there, people DID pay straight to the guy....a lot.
I have suggested also earlier why people tend to avoid Anon1 Escrow due to not knowing how to use private keys.
I think the whole thing about this IPO is people once they saw or 'thought' they saw a working beta with a completely new code and offering Escrow they thought it was a cast iron legit opportunity.
But yes they should of Escrowed but the fact is 80btc did get sent direct. I expect many have learned a lesson from this. Bit I do hope the Escrow thing gets explained a bit more in laymans terms so not to deter any noobs from using it. Bear in mind Escrow was only available near the end of the IPO.
So... how long are we giving qora to appear with an update before asking Anon136 to return funds?
To be clear... I wasn't expecting a launch yesterday as there was NO such announcement... just looking for an update.
Well, I think if we get no answer from Qora during 24h, then...
Another scam? My god. Just like whatcoin. Another failure!
IPO is full of risk! We should be careful later!
IPO is full of risk! We should be careful later!
I still don't believe that it is scam.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.
Visacoin kept IPO money in the wallet for several month.
Anyhow, I see no reason not to launch it. There is a working beta. People received and sent coins. Why wouldn't he create a genesis and send coins to people. Isn't it that hard.
Thing is did people really use a working beta or did they just use a simple coded wallet transfer system that the guy either copied of another coin or just coded it himself.
I wish someone with real tech knowhow could have a look at the code and decided what this thing really is.
He might just just tell me to sod off But I thinking as I type this to maybe send a PM to someone like Come from Beyond the guy dealing with NXT to have a quick look at it. Anyone else have a good person to ask or know they can ask?
I still don't believe that it is scam.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.
Visacoin kept IPO money in the wallet for several month.
Anyhow, I see no reason not to launch it. There is a working beta. People received and sent coins. Why wouldn't he create a genesis and send coins to people. Isn't it that hard.
I still don't believe that it is scam.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.
IPO's money are still in IPO wallet.
Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him. If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?
Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.
Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.
I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.
Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.
As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672
It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.
It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:
I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
Sorry but you did seem to give an all clear on the code as original and legit. No one is really blaming you and I admit that was a strong statement that wasn't really that serious, but I am suggesting people DID see your comments and assumed everything was all good for the coin. Ultimately more the fool them.
Whose fault is it that people paid money and lost it? Themselves of course but you should also take a bit of personal responsibility by accepting you influenced the conversation.
Sorry , but what lost money when this coin was supposed to have an escrow?
Heh. +1 for the profile message niothor.
I gambled (investing isn't the right word regarding crypto IPOs) 50 EUR worth of BTC here (no escrow, feels so much better without;). I thought about it for quite some time and then I realized that it all looked a bit to integer to be a scam.
A scam IPO would smear as much honey around the 'investors' lips as possible, without trying to be too obvious. Qora did, at no point, do this. On the contrary, this IPO might have benefited from some extra PR skills. (He didn't even think of posting screenshots until asked for example)
So either this is one of the best executed scams that I've seen in a while, and Qora has deserved my 50 EUR, or he'll pop up sooner or later and all will be well. Until proven otherwise, I still honestly believe he'll show up.
On a sidenote: All you people who 'invested' up to 1500 USD in this: you really should start asking yourselves some questions. "Why?" is the most important one.
Of course we all know what happened after the NXT IPO, but don't let the thought of all the millions you could have made back then make you empty your pockets to obtain the largest possible piece of pie you can get your hands on.
Modesty is a virtue.
I gambled (investing isn't the right word regarding crypto IPOs) 50 EUR worth of BTC here (no escrow, feels so much better without;). I thought about it for quite some time and then I realized that it all looked a bit to integer to be a scam.
A scam IPO would smear as much honey around the 'investors' lips as possible, without trying to be too obvious. Qora did, at no point, do this. On the contrary, this IPO might have benefited from some extra PR skills. (He didn't even think of posting screenshots until asked for example)
So either this is one of the best executed scams that I've seen in a while, and Qora has deserved my 50 EUR, or he'll pop up sooner or later and all will be well. Until proven otherwise, I still honestly believe he'll show up.
On a sidenote: All you people who 'invested' up to 1500 USD in this: you really should start asking yourselves some questions. "Why?" is the most important one.
Of course we all know what happened after the NXT IPO, but don't let the thought of all the millions you could have made back then make you empty your pockets to obtain the largest possible piece of pie you can get your hands on.
Modesty is a virtue.
Thanks for the thumbs up:).
The alt sections and the new people jumping on every coin launched every second was my source of inspiration. Sad , sad source.
Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him. If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?
Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.
Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.
I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.
Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.
As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672
It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.
It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:
I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
Sorry but you did seem to give an all clear on the code as original and legit. No one is really blaming you and I admit that was a strong statement that wasn't really that serious, but I am suggesting people DID see your comments and assumed everything was all good for the coin. Ultimately more the fool them.
Whose fault is it that people paid money and lost it? Themselves of course but you should also take a bit of personal responsibility by accepting you influenced the conversation.
Come back, man. Let's launch it. Even if it's clone, who gives a fuck. Look what I've drawn.
hahaha your awesome.
Second one looks cool.
+1
Second one looks cool.
Come back, man. Let's launch it. Even if it's clone, who gives a fuck. Look what I've drawn.
What dev still has not turned up makes me worry.
Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him. If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?
Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.
Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.
I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.
Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.
As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672
It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.
It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:
I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him. If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?
Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.
Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.
I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.
Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.
As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672
It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.
It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:
I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
It makes lots of sense what you're saying. I'm not a programer but visually I see nothing in common between eMunie, Nxt and Qora wallets.
Actually probably no one tested it properly. Like one guy (notsoshifty) said its all new code and I expect everyone believed him. If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone. Or he is Qora?
Well, hyunsookmom, you're talking a lot of BS in this thread, but this message is about me so I'll point out some things.
Firstly off, I'm not Qora, although of course I can't prove that.
I didn't say "it's all new code", I said "Decompilation suggests it doesn't appear to be based on nxt code" because TheMightyX asked "Has anyone actually reviewed the code to make sure its not just the NXT source". I decompiled the Qora beta and compared it to Nxt, and they look completely different. I used words like 'suggests' and 'appears' because it's decompilation of obfuscated code after all.
Then you said "The Wallet is eMunie's beta testing wallet..." so i compared the Qora beta decompiled code with the latest eMunie decompiled code. Again, they don't look similar, so I said so.
As for "I expect everyone believed him" and "If it isn't you can pretty much blame him for misleading everyone", I also gave people sufficient information on how to check it for themselves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg6153672;topicseen#msg6153672
It looks like what you're doing is seeing that the UI is vaguely similar, and concluding that they're the same, and concluding that Qora is a scam.
It might be a scam. My investment was through escrow so I'm protected against Qora doing a runner now. What I'm not protected against is Qora releasing a client that basically works (you can transfer funds, you can create aliases, etc), but doesn't stand up to any form of serious scrutiny once it's launched. Like, it doesn't have sufficient protection against double spends. I put a post out about that, put nobody apart from Qora replied. Posting again here, in case anybody has input:
I've loaded the client and made a few test transactions and naming assignments. In those basic tests it all seems to work fine with only cosmetic issues.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
My question (to beta testers, fellow investors and potential investors, and qora) is, how can we verify that the code implements functionality like:
- prevent double spends
- uses PoS to achieve consensus, and prevent 51% (90%? 99%?) attacks
- prevent transaction replays
- prevent transaction malleability
- handle fork-related scenarios correctly
- ensure no new funds are generated after equivalent of genesis block
etc?
This is especially important as we have no access to readable code, and it is not based on any existing cryptocurrency code.
It's not good.
Where is dev?
Where is dev?
Jump to: