Topic: [ANN] [SHLD] ShieldCoin - X15 - PoS - Fair Launch - Whitepaper RELEASE! - page 42. (Read 106529 times)
July 12, 2014, 08:22:52 PM
Waiting on BTC Pending in Bittrex
July 12, 2014, 08:21:42 PM
July 12, 2014, 08:19:02 PM
I still don't get the FUD. The dev said he was inspired by other projects. He wants to implement a feature that comes from a company not involved in crypto-currency.
solid12345, so suck on some URO.
solid12345, so suck on some URO.
It's one of the hypocrisies you see in crypto, white knights who "only care about you" try to "save" people from losing money, so they spread rumors and FUD, the whole time they are buying in cheaply.
Wonder how many FUD'ers are up 20% instantly
July 12, 2014, 08:18:35 PM
LOL.
Ok. So this is what I found:
It seems that the following text is the exact same in both the Shieldcoin paper and the RetroShare paper:
"The tunnelling service does not ensure the data integrity, nor its confidentiality. It’s the service’s responsibility to do that. We made that choice for robustness reasons, since tunnels can die unpredictably (e.g. when a peer in the middle disconnects).
File transfer, for instance manages multiple tunnels per hash, and asks chunks again if they cannot be obtained or got corrupted after the previous request."
This text appears just under the tunneling diagram that the Shieldcoin dev used in the section of his paper where he describes tunneling. The diagram also appears on the RetroShare document:
https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/page/3/
As far as I can see, the rest of the Shieldcoin paper was very well paraphrased when others' ideas were used and it's obvious that the dev has put his own twist on these ideas.
In my opinion, it seems that perhaps the dev when constructing his paper thought that the tunneling diagram from RetroShare did a great job explaining tunneling, decided to use the diagram, and made the mistake of using the same paragraph of text associated with the diagram which explains what is going on in the diagram. Should he have paraphrased that paragraph? Probably.
Does that mean that Shieldcoin is a scam? NO. NO. NO.
Let's just cool it and hear what the dev has to say later when he awakes from his nap.
Ok. So this is what I found:
It seems that the following text is the exact same in both the Shieldcoin paper and the RetroShare paper:
"The tunnelling service does not ensure the data integrity, nor its confidentiality. It’s the service’s responsibility to do that. We made that choice for robustness reasons, since tunnels can die unpredictably (e.g. when a peer in the middle disconnects).
File transfer, for instance manages multiple tunnels per hash, and asks chunks again if they cannot be obtained or got corrupted after the previous request."
This text appears just under the tunneling diagram that the Shieldcoin dev used in the section of his paper where he describes tunneling. The diagram also appears on the RetroShare document:
https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/page/3/
As far as I can see, the rest of the Shieldcoin paper was very well paraphrased when others' ideas were used and it's obvious that the dev has put his own twist on these ideas.
In my opinion, it seems that perhaps the dev when constructing his paper thought that the tunneling diagram from RetroShare did a great job explaining tunneling, decided to use the diagram, and made the mistake of using the same paragraph of text associated with the diagram which explains what is going on in the diagram. Should he have paraphrased that paragraph? Probably.
Does that mean that Shieldcoin is a scam? NO. NO. NO.
Let's just cool it and hear what the dev has to say later when he awakes from his nap.
Yep thats what i found out about the devs my self.
Dev here
Sorry if this caused trouble for people's investments. I was on very little sleep and trying to finish a paper ASAP - a lot of the code and ideas is based on retroshare code, and I acted less than vigilantly and copied a bit more than I should have - I took the tunneling diagram and its caption because it was the same.
I just want to point out that days ago I did say I had been reaching out to another project, which was retroshare. I've based a lot of my work on their work, which I said also. Both are quoted by other members and not edited posts.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7774525 (way back from pg 10)
I'll be releasing most of this as open source once the project is very complete. Some parts are taken from existing projects, some are new - but I would like to release it all in the future (not just the open parts) if the community agrees.]I'll be releasing most of this as open source once the project is very complete. Some parts are taken from existing projects, some are new - but I would like to release it all in the future (not just the open parts) if the community agrees.
The project is underway, regardless of FUD or not. Sorry about the diagrams, and thank you for researching your coins properly.
Great Thanks for explaining everything. Now Panic buy I told u all not to sell ur coins. The dev is here and will implement the work. Money supply is only 1M buying more now. To show my support I will put up buy support wall of 15BTC in case anyone is crazy enough to dump
July 12, 2014, 08:17:42 PM
*pops popcorn
July 12, 2014, 08:13:20 PM
How many confirmations before shieldcoins are "mature"?
July 12, 2014, 08:11:11 PM
LOL.
Ok. So this is what I found:
It seems that the following text is the exact same in both the Shieldcoin paper and the RetroShare paper:
"The tunnelling service does not ensure the data integrity, nor its confidentiality. It’s the service’s responsibility to do that. We made that choice for robustness reasons, since tunnels can die unpredictably (e.g. when a peer in the middle disconnects).
File transfer, for instance manages multiple tunnels per hash, and asks chunks again if they cannot be obtained or got corrupted after the previous request."
This text appears just under the tunneling diagram that the Shieldcoin dev used in the section of his paper where he describes tunneling. The diagram also appears on the RetroShare document:
https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/page/3/
As far as I can see, the rest of the Shieldcoin paper was very well paraphrased when others' ideas were used and it's obvious that the dev has put his own twist on these ideas.
In my opinion, it seems that perhaps the dev when constructing his paper thought that the tunneling diagram from RetroShare did a great job explaining tunneling, decided to use the diagram, and made the mistake of using the same paragraph of text associated with the diagram which explains what is going on in the diagram. Should he have paraphrased that paragraph? Probably.
Does that mean that Shieldcoin is a scam? NO. NO. NO.
Let's just cool it and hear what the dev has to say later when he awakes from his nap.
Ok. So this is what I found:
It seems that the following text is the exact same in both the Shieldcoin paper and the RetroShare paper:
"The tunnelling service does not ensure the data integrity, nor its confidentiality. It’s the service’s responsibility to do that. We made that choice for robustness reasons, since tunnels can die unpredictably (e.g. when a peer in the middle disconnects).
File transfer, for instance manages multiple tunnels per hash, and asks chunks again if they cannot be obtained or got corrupted after the previous request."
This text appears just under the tunneling diagram that the Shieldcoin dev used in the section of his paper where he describes tunneling. The diagram also appears on the RetroShare document:
https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/page/3/
As far as I can see, the rest of the Shieldcoin paper was very well paraphrased when others' ideas were used and it's obvious that the dev has put his own twist on these ideas.
In my opinion, it seems that perhaps the dev when constructing his paper thought that the tunneling diagram from RetroShare did a great job explaining tunneling, decided to use the diagram, and made the mistake of using the same paragraph of text associated with the diagram which explains what is going on in the diagram. Should he have paraphrased that paragraph? Probably.
Does that mean that Shieldcoin is a scam? NO. NO. NO.
Let's just cool it and hear what the dev has to say later when he awakes from his nap.
Yep thats what i found out about the devs my self.
Dev here
Sorry if this caused trouble for people's investments. I was on very little sleep and trying to finish a paper ASAP - a lot of the code and ideas is based on retroshare code, and I acted less than vigilantly and copied a bit more than I should have - I took the tunneling diagram and its caption because it was the same.
I just want to point out that days ago I did say I had been reaching out to another project, which was retroshare. I've based a lot of my work on their work, which I said also. Both are quoted by other members and not edited posts.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7774525 (way back from pg 10)
I'll be releasing most of this as open source once the project is very complete. Some parts are taken from existing projects, some are new - but I would like to release it all in the future (not just the open parts) if the community agrees.
The project is underway, regardless of FUD or not. Sorry about the diagrams, and thank you for researching your coins properly.
July 12, 2014, 08:11:06 PM
Another One from Stealthcoin above me Wao, Listen this is getting ridiculous. Why dont you guys go over to your failing coins and fud over there
July 12, 2014, 08:05:21 PM
Look, I am already being accused of "costing people money"
But ask yourself, how on earth does a 5-day plain generic coin with no features to speak of and only 33 page thread history pump to 800 btc volume in just 24 hours?
It is clearly a Fontas scam pump. The only ones who will be "losing" money is YOU when he DUMPS on you all.
Make me into the bad guy all you like but there was nothing of this coin that would make it worth so much except for intentional market manipulation. IF the coin is legit and the dev comes through with such features in weeks or months, maybe then it would be worth it, but at the moment you clearly are all being played like a fiddle. The people who are the most mad is the puppet masters whose game I fucked up.
But ask yourself, how on earth does a 5-day plain generic coin with no features to speak of and only 33 page thread history pump to 800 btc volume in just 24 hours?
It is clearly a Fontas scam pump. The only ones who will be "losing" money is YOU when he DUMPS on you all.
Make me into the bad guy all you like but there was nothing of this coin that would make it worth so much except for intentional market manipulation. IF the coin is legit and the dev comes through with such features in weeks or months, maybe then it would be worth it, but at the moment you clearly are all being played like a fiddle. The people who are the most mad is the puppet masters whose game I fucked up.
Solid12345, I don't know how you can "spot" scam in other coins, but with URO you'll drop your pants without question.
Anyway, would have loved to bust another scam here, but copying whitepapers is a red flag. This coin, I'm not sure it's legit or a scam.
July 12, 2014, 08:00:18 PM
Look, I am already being accused of "costing people money"
But ask yourself, how on earth does a 5-day plain generic coin with no features to speak of and only 33 page thread history pump to 800 btc volume in just 24 hours?
It is clearly a Fontas scam pump. The only ones who will be "losing" money is YOU when he DUMPS on you all.
Make me into the bad guy all you like but there was nothing of this coin that would make it worth so much except for intentional market manipulation. IF the coin is legit and the dev comes through with such features in weeks or months, maybe then it would be worth it, but at the moment you clearly are all being played like a fiddle. The people who are the most mad is the puppet masters whose game I fucked up.
But ask yourself, how on earth does a 5-day plain generic coin with no features to speak of and only 33 page thread history pump to 800 btc volume in just 24 hours?
It is clearly a Fontas scam pump. The only ones who will be "losing" money is YOU when he DUMPS on you all.
Make me into the bad guy all you like but there was nothing of this coin that would make it worth so much except for intentional market manipulation. IF the coin is legit and the dev comes through with such features in weeks or months, maybe then it would be worth it, but at the moment you clearly are all being played like a fiddle. The people who are the most mad is the puppet masters whose game I fucked up.
July 12, 2014, 07:59:46 PM
Another URO Supporter right above my comment, not going to quote u. Seems like a coordinated Fud attack by uro members that are butt hurt cause they were called out as scam, so now they have to fud here
July 12, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
I have been following this coin and it is unfortunate that the dev plagiarized part of his white paper as mentioned in several previous posts. Now normally a white paper is supposed to convey the ideas of the dev and as such one normally assumes it is written by the dev, in his own words. When the white paper came out several comments on this forum talked about its originality which I assumed gave investors confidence to invest in this coin. Now we know that is not the case. Copy-pasting parts of a white paper show a lack of professionalism and lack of citation for text/diagrams copied from others is also problematic. This is much more different than using open source code which is intended for free use by all.
Now you may believe that these things were oversights that were missed in the rush of things to get out the whitepaper on time. Each investor must then ask themselves if such shoddy work in the whitepaper will carry over to the coding for this coin and if the 'original ideas' in the paper are truly understood by the dev since they are not of his own words. You may decide to take the risk, you may not. Each person has to make their own choice.
Also I want to make one more point about the crypto community in general. To the people blaming the initial tweeter as a fudder, all he did was present to you evidence of plagiarism. In fact the price of this coin only tanked when his tweet was picked up by CryptoCobain who I assume most of you follow on twitter. Are you all going to call him a fudder next? So the problem is not with the messenger who did his due diligence when looking at this coin but the Shield and the altcoin community in general who want to believe (or a pump) so badly in a coin project that they skip doing research before investing.
Nobody can argue that plagiarism occurred but the reaction to this as reflected by the price and the responses on this forum demonstrates that very few people are actually in this coin as an investment and most are just mad that the pump was disrupted by the truth. It seems you would rather the pump continue while you follow along blindly without all the facts.
The problem with this attitude is that it leaves you ripe for manipulation by whales who can alter the price and cause a panic which normally would be countered if one did proper research before investing. That leaves us all poorer.
Now you may believe that these things were oversights that were missed in the rush of things to get out the whitepaper on time. Each investor must then ask themselves if such shoddy work in the whitepaper will carry over to the coding for this coin and if the 'original ideas' in the paper are truly understood by the dev since they are not of his own words. You may decide to take the risk, you may not. Each person has to make their own choice.
Also I want to make one more point about the crypto community in general. To the people blaming the initial tweeter as a fudder, all he did was present to you evidence of plagiarism. In fact the price of this coin only tanked when his tweet was picked up by CryptoCobain who I assume most of you follow on twitter. Are you all going to call him a fudder next? So the problem is not with the messenger who did his due diligence when looking at this coin but the Shield and the altcoin community in general who want to believe (or a pump) so badly in a coin project that they skip doing research before investing.
Nobody can argue that plagiarism occurred but the reaction to this as reflected by the price and the responses on this forum demonstrates that very few people are actually in this coin as an investment and most are just mad that the pump was disrupted by the truth. It seems you would rather the pump continue while you follow along blindly without all the facts.
The problem with this attitude is that it leaves you ripe for manipulation by whales who can alter the price and cause a panic which normally would be countered if one did proper research before investing. That leaves us all poorer.
July 12, 2014, 07:23:59 PM
When do you guys think the dev will be back on?
well, I think 4 hours ago he said he was going to crash,so.....maybe 11 est? 
July 12, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
Someone is purposely pulling the price down? Why the fuck?
July 12, 2014, 07:16:39 PM
When do you guys think the dev will be back on?
July 12, 2014, 07:09:42 PM
GUYS GUYS just Chill!! come over to a real coin with real devs, real anon and a great community. CLOAKCOIN
I've invested in XC, Cloak, VRC. Shieldcoin will be awesome I'm sure.
July 12, 2014, 07:06:24 PM
GUYS GUYS just Chill!! come over to a real coin with real devs, real anon and a great community. CLOAKCOIN
July 12, 2014, 07:01:06 PM
Lets just wait until the dev gives his response to the accusations and a chance for him to be transparent about the dev team. If you think its a good investment, buy and stick around to support it. If you think its a scam, you said what you have to say, so just leave and go find a coin you would like to support and invest in. Why waste your time repeatedly crying foul, especially when you have nothing invested in it...when you should be spending your time supporting the coins you invested in, so you can make the investment prosper.
July 12, 2014, 06:59:48 PM
I thought you were done here? [As long as we are quoting previous pages.]
Anyway i'm done, i'll laugh in a week when this thread is locked or the dev goes missing like the dev on ISIS did when he deleted my posts there and locked the thread after that hilarious Mintpal fiasco.
Anyway i'm done, i'll laugh in a week when this thread is locked or the dev goes missing like the dev on ISIS did when he deleted my posts there and locked the thread after that hilarious Mintpal fiasco.
Saw that and it was too good to pass up. Developer has no clue what he has in store for his own coin and "thinks" he has skills? This is all hilarious
July 12, 2014, 06:55:03 PM
I thought you were done here? [As long as we are quoting previous pages.]
Anyway i'm done, i'll laugh in a week when this thread is locked or the dev goes missing like the dev on ISIS did when he deleted my posts there and locked the thread after that hilarious Mintpal fiasco.
Anyway i'm done, i'll laugh in a week when this thread is locked or the dev goes missing like the dev on ISIS did when he deleted my posts there and locked the thread after that hilarious Mintpal fiasco.
Jump to: