Awesome page count, thanx for the fud.
LOL I was thinking the same thing. Garnering attention, compressing energy for the explosion when Hondo delievers... again.
Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 50. (Read 748616 times)
October 10, 2014, 06:34:23 AM
LOL I was thinking the same thing. Garnering attention, compressing energy for the explosion when Hondo delievers... again.
October 10, 2014, 06:32:54 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
It's a smart but dirty movestill clearly deluded
October 10, 2014, 06:32:28 AM
* Amazing dev team
* Amazing community except the FUDsters
* Amazing and revolutionary technology to send coins anonymously. Stealthtext isn't a encrypted chat or just a encrypted sms message.
Stealthtext is a way to send stealthcoins anonymously hidden by a encrypted text sms message that in case of interception the only thing that appears is that is sending a encrypted text
For now only for android but soon if I want to send stealthcoin to other person and all I have is a dumbphone with Java and SMS text messages, I will can send it anonymously and then be thrown the dumbphone in the trash after the payment!
* Audicted and aproved by Dan Metcalf
* Cryptonote without blockchain bloat using revolutionary chandran signatures
* Crypto Certify
* +5 PODs
* Openbazaar platform based on stealthsend (december)
* Still very undervalued. When xst start being used as money in openbazaar and stealthmarkets around the world its value will explode.
Please look at the op: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxst-stealth-coincom-tor-stealthtext-worlds-first-anonymous-sms-tx-681725
* Amazing community except the FUDsters
* Amazing and revolutionary technology to send coins anonymously. Stealthtext isn't a encrypted chat or just a encrypted sms message.
Stealthtext is a way to send stealthcoins anonymously hidden by a encrypted text sms message that in case of interception the only thing that appears is that is sending a encrypted text
For now only for android but soon if I want to send stealthcoin to other person and all I have is a dumbphone with Java and SMS text messages, I will can send it anonymously and then be thrown the dumbphone in the trash after the payment!
* Audicted and aproved by Dan Metcalf
* Cryptonote without blockchain bloat using revolutionary chandran signatures
* Crypto Certify
* +5 PODs
* Openbazaar platform based on stealthsend (december)
* Still very undervalued. When xst start being used as money in openbazaar and stealthmarkets around the world its value will explode.
Please look at the op: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxst-stealth-coincom-tor-stealthtext-worlds-first-anonymous-sms-tx-681725
October 10, 2014, 06:32:19 AM
Awesome page count, thanx for the fud.
pagecount is not currency im afraid! October 10, 2014, 06:32:06 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
It's a smart but dirty move 
October 10, 2014, 06:31:31 AM
Awesome page count, thanx for the fud.
October 10, 2014, 06:31:19 AM
Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
++2
again you clearly don't know what he said do you! in laymens terms he said he cant do it its extremely difficult its not going to take a month and we will prolly scrap it and do something else it wasn't ethical that he even told you all about it tbh its not even researched they are looking at the wrong papers and the brief is laughable! its a setup to maintain price which makes it unethical vaporware
October 10, 2014, 06:29:48 AM
Thats a good one and you might be right there but have any of you even given the person a chance to prove it..no you just wash it off and abuse him/her cmon you are better then that yeah?
Um...if he had "proved" it the coin would be a lot more expensive. October 10, 2014, 06:29:35 AM
Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
+++3
October 10, 2014, 06:29:20 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
I agree with you 100% but we can't say it like that otherwise some people who are extremely sensitive might consider that a form of abuse. I personally don't feel it is, but there are some extremely sensitive people out there.
October 10, 2014, 06:29:10 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
no its not that at all it just is a kneejerk reaction you have to something threatening your money and tbh you prolly wouldn't give a shit about it if you were not so invested! i would bet my left nut that you would be saying the same stuff and proving the same vaporware stuff if you were not invested...because the facts don't lie you just forget they are there when you're like this!
October 10, 2014, 06:27:48 AM
Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
++2
October 10, 2014, 06:27:05 AM
Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.
Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.
In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.
[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.
-- Hondo
+1
October 10, 2014, 06:26:44 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
how have i lied to you..did you really just mean that!? are you blind!
October 10, 2014, 06:25:42 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
October 10, 2014, 06:25:05 AM
Guys, calm down and think for yourselves.
This is coming from the inside of the bob's group: Hondo was on bob's payroll the whole time. Both of them are gone from this thread and have abandoned the coin. If you do not trust me just study the most recent scam bob pulled out - CLOAK - the devs were working for him: he admitted this.
Do yourselves a favour and get the hell out of because it will go down to 1 K satoshi in a few days. You were taken for a ride by bob the scammer. Face it and cut your loses. Many people were in your shoes, face the reality.
Jimmy Zed
This is coming from the inside of the bob's group: Hondo was on bob's payroll the whole time. Both of them are gone from this thread and have abandoned the coin. If you do not trust me just study the most recent scam bob pulled out - CLOAK - the devs were working for him: he admitted this.
Do yourselves a favour and get the hell out of because it will go down to 1 K satoshi in a few days. You were taken for a ride by bob the scammer. Face it and cut your loses. Many people were in your shoes, face the reality.
Jimmy Zed
Soooo.. reading a couple posts from you I thought you might be for real. But here you say Hondo is gone. And yet he just posted in the thread a short time ago. And you also say the Cloak devs were working for Bob. And yet Bob posted some PMs where a dev basically told him no to what he wanted and Bob also said he approached the Cloak devs 3 times and each time they rubuked him. In fact, he posted that stuff in this thread.
So hey. Do you have anything truthful to say?
The latest FUD campaign is teflon coated. Facts and Truth don't stick to it.
Thats a good one and you might be right there but have any of you even given the person a chance to prove it..no you just wash it off and abuse him/her cmon you are better then that yeah?
gotta start acting the part this is not a game its touting to be professional but within its just a room full of sarcasm! want to be taken seriously then take others seriously until they are proven wrong!
October 10, 2014, 06:22:23 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
They're trying to get us all angry and put us on tilt by insulting us and lying to us. Then we dump our coins and they buy them up cheap and rebuilt the community. Notice how he speaks "in its current form". They don't want to destroy the coin, they just want to start a pissed off panic dump. Look at the massive amount of time and effort they (a group of shadowcoin guys) put into this. If anything it's a validation.
They will insult you. Don't feed them. Respond to their lies and insults respectfully. I know they don't deserve respect but it's the only way we can make them leave.
October 10, 2014, 06:22:10 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
we are supposed to accept it because thats the culture cmon..this is not even close to being socially acceptable in the world..don't kid yourself and justify it as!
you all beg for real world acceptance and use but you all cant act the part here!
October 10, 2014, 06:21:01 AM
Guys, calm down and think for yourselves.
This is coming from the inside of the bob's group: Hondo was on bob's payroll the whole time. Both of them are gone from this thread and have abandoned the coin. If you do not trust me just study the most recent scam bob pulled out - CLOAK - the devs were working for him: he admitted this.
Do yourselves a favour and get the hell out of because it will go down to 1 K satoshi in a few days. You were taken for a ride by bob the scammer. Face it and cut your loses. Many people were in your shoes, face the reality.
Jimmy Zed
This is coming from the inside of the bob's group: Hondo was on bob's payroll the whole time. Both of them are gone from this thread and have abandoned the coin. If you do not trust me just study the most recent scam bob pulled out - CLOAK - the devs were working for him: he admitted this.
Do yourselves a favour and get the hell out of because it will go down to 1 K satoshi in a few days. You were taken for a ride by bob the scammer. Face it and cut your loses. Many people were in your shoes, face the reality.
Jimmy Zed
Soooo.. reading a couple posts from you I thought you might be for real. But here you say Hondo is gone. And yet he just posted in the thread a short time ago. And you also say the Cloak devs were working for Bob. And yet Bob posted some PMs where a dev basically told him no to what he wanted and Bob also said he approached the Cloak devs 3 times and each time they rubuked him. In fact, he posted that stuff in this thread.
So hey. Do you have anything truthful to say?
The latest FUD campaign is teflon coated. Facts and Truth don't stick to it.
October 10, 2014, 06:19:03 AM
Guys, calm down and think for yourselves.
This is coming from the inside of the bob's group: Hondo was on bob's payroll the whole time. Both of them are gone from this thread and have abandoned the coin. If you do not trust me just study the most recent scam bob pulled out - CLOAK - the devs were working for him: he admitted this.
Do yourselves a favour and get the hell out of because it will go down to 1 K satoshi in a few days. You were taken for a ride by bob the scammer. Face it and cut your loses. Many people were in your shoes, face the reality.
Jimmy Zed
This is coming from the inside of the bob's group: Hondo was on bob's payroll the whole time. Both of them are gone from this thread and have abandoned the coin. If you do not trust me just study the most recent scam bob pulled out - CLOAK - the devs were working for him: he admitted this.
Do yourselves a favour and get the hell out of because it will go down to 1 K satoshi in a few days. You were taken for a ride by bob the scammer. Face it and cut your loses. Many people were in your shoes, face the reality.
Jimmy Zed
Soooo.. reading a couple posts from you I thought you might be for real. But here you say Hondo is gone. And yet he just posted in the thread a short time ago. And you also say the Cloak devs were working for Bob. And yet Bob posted some PMs where a dev basically told him no to what he wanted and Bob also said he approached the Cloak devs 3 times and each time they rubuked him. In fact, he posted that stuff in this thread.
So hey. Do you have anything truthful to say?
They have a precise target and purpose. I did pay attention to them until I realized that this is an orchestrated attack.
It's interesting how the Cloak guys would talk about just how much FUD etc would get spewed in their thread. Even I was surprised by how much was going on in there when I was looking at it. Seems like there's a new coin that will take the crown for the most FUD going on. lol
Jump to: