Topic: Can someone please explain Bytecent to me? (Read 1375 times)
If the FEDS do arrest IE then how will he support Bytecent? A coin lacking support does not usually last very long.
In truth, Bytecent has had a perfect, fair and well managed launch the best I've seen with clear plans, deadlines met, explanations and all the rest.
There is I guess always the chance of a hidden nuclear scam mine but so far everything is really smooth.
If the Feds come after IE for his ICO then they'll have arrested everyone else in the alt scene already. His coin lacks the hype, silly infographics, vaporware and general BS associated with the usual ICO.
It could melt down into the usual crap but so far there's no sign of problems.
Man this coin was so close to failing the conditions of the crowdsale. That would have been epic.
He can easily buy that 50 btc needed for it to be a 'success'. The only cost would be the transaction fee for him.
Also,
People are understandably wary of ICO and Crowd funded coins.
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I fully agree. If you are a serious professional and is committed to the launch of a crowdfunded venture, you are obligated to disclose your public identity. IE seems to have history of consistently earning the distrust and some substantial proof of his fraudulent behavior. At the very least, it proves a bad PR handling.
Some people, underdogs that they are, have been working hard and honestly but did not ever get the attention they deserved due to pump and dumps overshadowing the crypto scene this year.
Those same people have been public since they started on the crypto scene. Full identity disclosure, licensed and registered legally with documents to prove it all.
But they were ignored because of the fact that their professional approach didn't 'guarantee' enormous profits like pump and dump anonymous scams.
With the scene changing, it would be a very sad statement if IE was trying to manipulate the trust of the people and their desire for an open and public project with a fully public developer in order to conduct another dump scam on crypto.
The real honest people of crypto have been around since the start of their career with everything out in public. Going 'honest' now (even now he refuses to show his face on the video) sounds like a marketing gimmick at the very least, more likely a move to try and take advantage of the people's desperation to find an 'honest' project. Also, why is the comment section disabled in that video?
The coin is closed source. The dev has some dubious history. He is not public at all. His 'expertise' is in question with all the coins in the past that failed and is now forgotten as pump and dump coins on twitter and elsewhere. For an 'honest' dev, he has cut off too many lines of communication where he is supposed to give answers. It's his job to manage the venture.
Last of all, he is promoting himself as 'honest' all of a sudden when it's very convenient to do so. Real professionals and honest people have been at it quietly for months and years now with their public profile out in full view.
Too many red flags from a 3rd party point of view.
People are understandably wary of ICO and Crowd funded coins.
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I fully agree. If you are a serious professional and is committed to the launch of a crowdfunded venture, you are obligated to disclose your public identity. IE seems to have history of consistently earning the distrust and some substantial proof of his fraudulent behavior. At the very least, it proves a bad PR handling.
Some people, underdogs that they are, have been working hard and honestly but did not ever get the attention they deserved due to pump and dumps overshadowing the crypto scene this year.
Those same people have been public since they started on the crypto scene. Full identity disclosure, licensed and registered legally with documents to prove it all.
But they were ignored because of the fact that their professional approach didn't 'guarantee' enormous profits like pump and dump anonymous scams.
With the scene changing, it would be a very sad statement if IE was trying to manipulate the trust of the people and their desire for an open and public project with a fully public developer in order to conduct another dump scam on crypto.
The real honest people of crypto have been around since the start of their career with everything out in public. Going 'honest' now (even now he refuses to show his face on the video) sounds like a marketing gimmick at the very least, more likely a move to try and take advantage of the people's desperation to find an 'honest' project. Also, why is the comment section disabled in that video?
The coin is closed source. The dev has some dubious history. He is not public at all. His 'expertise' is in question with all the coins in the past that failed and is now forgotten as pump and dump coins on twitter and elsewhere. For an 'honest' dev, he has cut off too many lines of communication where he is supposed to give answers. It's his job to manage the venture.
Last of all, he is promoting himself as 'honest' all of a sudden when it's very convenient to do so. Real professionals and honest people have been at it quietly for months and years now with their public profile out in full view.
Too many red flags from a 3rd party point of view.
Lol, I think if he want fu... the people he would change nick, becouse he would collect more btc than on this ICO, look at it only 63 btc.
More then one way to go about doing it. It's all about sentiment manipulation. Make em doubt, break the doubt, trigger panic buys, dump on buys, betray expectations while each and every one of the buys is profiting him one way or another etc each and every time hooking people in to trust and buy from byc.
I thought that 50btc 'success condition' is ridiculous for a 1500 btc sized IPO. Would be really easy for some dev to just 'buy' his own ipo that much and call it a success (btc which he will get back) - and who could prove it wasn't him?
The low number bought during this ipo is not a proof of anything - only proof of a beginning of manipulation.
One very bad mistake though - calling something crowdfunding or ipo is a very very easy way to get the authorities on your ass if you don't know what you are doing. He might think he knows the ropes about security laws etc and can't be prosecuted, but forget that money and law are two different things. Especially when anyone who is really interested can completely destroy him one way or another if they wanted to, and he just gave them the ropes to hang him with.
One last thing. I read his 'explanations' for the Blackcoin money he got. He literally says 'why would a scammer steal 4500 dollars worth when he was asked to gather 9000' which is laughable because a scammer WOULD steal that 4500, no question.
Then he proceeded to use some kind of racial issue to excuse the fact that he essentially broke away and kept that money because he was no longer working with them.
All I saw was deflection, lies, and half baked admissions of guilt that was somehow excusable because of no good reason.
He just set himself up pretty bad though. Legal issues surrounding securities and assets fraud are closing in on crypto hard, and last month's news about the regulations are just the starting points.
He really set himself up to be strung out.
We have a very different definition of what 'fair launch' and 'good explanation' is. His words are deceiving and deflective. Anyone will tell you these are red flags.
Your assessment of his legal security is also flawed. Feds or any law enforcement that comes after crypto will have IE's name on the first page of their list. His actions are not fooling any professionals, only those driven by greed or hope in this 'project'.
In truth, Bytecent has had a perfect, fair and well managed launch the best I've seen with clear plans, deadlines met, explanations and all the rest.
There is I guess always the chance of a hidden nuclear scam mine but so far everything is really smooth.
If the Feds come after IE for his ICO then they'll have arrested everyone else in the alt scene already. His coin lacks the hype, silly infographics, vaporware and general BS associated with the usual ICO.
It could melt down into the usual crap but so far there's no sign of problems.
Man this coin was so close to failing the conditions of the crowdsale. That would have been epic.
He can easily buy that 50 btc needed for it to be a 'success'. The only cost would be the transaction fee for him.
Also,
People are understandably wary of ICO and Crowd funded coins.
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I fully agree. If you are a serious professional and is committed to the launch of a crowdfunded venture, you are obligated to disclose your public identity. IE seems to have history of consistently earning the distrust and some substantial proof of his fraudulent behavior. At the very least, it proves a bad PR handling.
Some people, underdogs that they are, have been working hard and honestly but did not ever get the attention they deserved due to pump and dumps overshadowing the crypto scene this year.
Those same people have been public since they started on the crypto scene. Full identity disclosure, licensed and registered legally with documents to prove it all.
But they were ignored because of the fact that their professional approach didn't 'guarantee' enormous profits like pump and dump anonymous scams.
With the scene changing, it would be a very sad statement if IE was trying to manipulate the trust of the people and their desire for an open and public project with a fully public developer in order to conduct another dump scam on crypto.
The real honest people of crypto have been around since the start of their career with everything out in public. Going 'honest' now (even now he refuses to show his face on the video) sounds like a marketing gimmick at the very least, more likely a move to try and take advantage of the people's desperation to find an 'honest' project. Also, why is the comment section disabled in that video?
The coin is closed source. The dev has some dubious history. He is not public at all. His 'expertise' is in question with all the coins in the past that failed and is now forgotten as pump and dump coins on twitter and elsewhere. For an 'honest' dev, he has cut off too many lines of communication where he is supposed to give answers. It's his job to manage the venture.
Last of all, he is promoting himself as 'honest' all of a sudden when it's very convenient to do so. Real professionals and honest people have been at it quietly for months and years now with their public profile out in full view.
Too many red flags from a 3rd party point of view.
People are understandably wary of ICO and Crowd funded coins.
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I fully agree. If you are a serious professional and is committed to the launch of a crowdfunded venture, you are obligated to disclose your public identity. IE seems to have history of consistently earning the distrust and some substantial proof of his fraudulent behavior. At the very least, it proves a bad PR handling.
Some people, underdogs that they are, have been working hard and honestly but did not ever get the attention they deserved due to pump and dumps overshadowing the crypto scene this year.
Those same people have been public since they started on the crypto scene. Full identity disclosure, licensed and registered legally with documents to prove it all.
But they were ignored because of the fact that their professional approach didn't 'guarantee' enormous profits like pump and dump anonymous scams.
With the scene changing, it would be a very sad statement if IE was trying to manipulate the trust of the people and their desire for an open and public project with a fully public developer in order to conduct another dump scam on crypto.
The real honest people of crypto have been around since the start of their career with everything out in public. Going 'honest' now (even now he refuses to show his face on the video) sounds like a marketing gimmick at the very least, more likely a move to try and take advantage of the people's desperation to find an 'honest' project. Also, why is the comment section disabled in that video?
The coin is closed source. The dev has some dubious history. He is not public at all. His 'expertise' is in question with all the coins in the past that failed and is now forgotten as pump and dump coins on twitter and elsewhere. For an 'honest' dev, he has cut off too many lines of communication where he is supposed to give answers. It's his job to manage the venture.
Last of all, he is promoting himself as 'honest' all of a sudden when it's very convenient to do so. Real professionals and honest people have been at it quietly for months and years now with their public profile out in full view.
Too many red flags from a 3rd party point of view.
Lol, I think if he want fu... the people he would change nick, becouse he would collect more btc than on this ICO, look at it only 63 btc.
More then one way to go about doing it. It's all about sentiment manipulation. Make em doubt, break the doubt, trigger panic buys, dump on buys, betray expectations while each and every one of the buys is profiting him one way or another etc each and every time hooking people in to trust and buy from byc.
I thought that 50btc 'success condition' is ridiculous for a 1500 btc sized IPO. Would be really easy for some dev to just 'buy' his own ipo that much and call it a success (btc which he will get back) - and who could prove it wasn't him?
The low number bought during this ipo is not a proof of anything - only proof of a beginning of manipulation.
One very bad mistake though - calling something crowdfunding or ipo is a very very easy way to get the authorities on your ass if you don't know what you are doing. He might think he knows the ropes about security laws etc and can't be prosecuted, but forget that money and law are two different things. Especially when anyone who is really interested can completely destroy him one way or another if they wanted to, and he just gave them the ropes to hang him with.
One last thing. I read his 'explanations' for the Blackcoin money he got. He literally says 'why would a scammer steal 4500 dollars worth when he was asked to gather 9000' which is laughable because a scammer WOULD steal that 4500, no question.
Then he proceeded to use some kind of racial issue to excuse the fact that he essentially broke away and kept that money because he was no longer working with them.
All I saw was deflection, lies, and half baked admissions of guilt that was somehow excusable because of no good reason.
He just set himself up pretty bad though. Legal issues surrounding securities and assets fraud are closing in on crypto hard, and last month's news about the regulations are just the starting points.
He really set himself up to be strung out.
Man this coin was so close to failing the conditions of the crowdsale. That would have been epic.
He can easily buy that 50 btc needed for it to be a 'success'. The only cost would be the transaction fee for him.
Also,
People are understandably wary of ICO and Crowd funded coins.
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I fully agree. If you are a serious professional and is committed to the launch of a crowdfunded venture, you are obligated to disclose your public identity. IE seems to have history of consistently earning the distrust and some substantial proof of his fraudulent behavior. At the very least, it proves a bad PR handling.
Some people, underdogs that they are, have been working hard and honestly but did not ever get the attention they deserved due to pump and dumps overshadowing the crypto scene this year.
Those same people have been public since they started on the crypto scene. Full identity disclosure, licensed and registered legally with documents to prove it all.
But they were ignored because of the fact that their professional approach didn't 'guarantee' enormous profits like pump and dump anonymous scams.
With the scene changing, it would be a very sad statement if IE was trying to manipulate the trust of the people and their desire for an open and public project with a fully public developer in order to conduct another dump scam on crypto.
The real honest people of crypto have been around since the start of their career with everything out in public. Going 'honest' now (even now he refuses to show his face on the video) sounds like a marketing gimmick at the very least, more likely a move to try and take advantage of the people's desperation to find an 'honest' project. Also, why is the comment section disabled in that video?
The coin is closed source. The dev has some dubious history. He is not public at all. His 'expertise' is in question with all the coins in the past that failed and is now forgotten as pump and dump coins on twitter and elsewhere. For an 'honest' dev, he has cut off too many lines of communication where he is supposed to give answers. It's his job to manage the venture.
Last of all, he is promoting himself as 'honest' all of a sudden when it's very convenient to do so. Real professionals and honest people have been at it quietly for months and years now with their public profile out in full view.
Too many red flags from a 3rd party point of view.
People are understandably wary of ICO and Crowd funded coins.
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I propose from now on that any Dev wishing to launch such a coin should make their real name and contact details publicly available, If they have nothing to hide and don't intend ripping people off then there is no reason for them to stay anonymous.
Their coin may well fail, but if they've done the right thing in the first place then it drastically reduces the chance of it being a scam.
I'm sick and tired of peopling losing money here to greedy Dev's, personally I never have and never will invest in any ICO coin, but that's just because I preferred the old method of actually mining coins
I fully agree. If you are a serious professional and is committed to the launch of a crowdfunded venture, you are obligated to disclose your public identity. IE seems to have history of consistently earning the distrust and some substantial proof of his fraudulent behavior. At the very least, it proves a bad PR handling.
Some people, underdogs that they are, have been working hard and honestly but did not ever get the attention they deserved due to pump and dumps overshadowing the crypto scene this year.
Those same people have been public since they started on the crypto scene. Full identity disclosure, licensed and registered legally with documents to prove it all.
But they were ignored because of the fact that their professional approach didn't 'guarantee' enormous profits like pump and dump anonymous scams.
With the scene changing, it would be a very sad statement if IE was trying to manipulate the trust of the people and their desire for an open and public project with a fully public developer in order to conduct another dump scam on crypto.
The real honest people of crypto have been around since the start of their career with everything out in public. Going 'honest' now (even now he refuses to show his face on the video) sounds like a marketing gimmick at the very least, more likely a move to try and take advantage of the people's desperation to find an 'honest' project. Also, why is the comment section disabled in that video?
The coin is closed source. The dev has some dubious history. He is not public at all. His 'expertise' is in question with all the coins in the past that failed and is now forgotten as pump and dump coins on twitter and elsewhere. For an 'honest' dev, he has cut off too many lines of communication where he is supposed to give answers. It's his job to manage the venture.
Last of all, he is promoting himself as 'honest' all of a sudden when it's very convenient to do so. Real professionals and honest people have been at it quietly for months and years now with their public profile out in full view.
Too many red flags from a 3rd party point of view.
Lol, I think if he want fu... the people he would change nick, becouse he would collect more btc than on this ICO, look at it only 63 btc.
More then one way to go about doing it. It's all about sentiment manipulation. Make em doubt, break the doubt, trigger panic buys, dump on buys, betray expectations while each and every one of the buys is profiting him one way or another etc each and every time hooking people in to trust and buy from byc.
I thought that 50btc 'success condition' is ridiculous for a 1500 btc sized IPO. Would be really easy for some dev to just 'buy' his own ipo that much and call it a success (btc which he will get back) - and who could prove it wasn't him?
The low number bought during this ipo is not a proof of anything - only proof of a beginning of manipulation.
One very bad mistake though - calling something crowdfunding or ipo is a very very easy way to get the authorities on your ass if you don't know what you are doing. He might think he knows the ropes about security laws etc and can't be prosecuted, but forget that money and law are two different things. Especially when anyone who is really interested can completely destroy him one way or another if they wanted to, and he just gave them the ropes to hang him with.
One last thing. I read his 'explanations' for the Blackcoin money he got. He literally says 'why would a scammer steal 4500 dollars worth when he was asked to gather 9000' which is laughable because a scammer WOULD steal that 4500, no question.
Then he proceeded to use some kind of racial issue to excuse the fact that he essentially broke away and kept that money because he was no longer working with them.
All I saw was deflection, lies, and half baked admissions of guilt that was somehow excusable because of no good reason.
He just set himself up pretty bad though. Legal issues surrounding securities and assets fraud are closing in on crypto hard, and last month's news about the regulations are just the starting points.
He really set himself up to be strung out.
Man this coin was so close to failing the conditions of the crowdsale. That would have been epic.
No need to start new threads.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ipo-bytecent-iconic-expert-blackcoin-scammer-bittrex-845440
Also, worth a read at least the OP: IconicExpert / Christopher Bouzy = Scammer and Thief
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ipo-bytecent-iconic-expert-blackcoin-scammer-bittrex-845440
Also, worth a read at least the OP: IconicExpert / Christopher Bouzy = Scammer and Thief
Since there's no official topic around, I hope we can discuss Bytecent here.
The text above was posted by IconicExpert just recently. Can anyone please explain what he means to say, I dont get his logic?
The text above was posted by IconicExpert just recently. Can anyone please explain what he means to say, I dont get his logic?
Jump to: