Topic: IOTA - Unmoderated thread - page 44. (Read 70768 times)
It's likely that many people saw the threads about the token and crowdsale, but didn't bother reading, or didn't understand it, or dismissed it as being just another shitcoin ICO pump, or were planning to buy after it dumps below ICO like every other ICO coin. Perhaps the no-blockchain paradigm was too radical for most. Only after the price gets high and profits are missed the outcry will begin. If no one would care about IOTA now there would be no complaints either so IOTA fans should take that as a compliment.
@cryptohunter:
None of the serious participants of Iota project in this or another thread will discuss the ICO of Iota. It is already history. Throughout the month there was a possibility to become a member of "movement". So did I and other Iota participants. Now the train is gone and the ICO is over a long time ago. It's not a theme for discussion and will not be ever. Someone can now also cry about the impossibility of bitcoin mining on CPU as at the end of 2009. It's impossible and will not be ever possible also.
Again: please stop flood here about Lisk. It's another project.
None of the serious participants of Iota project in this or another thread will discuss the ICO of Iota. It is already history. Throughout the month there was a possibility to become a member of "movement". So did I and other Iota participants. Now the train is gone and the ICO is over a long time ago. It's not a theme for discussion and will not be ever. Someone can now also cry about the impossibility of bitcoin mining on CPU as at the end of 2009. It's impossible and will not be ever possible also.
Again: please stop flood here about Lisk. It's another project.
@cryptohunter:
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
Well you are assuming the % of puppets on this board must be huge in that case. I do not think it is reasonable to think the % of puppets can statistically render a long running poll on the main board totally useless. However it is reasonable to assume enough puppets to drastically reduce a distribution of a very small ICO.
If you could limit a poll to snr or above it would be better.
I only said that an ICO that publishes its investors usernames on a list is more transparent that one that does not publish anything? If 100 legends and 1000 heros were on the list with their amount invested and those accounts confirmed such was true I would personally have more faith than a list that just stated we have 1100 investors from the board with no further details. Are you saying you would not?
Of your you may get a person that assumes there are only 2 members on the board himself and 10000's of puppets run by one other person. He will have a different perception of fair distribution on the board than others.
You need to involve large numbers of accounts to get a reasonable and statistically viable feedback.
Let's discuss it on the main section. Perhaps more people will see it from your POV there?
The amount of socks/puppets could be huge on this board and you have to provide evidence to convince me of the opposite, which is not possible, because any multiple entities can be controlled by one entity in the background without us noticing. That is why distribution does not matter as much as you think, that is why a poll here is of no use.
Your points are just imos.
1. the onus is not on me to prove the ico was gamed. It is on the devs and those running the ICO to show some attempt at providing fair opportunity.
2. Even if your point was correct (which it can not be) then this is further reason for all ICO to be banned from here since there is no way to provide proof there was not gross manipulation. POW with fair release protocol should always be followed.
We can not go into the realms of crazy assumptions that the entire board is only 2 members with 10000 of puppets each.
POW is clearly a more suitable method for fair distribution. If an ICO must take place there should be attempt at reasonable transparency , reasonable advertising and awarness and POW should be used as additional tool for part of the distribution process.
@cryptohunter, How much time should an ICO spend marketing itself before the actual ICO?
IOTA was announced on October 21, 2015. The crowdsale was opened on November 25th, 2015 and lasted until December 21st, 2015.
If I recall correctly (and I do), there were multiple threads about iota on bitcointalk and there were also several articles published on the main crypto websites.
You even posted on the iota thread before the crowdsale:
So that's an entire month of publicity before the crowdsale. As well as an entire month of publicity during the month-long crowdsale.
So what more can you ask for?? You knew about iota before the crowdsale, so it's a shame you didn't buy in.
IOTA was announced on October 21, 2015. The crowdsale was opened on November 25th, 2015 and lasted until December 21st, 2015.
If I recall correctly (and I do), there were multiple threads about iota on bitcointalk and there were also several articles published on the main crypto websites.
You even posted on the iota thread before the crowdsale:
quantum computer proof does sound handy 
and I very much like the name.
and I very much like the name. So that's an entire month of publicity before the crowdsale. As well as an entire month of publicity during the month-long crowdsale.
So what more can you ask for?? You knew about iota before the crowdsale, so it's a shame you didn't buy in.
The trolls and their sockpuppets who cry now have missed the train.
They are afraid that Iota gets as a great recognition as Bitcoin.
I have to exclude you for now because although I'm sure you have a valid point it's not what I'm specifically talking about. I am asking if the ICO was given enough publicity to be considered fair opportunity for ALL on the board.
We can not base all decisions and opinions on our personal gain or loss only and in one instance. Future ICO's should take note of a set of rules the entire board can decide on. I am merely asking should we use IOTA as example of how not to run an ICO as with NXT you end up with a tiny % owning all the tokens and trying to sell them to others for 3000% who missed this ICO - this is even before release or any real testing and trading on exchanges. This breeds malcontent and accusations of scams.
If you don't wish to discuss the ICO and make realistic enquiry as to what % were aware of the ICO whilst the ICO was taking place. Then that is fine. However I am assuming you will all wish to make best use of the main board when it come to pre-release or is then released on exchange.
You're all saying IOTA did as much as reasonably expected to market the ICO before and during the ICO
Let's for instance put a poll up for instance say after the LISK ICO is finished and see what % heard about the LISK ICO and what % heard about the Iota ICO.
The biggest coins with ICO before like Ethereum, NEM, MAID even dare I say BITBAY - everyone knew about them on the entire board for ages.
Ethereum has POW to distribute even further.
Coming from the NXT people this lesson should have been learned.
@cryptohunter:
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
Well you are assuming the % of puppets on this board must be huge in that case. I do not think it is reasonable to think the % of puppets can statistically render a long running poll on the main board totally useless. However it is reasonable to assume enough puppets to drastically reduce a distribution of a very small ICO.
If you could limit a poll to snr or above it would be better.
I only said that an ICO that publishes its investors usernames on a list is more transparent that one that does not publish anything? If 100 legends and 1000 heros were on the list with their amount invested and those accounts confirmed such was true I would personally have more faith than a list that just stated we have 1100 investors from the board with no further details. Are you saying you would not?
Of your you may get a person that assumes there are only 2 members on the board himself and 10000's of puppets run by one other person. He will have a different perception of fair distribution on the board than others.
You need to involve large numbers of accounts to get a reasonable and statistically viable feedback.
Let's discuss it on the main section. Perhaps more people will see it from your POV there?
The amount of socks/puppets could be huge on this board and you have to provide evidence to convince me of the opposite, which is not possible, because any multiple entities can be controlled by one entity in the background without us noticing. That is why distribution does not matter as much as you think, that is why a poll here is of no use.
Your points are just imos.
@cryptohunter, How much time should an ICO spend marketing itself before the actual ICO?
IOTA was announced on October 21, 2015. The crowdsale was opened on November 25th, 2015 and lasted until December 21st, 2015.
If I recall correctly (and I do), there were multiple threads about iota on bitcointalk and there were also several articles published on the main crypto websites.
You even posted on the iota thread before the crowdsale:
So that's an entire month of publicity before the crowdsale. As well as an entire month of publicity during the month-long crowdsale.
So what more can you ask for?? You knew about iota before the crowdsale, so it's a shame you didn't buy in.
IOTA was announced on October 21, 2015. The crowdsale was opened on November 25th, 2015 and lasted until December 21st, 2015.
If I recall correctly (and I do), there were multiple threads about iota on bitcointalk and there were also several articles published on the main crypto websites.
You even posted on the iota thread before the crowdsale:
quantum computer proof does sound handy and I very much like the name.
and I very much like the name. So that's an entire month of publicity before the crowdsale. As well as an entire month of publicity during the month-long crowdsale.
So what more can you ask for?? You knew about iota before the crowdsale, so it's a shame you didn't buy in.
The trolls and their sockpuppets who cry now have missed the train.
They are afraid that Iota gets as a great recognition as Bitcoin.
Well you are assuming the % of puppets on this board must be huge in that case.
puppets??
Dude are you also paranoid with these puppets?
Come on, if you mean all except you are not real the I can say also: you are my puppet.
All who disagree with you are sockpuppet? Yeah sure
@cryptohunter, How much time should an ICO spend marketing itself before the actual ICO?
IOTA was announced on October 21, 2015. The crowdsale was opened on November 25th, 2015 and lasted until December 21st, 2015.
If I recall correctly (and I do), there were multiple threads about iota on bitcointalk and there were also several articles published on the main crypto websites.
You even posted on the iota thread before the crowdsale:
So that's an entire month of publicity before the crowdsale. As well as an entire month of publicity during the month-long crowdsale.
So what more can you ask for?? You knew about iota before the crowdsale, so it's a shame you didn't buy in.
IOTA was announced on October 21, 2015. The crowdsale was opened on November 25th, 2015 and lasted until December 21st, 2015.
If I recall correctly (and I do), there were multiple threads about iota on bitcointalk and there were also several articles published on the main crypto websites.
You even posted on the iota thread before the crowdsale:
quantum computer proof does sound handy and I very much like the name.
and I very much like the name. So that's an entire month of publicity before the crowdsale. As well as an entire month of publicity during the month-long crowdsale.
So what more can you ask for?? You knew about iota before the crowdsale, so it's a shame you didn't buy in.
@cryptohunter:
Hey dude, all you are doing here is only verbal diarrhea and promotion for another project. You're just afraid.
Who are you to put the project Iota its own rules? Scam for you are all projects where you do not participate. Stop envying.
@cryptohunter:
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
Well you are assuming the % of puppets on this board must be huge in that case. I do not think it is reasonable to think the % of puppets can statistically render a long running poll on the main board totally useless. However it is reasonable to assume enough puppets to drastically reduce a distribution of a very small ICO.
If you could limit a poll to snr or above it would be better.
I only said that an ICO that publishes its investors usernames on a list is more transparent that one that does not publish anything? If 100 legends and 1000 heros were on the list with their amount invested and those accounts confirmed such was true I would personally have more faith than a list that just stated we have 1100 investors from the board with no further details. Are you saying you would not?
Of your you may get a person that assumes there are only 2 members on the board himself and 10000's of puppets run by one other person. He will have a different perception of fair distribution on the board than others.
You need to involve large numbers of accounts to get a reasonable and statistically viable feedback.
Let's discuss it on the main section. Perhaps more people will see it from your POV there?
Come now YES or NO?? let's bring the board in on this discussion in the main section??
NO, it's waste of time.
Really??? NO??
It's a waste of time to demonstrate that IOTA's ICO was not a deliberate captive insta-ico like NXT?
We can compare it to other ICO's that have taken place on the board.
How about if we compare to say
Ethereum?
NEM
even dare I say BITBAY?
LISK?
come on surely you CFB can demostrate how IOTA was equal or at least no more of a scheme/scam/non scam than those?
Let's for instance analyse every single one of them and how the ICO was conducted and make a fair comparison. I mean you can't be expected to conduct a perfect ICO but surely you are at least equal to or better than these ones?
We can analyse the facts only. There will be no room for opinion only fair comparison. We can run polls for awareness for all of those other projects and see if the awarness for IOTA was within a reasonable range.
I only wish to analyse this this is not like the Dash investigation where the evidence was clearly and openly damning from the outset.
You do not wish for fair analysis of your ICO on the main board in the open for all to see and judge objectively? YES or NO?
@cryptohunter:
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
You contradict yourself. You say that the ICO was not transparent, because "Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account."
But then you demand to ask the board if iota is a scam or not... without calling into question the persons behind each account? Then such a poll would be useless.
Come now YES or NO?? let's bring the board in on this discussion in the main section??
NO, it's waste of time.
You are going to post a IOTA scheme/scam/not scam thread for closer examination in the main section or not?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
What for? 90% already voted it's scam.
But from such a small sample size that took note only tiny power statistically speaking can be shown.
You need a much larger sample size before scam/non scam can really be appraised. Perhaps I am wrong to suspect wrong doing and rigging of the ICO perhaps you are right and everyone knew about it but just decided not to invest.
It would be interesting to see what % of the board was even aware of IOTA until after the ICO.
So that's a NO is it? You would be asking for a balanced and widespread investingation into the ICO for IOTA?
This is a chance to vindicate yourself and IOTA. You really do not wish to do this?
To be honest the most vile thing is the greed. The NXT initial holders at least realised that they should share and were selling for perhaps 2x the ICO price. IOTA seem to think 30x sounds like a good idea. It is not a good idea and only raises eyebrows and makes people realise hold on does demand now so outstrip supply. I wonder why these people never bought at the ico for 3000% less??
There is but one reasonable answer.... they were not given the opportunity to do so.
Final answer
YES or NO - you will come to the main board and discuss in the open the ICO of IOTA and we will ask the board was the ICO done in the correct fashion or does it look like an insta-ico for captive premine retention before release that will be drizzled out after the hype for crazy returns??
Come now YES or NO?? let's bring the board in on this discussion in the main section??
Quote from: cryptohunter link=topic=1354220.msg14210075#msg14210075
You should have made far more effort with ICO advertising before and during the ICO after your experience with NXT.
...
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation.
...
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation.
So a project is only legit when all users of bct get spammed with ads?
ICO with no transparency... serious question: What was not transparent? Everyone who read the announcement knew how long it would last, where to send bitcoins, how to claim the iotas.
Well No ICO on here is even nearly fully transparent.
Even if there were a list with every username that invested and the amount invested (has been done for other ICO and is a huge improvement over IOTAS) then you can call into question the persons behind each account.
Regardless of that or you could say in light of this fact. It is very important to have an extented period of advertising both before and during the ICO.
Yes in this case LISK will probably not be answering the same questions as IOTA regarding intended widespread distribution on the board. They have gone way and above where IOTA went.
Seeing as NXT was so poorly distributed this should have been seen as paramount importance.
Comments from CFB saying that if bought accounts were used to futher reduce distribution whilst at the same time seeming to increase distribution ...that would be okay because the wider world would be none of the wiser and BTT is not important is a damning statement that will live to haunt him and the project.
This is without any criticism of jinn or any thing else related to that eventual achievements promised in the initial plans. I am discussing only the distrubution via ICO.
You are going to post a IOTA scheme/scam/not scam thread for closer examination in the main section or not?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
What for? 90% already voted it's scam.
It is not for me to define - it is for the board to define it it meets their classification of a scam/non scam.
To me anything ... innovative or otherwise can still be a scam if the distribution does not meet certain criteria.
That criteria is my own. Others will have their own.
All ICO should meet fair release criteria just like POW releases were at one time expected to.
You should have made far more effort with ICO advertising before and during the ICO after your experience with NXT.
NXT pulled this self enrichment scheme once before. The same people can not expect to pull it again.
The fact you may have 0.25% or less of the board with you now to afford a slight protection will certainly not be enough.
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation. The onus should be on you and those running the ICO to show willing and desire to give open and fair opportunity to both examine and have time to digest the proposal and decide on investment.
It is impossible such a tiny distribution can succeed to persuade the rest of the board that a fair and open opportunity was given to all within reason.
You saying that about purchased accounts used for the ICO being of no consequence was a big mistake. The reason you gave or justification was an admission of guilt. You simply can't say it does not matter because the wider world will not find out and BTT does not matter. That is both incorrect and unethical.
I enjoy the profanity and silly pictures uploaded by your puppets but they will neither be able to change the facts nor will they help you and your scheme look any more professional. Only actions on your part can help your project now.
To me anything ... innovative or otherwise can still be a scam if the distribution does not meet certain criteria.
That criteria is my own. Others will have their own.
All ICO should meet fair release criteria just like POW releases were at one time expected to.
You should have made far more effort with ICO advertising before and during the ICO after your experience with NXT.
NXT pulled this self enrichment scheme once before. The same people can not expect to pull it again.
The fact you may have 0.25% or less of the board with you now to afford a slight protection will certainly not be enough.
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation. The onus should be on you and those running the ICO to show willing and desire to give open and fair opportunity to both examine and have time to digest the proposal and decide on investment.
It is impossible such a tiny distribution can succeed to persuade the rest of the board that a fair and open opportunity was given to all within reason.
You saying that about purchased accounts used for the ICO being of no consequence was a big mistake. The reason you gave or justification was an admission of guilt. You simply can't say it does not matter because the wider world will not find out and BTT does not matter. That is both incorrect and unethical.
I enjoy the profanity and silly pictures uploaded by your puppets but they will neither be able to change the facts nor will they help you and your scheme look any more professional. Only actions on your part can help your project now.
I spotted "Nxt" and didn't read this wall of text. Looks like another attempt to derail the thread.
You are going to post a IOTA scheme/scam/not scam thread for closer examination in the main section or not?
Yes or No?
Quote from: cryptohunter link=topic=1354220.msg14210075#msg14210075
You should have made far more effort with ICO advertising before and during the ICO after your experience with NXT.
...
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation.
...
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation.
So a project is only legit when all users of bct get spammed with ads?
ICO with no transparency... serious question: What was not transparent? Everyone who read the announcement knew how long it would last, where to send bitcoins, how to claim the iotas.
It is not for me to define - it is for the board to define it it meets their classification of a scam/non scam.
To me anything ... innovative or otherwise can still be a scam if the distribution does not meet certain criteria.
That criteria is my own. Others will have their own.
All ICO should meet fair release criteria just like POW releases were at one time expected to.
You should have made far more effort with ICO advertising before and during the ICO after your experience with NXT.
NXT pulled this self enrichment scheme once before. The same people can not expect to pull it again.
The fact you may have 0.25% or less of the board with you now to afford a slight protection will certainly not be enough.
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation. The onus should be on you and those running the ICO to show willing and desire to give open and fair opportunity to both examine and have time to digest the proposal and decide on investment.
It is impossible such a tiny distribution can succeed to persuade the rest of the board that a fair and open opportunity was given to all within reason.
You saying that about purchased accounts used for the ICO being of no consequence was a big mistake. The reason you gave or justification was an admission of guilt. You simply can't say it does not matter because the wider world will not find out and BTT does not matter. That is both incorrect and unethical.
I enjoy the profanity and silly pictures uploaded by your puppets but they will neither be able to change the facts nor will they help you and your scheme look any more professional. Only actions on your part can help your project now.
To me anything ... innovative or otherwise can still be a scam if the distribution does not meet certain criteria.
That criteria is my own. Others will have their own.
All ICO should meet fair release criteria just like POW releases were at one time expected to.
You should have made far more effort with ICO advertising before and during the ICO after your experience with NXT.
NXT pulled this self enrichment scheme once before. The same people can not expect to pull it again.
The fact you may have 0.25% or less of the board with you now to afford a slight protection will certainly not be enough.
ICO here with no regulation and no transparency is open to huge manipulation. The onus should be on you and those running the ICO to show willing and desire to give open and fair opportunity to both examine and have time to digest the proposal and decide on investment.
It is impossible such a tiny distribution can succeed to persuade the rest of the board that a fair and open opportunity was given to all within reason.
You saying that about purchased accounts used for the ICO being of no consequence was a big mistake. The reason you gave or justification was an admission of guilt. You simply can't say it does not matter because the wider world will not find out and BTT does not matter. That is both incorrect and unethical.
I enjoy the profanity and silly pictures uploaded by your puppets but they will neither be able to change the facts nor will they help you and your scheme look any more professional. Only actions on your part can help your project now.
I spotted "Nxt" and didn't read this wall of text. Looks like another attempt to derail the thread.
Jump to: