Everyone Do not be fooled.
Charleshoskinson is Scammer.
Steal money from Japanese people.
Charles sell at incredible High price 'ADACOIN'.
CARDANO Foundation is Scam company.
charles is Main Partners.
https://cardanofoundation.org/
http://cardano.io/about.html
IOHK is Scam company.
'Attain Corporation' is Japanese Scam company.
charles is Main Partners.
http://attaincorp.co.jp/en/company/
ADACOIN is Japan limited sale
Very strange.
Scam targeting the Japanese.
Look This. Japan only.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/cardano.io
ADA Lecture Pic.
salesman Charles!
https://www.facebook.com/attaincorp/photos/pcb.465701913622759/465694080290209/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/attaincorp/posts/463442817182002
https://www.facebook.com/attaincorp/posts/425484124311205
ADA = $1000!
Next The following are plans to sell in ALL Asia.
I Repeat.
Charleshoskinson is Scammer.
Topic: Some guy threatens ETC (Ethereum Classic) with a 51% attack (Read 3348 times)
IMO, Ethereum has always been a pipe dream, as it will not offer enough to make it worth the amount of resources it will draw.
But the Split , will let the fat cats that have been bankrolling it , do the following.
Since they had ethereum coins before the split , they now have the same amount of coins on each chain, and can dump like crazy on whichever chain they decide to no longer support, with 0 loss of coins on the chain they do support.
So who will get ripped off the most, is anyone that buys either fork, until one of the forks dies.
Because due to manipulation, there are now 2 forks when technically , the longer fork with more difficulty should be the winner.
Since that is no longer the case, how anyone can trust either fork is beyond reason.
FYI:
We had this in the old days, Remember New Coke verses Coke Classic.
History Proves one of these Forks has to die, anyone buying any before that is just being setup as a sucker.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/30-years-ago-today-coca-cola-new-coke-failure/
But the Split , will let the fat cats that have been bankrolling it , do the following.
Since they had ethereum coins before the split , they now have the same amount of coins on each chain, and can dump like crazy on whichever chain they decide to no longer support, with 0 loss of coins on the chain they do support.
So who will get ripped off the most, is anyone that buys either fork, until one of the forks dies.
Because due to manipulation, there are now 2 forks when technically , the longer fork with more difficulty should be the winner.
Since that is no longer the case, how anyone can trust either fork is beyond reason.
FYI:
We had this in the old days, Remember New Coke verses Coke Classic.
History Proves one of these Forks has to die, anyone buying any before that is just being setup as a sucker.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/30-years-ago-today-coca-cola-new-coke-failure/
What this means is that if bitcoin gets screwed by stupid and arrogant decision coming from lead devs all u can do is blame ur tits.
ROFLMAO! I couldn't have said it better!
But this guy continues to compare Ethereum with Bitcoin.
U guys are clearly misguiding the fundamental premise of bitcoin vs ethereum funding.
To sum it up one last time.
Bitcoin from its inception was intended as nothing more than a sandbox for hal and satoshi to send a virtual currency to each other, with no agenda of becoming a store of value or a broadly traded asset. It was a fucking infant in the world of virtual money, and gained adoption because of its irreversible ledger and fairness of distribution thru mining. Everyone had equal or comparable odds to join when the difficulty was low, and could have become a billion dollar fortune dude if had mined enough in the first few years.
Ethereum was thrown at the table as a crowdsale, so people who invested might have reasonably expected a roi and that the core team would continue to develop apps for it, fund it respectively, retain the brand and maintain the appropriate outreach to the community. I agree that terms and conditions advise that u be risk vise and responsible for ur own losses, but at the same time its in the stone that the foundation is liable to prosecution albeit not in all jurisdictions if they choose to screw things up. One thing is u invest $3K in a joke ghetto tech at 50 cents per coin in 2010 because u can and know satoshi doesnt owe u anything, and another thing is when u join a public crowdsale putting some $1000K into ether in 2015, being fully aware that u'll get a sound return.
What this means is that if bitcoin gets screwed by stupid and arrogant decision coming from lead devs all u can do is blame ur tits. If eth gets screwed due to foundations private interests appealing to the community in order to enforce public opinion and game market forces, then its slightly different situation. Foundation should develop software on the original ethereum chain tho, and many might think ETC is the original chain. If u have 1 million eth from genesis sitting in ur wallet, and u support the only original - legacy chain u may start throwing a wobbly here.
To sum it up one last time.
Bitcoin from its inception was intended as nothing more than a sandbox for hal and satoshi to send a virtual currency to each other, with no agenda of becoming a store of value or a broadly traded asset. It was a fucking infant in the world of virtual money, and gained adoption because of its irreversible ledger and fairness of distribution thru mining. Everyone had equal or comparable odds to join when the difficulty was low, and could have become a billion dollar fortune dude if had mined enough in the first few years.
Ethereum was thrown at the table as a crowdsale, so people who invested might have reasonably expected a roi and that the core team would continue to develop apps for it, fund it respectively, retain the brand and maintain the appropriate outreach to the community. I agree that terms and conditions advise that u be risk vise and responsible for ur own losses, but at the same time its in the stone that the foundation is liable to prosecution albeit not in all jurisdictions if they choose to screw things up. One thing is u invest $3K in a joke ghetto tech at 50 cents per coin in 2010 because u can and know satoshi doesnt owe u anything, and another thing is when u join a public crowdsale putting some $1000K into ether in 2015, being fully aware that u'll get a sound return.
What this means is that if bitcoin gets screwed by stupid and arrogant decision coming from lead devs all u can do is blame ur tits. If eth gets screwed due to foundations private interests appealing to the community in order to enforce public opinion and game market forces, then its slightly different situation. Foundation should develop software on the original ethereum chain tho, and many might think ETC is the original chain. If u have 1 million eth from genesis sitting in ur wallet, and u support the only original - legacy chain u may start throwing a wobbly here.
If ETC is a scam, ETH is a scam too. They come from the same parent, two branches of the same trunk. Either they both are scams or both are not scams.
In my view both are legit projects, the Classic branch is more idealistic. There can be more forks in the future. Forking is a standard operation in crypto.
I don't own any of them, my view is not biased like views of those who own one or the other.
In my view both are legit projects, the Classic branch is more idealistic. There can be more forks in the future. Forking is a standard operation in crypto.
I don't own any of them, my view is not biased like views of those who own one or the other.
It depends on the fork. If you're idea of a standard fork is like what Vitalik did, forking in order to roll back, reverse, tweak or tinker with the transaction history then this should not be a standard operation.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
Nobody asked you to mine/buy Bitcoin and nobody asked for money to create it.
Asking for money and making an offer to invest in a high risk project with no guarantees are two different things. I didn't read ETH's contract because I don't own it, but were there guarantees of profits? I don't think so even though I didn't read it.
You want guarantees? Find something stable, municipal bonds lol, crypto is very high risk. You know, hackers hack it all the time. You can't have a cake and eat it too. But you kids think you're entitled to both getting profits and no risk, not going to happen.
You should refrain from such stupid statements (and "attacks"), because of 3 reasons:
1. What do you mean no guarantees? They had $200 million reasons not to make such stupid mistakes (that was (at least in the coders view) a stupid mistake)), which can hurt people's "investments".
2. Who is saying that they must guarantee profits? Is your IQ equal to a room temperature?
3. Kids? I am 35-years old.
When I say no guarantees I mean no guarantees, don't matter if it's $200 or $200 million.
You're 35 and don't know that investing is not safe and there are no guarantees? Keep learning.
I am simply speechless.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
Nobody asked you to mine/buy Bitcoin and nobody asked for money to create it.
Asking for money and making an offer to invest in a high risk project with no guarantees are two different things. I didn't read ETH's contract because I don't own it, but were there guarantees of profits? I don't think so even though I didn't read it.
You want guarantees? Find something stable, municipal bonds lol, crypto is very high risk. You know, hackers hack it all the time. You can't have a cake and eat it too. But you kids think you're entitled to both getting profits and no risk, not going to happen.
You should refrain from such stupid statements (and "attacks"), because of 3 reasons:
1. What do you mean no guarantees? They had $200 million reasons not to make such stupid mistakes (that was (at least in the coders view) a stupid mistake)), which can hurt people's "investments".
2. Who is saying that they must guarantee profits? Is your IQ equal to a room temperature?
3. Kids? I am 35-years old.
When I say no guarantees I mean no guarantees, don't matter if it's $200 or $200 million.
You're 35 and don't know that investing is not safe and there are no guarantees? Keep learning.
In case of ethereum, this might be a very controversial statement. I think that foundation did indeed ask for money.
It's not controversial at all. The did asked for money, but the guy still tries to compare ETH and Bitcoin.
P.S. I'm not against raising funds, I even approve it. All I am saying that I don't like how they handle things.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
Nobody asked you to mine/buy Bitcoin and nobody asked for money to create it.
Asking for money and making an offer to invest in a high risk project with no guarantees are two different things. I didn't read ETH's contract because I don't own it, but were there guarantees of profits? I don't think so even though I didn't read it.
You want guarantees? Find something stable, municipal bonds lol, crypto is very high risk. You know, hackers hack it all the time. You can't have a cake and eat it too. But you kids think you're entitled to both getting profits and no risk, not going to happen.
You should refrain from such stupid statements (and "attacks"), because of 3 reasons:
1. What do you mean no guarantees? They had $200 million reasons not to make such stupid mistakes (that was (at least in the coders view) a stupid mistake)), which can hurt people's "investments".
2. Who is saying that they must guarantee profits? Is your IQ equal to a room temperature?
3. Kids? I am 35-years old.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
Nobody asked you to mine/buy Bitcoin and nobody asked for money to create it.
Asking for money and making an offer to invest in a high risk project with no guarantees are two different things. I didn't read ETH's contract because I don't own it, but were there guarantees of profits? I don't think so even though I didn't read it.
You want guarantees? Find something stable, municipal bonds lol, crypto is very high risk. You know, hackers hack it all the time. You can't have a cake and eat it too. But you kids think you're entitled to both getting profits and no risk, not going to happen.
In case of ethereum, this might be a very controversial statement. I think that foundation did indeed ask for money. Also there were angles playing a high stake game from the very beginning. Where do u think did all those millions of $ invested into genesis come from? Overall it appears that these angel investors were acknowledged about potential gains from the beginning, someone might say that foundation was bound by the legal obligation to develop only for the genuine non-forked chain, so angels had a nice plan for their investment initiative if they were to fund the platform.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
Nobody asked you to mine/buy Bitcoin and nobody asked for money to create it.
Asking for money and making an offer to invest in a high risk project with no guarantees are two different things. I didn't read ETH's contract because I don't own it, but were there guarantees of profits? I don't think so even though I didn't read it.
You want guarantees? Find something stable, municipal bonds lol, crypto is very high risk. You know, hackers hack it all the time. You can't have a cake and eat it too. But you kids think you're entitled to both getting profits and no risk, not going to happen.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
Nobody asked you to mine/buy Bitcoin and nobody asked for money to create it.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
Those millions were "gathered" not for making experiments with underlying tech but for draining them off in the first place. This is how they sustained the fertile ground for moving forward and making this fork possible, in order to conduct the thing under the guise that it was their due diligence to rescue the funds. In reality, I think, the dao was a precursor for deploying a two chain economic model.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
I don't remember there was a promise of profits for everyone and never losses, do you? Take Bitcoin, it is deliberately called an experiment, beta software after 8 years, because it can fail completely. "Investors" are kids who want to get rich quick, well it's not how it works, they must learn or get out of the kitchen if it's hot.
You can't gather $200 million to make experiments were there is possibility for failures. They somehow fixed things, but fact is that a lot of people lost money. There are not only coins/assets/platforms/DAO's, there are also tradings. A lot of people bought on higher prices. Forking is always a bad news (when it is made to fix an exploited code), which hurts "investors".
It is called secession. Why should a majority force a minority to stay if the minority has a wish to secede and go on their own fork? Why does this make the minority's branch a scam? It doesn't.
It is hard for minority to secede in political national boundaries. It is pretty easy in crypto, which makes crypto an awesome ground for experimenting of political and economic theories.
It is hard for minority to secede in political national boundaries. It is pretty easy in crypto, which makes crypto an awesome ground for experimenting of political and economic theories.
Forking is a standard operation in crypto.
Not in something, which claims to be decentralised.
P.S. I am talking about a hard fork. Bitcoin for example was never hard forked.
What difference does decentralization make in forking a new branch?
Is Bitcoin centralized or decentralized? Why does it matter for forking if it is either and why does it matter what happens in Bitcoin? Every crypto is not obliged to copy Bitcoin's history.
Forking is a standard operation in crypto.
Not in something, which claims to be decentralised.
EDIT: If it is a coin with small community, then a hard fork could be convenient.
P.S. I am talking about a hard fork. Bitcoin for example was never hard forked.
If ETC is a scam, ETH is a scam too. They come from the same parent, two branches of the same trunk. Either they both are scams or both are not scams.
In my view both are legit projects, the Classic branch is more idealistic. There can be more forks in the future. Forking is a standard operation in crypto.
I don't own any of them, my view is not biased like views of those who own one or the other.
In my view both are legit projects, the Classic branch is more idealistic. There can be more forks in the future. Forking is a standard operation in crypto.
I don't own any of them, my view is not biased like views of those who own one or the other.
Guys,
The thread is about Guo's statement and Ethereum as a whole, not about NXT, PoS coins or the new Tesla. Some people are already yelling at ETC calling it a scam, but in my views this is the original crowdfunded Ethereum project, so...
Simple truth is that the Ethereum foundation gathered (at some point, depends when/if they sold some of the funds, and the BTC price) over $200 MILLION for 2 projects. One of them is now gone (TheDAO), the other one is outcasted by its original creators. Yes, some people voted about the fork (though I have some doubts on how the voting went....), but they were somehow forced to do so. Its like deposit 2 x $50 in the bank and after some time the bank calls you and says "Come in 5 days to pick a $100 bill, otherwise you are going to lose it.". Maybe I don't want a $100 bill and I don't want to take it after 5 days? Basically, the Ethereum Foundation completely screwed up.
P.S. Would like to remind you that I am not trolling EF, I am just frustrated on how they are doing things so far.
The thread is about Guo's statement and Ethereum as a whole, not about NXT, PoS coins or the new Tesla. Some people are already yelling at ETC calling it a scam, but in my views this is the original crowdfunded Ethereum project, so...
Simple truth is that the Ethereum foundation gathered (at some point, depends when/if they sold some of the funds, and the BTC price) over $200 MILLION for 2 projects. One of them is now gone (TheDAO), the other one is outcasted by its original creators. Yes, some people voted about the fork (though I have some doubts on how the voting went....), but they were somehow forced to do so. Its like deposit 2 x $50 in the bank and after some time the bank calls you and says "Come in 5 days to pick a $100 bill, otherwise you are going to lose it.". Maybe I don't want a $100 bill and I don't want to take it after 5 days? Basically, the Ethereum Foundation completely screwed up.
P.S. Would like to remind you that I am not trolling EF, I am just frustrated on how they are doing things so far.
Jump to: