Topic: ViaBTC's UAHF ICO Proposal (Read 796 times)
hello! Very interesting to get acquainted with your project, how are your achievements?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time, seems one of those badly thought cons where scammers just ask for your money without a strong case why you should give them your money.
Will they make the ICO for their bitcoin fork on the Ethereum network?
Will they make the ICO for their bitcoin fork on the Ethereum network?
Haha yeah it's pretty funny!
Take a look at KPR Coin's Australian ICO in progress though on:
https:/www.kprms.com
It's currently in it's highest KPR Coin's earning ICO stage and also still taking on new referrers!
What will happen if Segwit2x activates the 2 MB part? Will you go ahead with the ICO anyway? Is this ICO the same as Bitmain's UAHF plan B?
The absurdity don't surprise me, just check out r/btc 
I think Jihan has lost control of his shills and minions
>80% of bitcoin's hash power doesn't sound like a joke to me. It's not like the previous times where it was just shilling all over promoting BIP101 or bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin miners are the ones with power over bitcoin, and they're to be taken much more seriously IMO. I think Jihan has lost control of his shills and minions
Isn't the UASF challenging the miner's power over Bitcoin? With the response of Bitmain and ViaBTC for a UAHF to counter this, I believe they are desperate to keep the status quo. Because if the UASF is successful, this sets a precedent for the users to take matters in their own hands whenever the miners start acting out of line again.
The absurdity don't surprise me, just check out r/btc
I think Jihan has lost control of his shills and minions
>80% of bitcoin's hash power doesn't sound like a joke to me. It's not like the previous times where it was just shilling all over promoting BIP101 or bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin miners are the ones with power over bitcoin, and they're to be taken much more seriously IMO. I think Jihan has lost control of his shills and minions
It was something I'd been wondering: if everyone goes for Segwit2x, as I understand, this simply means Segwit first, hard fork later. But how is this hard fork guaranteed? Just by developers keeping to their word?
I'm not a supporter, but I suppose it was only a matter of time before a similar move would come to guarantee Segwit2x runs its full course.
I'm not a supporter, but I suppose it was only a matter of time before a similar move would come to guarantee Segwit2x runs its full course.
I believe yes, they would have to take the developers' word. Who is behind Segwit2x anyway besides the big names like Barry Silbert and Jeff Garzik? Does anyone know who the developers are under Jeff Garzik?
It was something I'd been wondering: if everyone goes for Segwit2x, as I understand, this simply means Segwit first, hard fork later. But how is this hard fork guaranteed? Just by developers keeping to their word?
I'm not a supporter, but I suppose it was only a matter of time before a similar move would come to guarantee Segwit2x runs its full course.
I'm not a supporter, but I suppose it was only a matter of time before a similar move would come to guarantee Segwit2x runs its full course.
It looks like they are just trying a different approach for cloud mining.
"Fund our ICO and we'll invest it in rigs and electricity for mining."
And to guarantee their survival they added this hardfork thing.
But they might succeed today with all this ICO madness everywhere around...
"Fund our ICO and we'll invest it in rigs and electricity for mining."
And to guarantee their survival they added this hardfork thing.
But they might succeed today with all this ICO madness everywhere around...
Via have the right to do what they want.
Investors have the right to decide whether they want to be part of the ICO.
It will be interesting to watch how this pans out.
Investors have the right to decide whether they want to be part of the ICO.
It will be interesting to watch how this pans out.
I do not believe greed is the primary motivator here. It is desperation because there is a chance that they would have to follow BIP 148 once it starts activating Segwit on August 1. ViaBTC's proposal is very much out of character.
A few years back this would have been a shocking thing, but nowadays with all parties looking to grab a piece of the cake to nurse their own greed, this has become somewhat of a normality. Bitcoin isn't anymore how it was in the early days where the community, decentralization aspect, and directly Bitcoin itself, that was the first and only priority. Big money is involved in Bitcoin, and there where big money is involved, hyenas are looking to crack through everything in order to grab what they think belongs to them. Miners are a real plague.
So the geezer who already owns more hash power than anyone else wants to con the public into paying to mine a completely worthless chain?
I can tell if that's a double or triple piss take.
I can tell if that's a double or triple piss take.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time, seems one of those badly thought cons where scammers just ask for your money without a strong case why you should give them your money.
Will they make the ICO for their bitcoin fork on the Ethereum network?
Will they make the ICO for their bitcoin fork on the Ethereum network?
It's a power struggle, face it. We have long left the period of "technical discussion" in the scaling debate war
From their perspective it's understandable to try to get more resources on their side. I don't think an ICO is the best way for that but maybe they have conducted market research and decided it's worth a try.
Now, where should the "coins" for the ICO come from? Do they want to start an altcoin/coloured coin? (I don't think they're that stupid to try to increase the 22 million limit). Or simply they want to sell their first mined coins on the new chain?
(Said that, I'm quite optimistic that Segwit will go through soon with the SW2X proposal, so it's probably not even needed.)
From their perspective it's understandable to try to get more resources on their side. I don't think an ICO is the best way for that but maybe they have conducted market research and decided it's worth a try.
Now, where should the "coins" for the ICO come from? Do they want to start an altcoin/coloured coin? (I don't think they're that stupid to try to increase the 22 million limit). Or simply they want to sell their first mined coins on the new chain?
(Said that, I'm quite optimistic that Segwit will go through soon with the SW2X proposal, so it's probably not even needed.)
So no comments about the absurdity of this proposal? I am shocked. Now that there is a real issue to laugh at miners, everyone seems quiet. Maybe some of you think there is a profit opportunity here?
The absurdity don't surprise me, just check out r/btc
I think Jihan has lost control of his shills and minions
I think Jihan has lost control of his shills and minions
First read this blog from ViaBTC.
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/uahf-ico-proposal-draft-b962c7e00718
I have to be honest, I was laughing my ass off when I read the title.
Are they really serious about this proposal? It is already expected that the whole Bitcoin community will laugh at their face the minute they see the word "ICO" in there. Are they already that desperate because of the coming UASF?
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/uahf-ico-proposal-draft-b962c7e00718
I have to be honest, I was laughing my ass off when I read the title.
Are they really serious about this proposal? It is already expected that the whole Bitcoin community will laugh at their face the minute they see the word "ICO" in there. Are they already that desperate because of the coming UASF?
Jump to: