(03-19-2017 01:29 PM)Satoshi Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 01:10 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Edit: by the way, how is the point of your post even related to bitcoin, except your stretch of an attempt to try to make a relationship between ETH and BTC while the thrust of your posts seems merely to strive to pump ETH (rather than even to denigrate BTC), no? shouldn't this post be in the Alts thread?

I just commented on this behavior of yours in the previous page. Did Roosh or anyone else running this forum ever say that it is not allowed to discuss bitcoin in this thread? If not then you should stop acting like you are an authority in this discussion.

Who gives a ratt's ass? I already responded to the points that you made in your earlier post.

(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 01:16 PM)Armogan Wrote:  BTC had 24-hour transaction volume of ~458m, while ETH had 24-hour transaction volume of ~220m. Not exactly a bunch of 14 year-olds playing in the arcade, is it?

Who knows what this figure will be when Raiden comes on, I'll bet up. 1,000,000 tx/sec vs. 7 tx/sec. That's a lot of drugs in one second!

Fair enough. if there are actually becoming more places in which ETH is accepted and being transacted, then that will be an interesting new development.

I have no problem with any of that, including if ETH were to win out over bitcoin. I adjust my behavior to whatever system seems to be working, but I think ETH is a hell of a long way from having a variety of network effects that are currently enjoyed by bitcoin - including liquidation, security, development, trading..

but let's see how some of it plays out.

With all due respect, this is what I mean you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Liquidity - The market is extremely liquid. I trade stocks that have less 24 hour volume, and I have for years. Not hard to buy/sell those stocks at all.

Development - There is a unified development team that is smart, and in consensus, unlike the fighting in BTC (do we fork, do we not, etc.). There is a CLEAR roadmap. Read up on it. The ETH development team is getting things done so much faster. Soon you will be able to own GeyJuanGee.eth, instead of using a hex address.

Trading - Again, what are you talking about. You can buy ETH/USD on Kraken, GDAX, Bitfinex, Gemini, do ETH/USDT on Poloniex. Trading, huh?

Just be open to other possibilities. Don't still use yahoo, when you could have adopted google in 2001. PLUS - it's a pump-and-dump. I need to pump so I can dump.

(03-19-2017 01:40 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Thanks for the link JJG, though I notice it's all very, very bullish articles

That thread does pretty much live up to its name about "bullish" media. Every once in a while some bullish articles will inadvertently slip in.

(03-19-2017 01:40 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  I didn't know Antpool had switched to BU, wow. I can't see why they would do that. A lump sum cash bribe comes to mind, since the mining margins mustn't be that good, even for such huge operations.

I definitely don't proclaim to understand various motivations for alliances nor wether those alliances are strong or not.

(03-19-2017 01:40 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  On the chart what doesn't look good is the "failure" to make it back up to 1300 before the 3 big candles back down, that would have made a flat correction. What it looks like now could actually be a 1-2-3 of a 5 wave down impulse wave, the current green candle starting wave 4 before the final wave 5 down. This 5 wave pattern could, as always in EW, be the start of a genuine overall EW higher degree impulse wave down, so a kind of major trend reversal, or it could be a wave 1 of A-B-C zig-zag corrective pattern where the A-B-C is 5-3-5 impulsive-corrective-impulsive again, before in the higher degree continuing the long term upwards trend. This scenario would be that the price would go lower than 950 after the current brief recovery, but then recover slightly again in the 3 wave correction before going even lower in the final 5 wave ©. Assuming the wave lengths are normal, that would imply a downside of around $700. I did say before the next move up would be around $1400, before the next correction, I was $50 off but not bad.

The above paragraph assumes a complex zig zag ABC correction. The alternative is that the ABC correction has *Already* been completed as a "flat", allowing for the slight failure of the B wave to hit the previous $1300 high, so that would mean we would be starting another impulse wave back up past the previous high. The argument against this is that the 3 candle down wave is 5 waves so should be impulsive, if it were corrective it would be 3 waves. But something I've been finding quite a lot is that while BTC does "obey" EW (never to the precise dollar but the wave patterns can at the very least keep you out of trouble), the waves that "should" be 3 wave are often 5 wave, which is odd. Perhaps EW purists have counts that I am not aware of so that it fits their model, but to me it seems an indication of an asset that is up and coming rather than fully established. And once this BU and blocksize etc. shit fucks off, there's probably a lot of upside.

You are saying a lot of interesting things regarding technical analysis or even the effects of news (wether real or the spread of FUD).

Nonetheless, you gotta be careful with some of your technical analysis if you are not necessarily accounting sufficiently for the fact that bitcoin is far from a mature technology and in that regards, it does not really fit within any other paradigms - accordingly, the explosive upwards potential of the s-curve could cause price movements that deviate greatly from your 5 wave discussion.

I have no problem that you may want to analyze bitcoin with tools of your comfort; however, you may not want to put too much of your ammunition into that assessment (maybe put 40% to 70% - depending on your comfort level, rather than higher amounts?).

Ultimately, you gotta do what is comfortable for you and attempt to align your risks and your allocations in accordance with your overall assessment and weight that you give to different assessments.

(03-19-2017 02:18 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 01:16 PM)Armogan Wrote:  BTC had 24-hour transaction volume of ~458m, while ETH had 24-hour transaction volume of ~220m. Not exactly a bunch of 14 year-olds playing in the arcade, is it?

Who knows what this figure will be when Raiden comes on, I'll bet up. 1,000,000 tx/sec vs. 7 tx/sec. That's a lot of drugs in one second!

Fair enough. if there are actually becoming more places in which ETH is accepted and being transacted, then that will be an interesting new development.

I have no problem with any of that, including if ETH were to win out over bitcoin. I adjust my behavior to whatever system seems to be working, but I think ETH is a hell of a long way from having a variety of network effects that are currently enjoyed by bitcoin - including liquidation, security, development, trading..

but let's see how some of it plays out.

With all due respect, this is what I mean you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You are bringing over points that you made in another thread.

(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Liquidity - The market is extremely liquid. I trade stocks that have less 24 hour volume, and I have for years. Not hard to buy/sell those stocks at all.

You are talking about ETH's liquidity on an absolute level or compared to stocks or compared with Bitcoin?

Trading is one kind of liquidity, but there is also other forms of liquidity.

For example, in bitcoin, there were only about 6 exchanges in 2013, but now there are close to 150 exchanges. The same is true with other ways in which bitcoin's liquidity has expanded.

When I mentioned my surprise at ETH's liquidity, I was attempting to compare it to bitcoin, not either as some abstract concept or comparing it with some random stocks.

(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Development - There is a unified development team that is smart, and in consensus, unlike the fighting in BTC (do we fork, do we not, etc.). There is a CLEAR roadmap. Read up on it. The ETH development team is getting things done so much faster. Soon you will be able to own GeyJuanGee.eth, instead of using a hex address.

Seems like you are straying to the pump ETH territory, again, no? Why do I need to read up or get propagandized in this BTC thread about the supposed greatness of ETH?

(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Trading - Again, what are you talking about. You can buy ETH/USD on Kraken, GDAX, Bitfinex, Gemini, do ETH/USDT on Poloniex. Trading, huh?

Even I know that ETH is on more exchanges than it was a year ago, but so what? What does that have to do with anything related to BTC, except that they happen to be on some of the same exchanges. To, me it still sounds like a kind of pump of ETH rather than some kind of BTC topic that you would like to discuss.

(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Just be open to other possibilities. Don't still use yahoo, when you could have adopted google in 2001. PLUS - it's a pump-and-dump. I need to pump so I can dump.

You seem to be admitting that you have no real purpose besides pumping, and there is no reason for me to be any more open than I want to be, so I don't really understand why there is some reason for me to be open (to ETH?)

Sar·don·ic
adjective
grimly mocking or cynical.
"Armogan sardonically smiled when BTC got dumped all over JayJuanGee's face."

I think you're my new friend Juan. You're so much fun!


Wheeeeee!

(03-19-2017 02:47 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Sar·don·ic
adjective
grimly mocking or cynical.
"Armogan sardonically smiled when BTC got dumped all over JayJuanGee's face."

I think you're my new friend Juan. You're so much fun!


Wheeeeee!

In other words, you have no bitcoin related point, right?

Do you own any bitcoin? Are you interested in either buying or selling bitcoin? Are you shorting bitcoin? or do you have some other purpose to participate in this bitcoin thread?





By the way, RFV guys interested in bitcoin: We have a nice little bounce back today that seems to be ongoing... and upwards 6% up for the day, so far. Does not mean that the bounce back is going to continue, but price actions seem to be looking pretty good at the moment.

(03-19-2017 02:56 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 02:47 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Sar·don·ic
adjective
grimly mocking or cynical.
"Armogan sardonically smiled when BTC got dumped all over JayJuanGee's face."

I think you're my new friend Juan. You're so much fun!


Wheeeeee!

In other words, you have no bitcoin related point, right?

Do you own any bitcoin? Are you interested in either buying or selling bitcoin? Are you shorting bitcoin? or do you have some other purpose to participate in this bitcoin thread?





By the way, RFV guys interested in bitcoin: We have a nice little bounce back today that seems to be ongoing... and upwards 6% up for the day, so far. Does not mean that the bounce back is going to continue, but price actions seem to be looking pretty good at the moment.

All of the above. Is that weird?

(03-19-2017 03:14 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 02:56 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 02:47 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Sar·don·ic
adjective
grimly mocking or cynical.
"Armogan sardonically smiled when BTC got dumped all over JayJuanGee's face."

I think you're my new friend Juan. You're so much fun!


Wheeeeee!

In other words, you have no bitcoin related point, right?

Do you own any bitcoin? Are you interested in either buying or selling bitcoin? Are you shorting bitcoin? or do you have some other purpose to participate in this bitcoin thread?





By the way, RFV guys interested in bitcoin: We have a nice little bounce back today that seems to be ongoing... and upwards 6% up for the day, so far. Does not mean that the bounce back is going to continue, but price actions seem to be looking pretty good at the moment.

All of the above. Is that weird?

It only seems weird to me that recently you have not been attempting to discuss or shed light on those topics in this thread in any kind of direct way.

(03-02-2017 06:18 PM)SunW Wrote:  Never gettin old

(01-04-2017 10:48 AM)SunW Wrote:  JJG - know you didn't say $5K, no worries. We're doing good.

GK - I own 5K ETH, 3K under $4.

(01-02-2017 10:31 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 08:36 AM)SunW Wrote:  Bought 20 @ 521. Ridin the wave

(01-02-2017 08:13 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 02:12 PM)SunW Wrote:  Thread has 371,817 views

Price was $517 then and now it has 461,416 views. Dayum.

(08-03-2016 08:36 AM)SunW Wrote:  Bought 20 @ 521. Ridin the wave

Gots me a problem. I have too many bitcoins from purchases last year and this year.

I want to see if I can predict btc's price close again and make it 3 out of 3 years right. For 2017, btc will end above $1825. This thread will have over 1 million views.

(08-04-2016 09:14 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 08:36 AM)SunW Wrote:  Bought 20 @ 521. Ridin the wave

Got 1000 ether at $8. My guess is year end, bitcoin will be 900+ and ether 25+.

Got some "hardware" to back my software from a few of my bitcoins I bought in '15.

JJG, we're fuckin rich.

Liquidated all 20 @ 521 at the price of $1072. I'm going to permanently keep my remaining bitcoins from 2015 so I can get both versions of bitcoin after the split. I have enough bitcoins and made more than all my money back on the ones I sold. This HF shit pisses me off tho.

If bitcoin does lose, who wins - moneor, ether?

(03-19-2017 08:40 PM)SunW Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 06:18 PM)SunW Wrote:  Never gettin old

(01-04-2017 10:48 AM)SunW Wrote:  JJG - know you didn't say $5K, no worries. We're doing good.

GK - I own 5K ETH, 3K under $4.

(01-02-2017 10:31 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 08:36 AM)SunW Wrote:  Bought 20 @ 521. Ridin the wave

(01-02-2017 08:13 AM)SunW Wrote:  Price was $517 then and now it has 461,416 views. Dayum.


Gots me a problem. I have too many bitcoins from purchases last year and this year.

I want to see if I can predict btc's price close again and make it 3 out of 3 years right. For 2017, btc will end above $1825. This thread will have over 1 million views.

(08-04-2016 09:14 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 08:36 AM)SunW Wrote:  Bought 20 @ 521. Ridin the wave

Got 1000 ether at $8. My guess is year end, bitcoin will be 900+ and ether 25+.

Got some "hardware" to back my software from a few of my bitcoins I bought in '15.

JJG, we're fuckin rich.

Liquidated all 20 @ 521 at the price of $1072. I'm going to permanently keep my remaining bitcoins from 2015 so I can get both versions of bitcoin after the split. I have enough bitcoins and made more than all my money back on the ones I sold. This HF shit pisses me off tho.

If bitcoin does lose, who wins - moneor, ether?

You seem to be giving too high of odds that there is actually going to be a fork sometime soon.

I cannot recall if I made any kind of assertion about such probability, but I would put it at less than 20% at the moment.

You heard about the BFX coin that is supposed to help you to prepare for a hardfork?

They call it Chain split tokens.

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts

Where do you come up with these numbers? Same source as the ETF decision estimate? That worked out well.

I'll just leave this here:

Hard Fork

(03-19-2017 09:24 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Where do you come up with these numbers? Same source as the ETF decision estimate? That worked out well.

I'll just leave this here:

Hard Fork

I come up with my predictions based on my own estimation of things based on information that I currently know.

I am not trying to compete with anyone about being correct.

Regarding the ETF.. yes, there was mostly a belief that it would not be approved, and who fucking cares about how that may change over time and whether it is priced in, we already had those discussions, and each of us gave our discussion points.

I take it from your estimation that currently predicting the chance of a hardfork at greater than 20%.. great. good for you.

(03-19-2017 09:24 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Where do you come up with these numbers? Same source as the ETF decision estimate? That worked out well.

I'll just leave this here:

Hard Fork

fucking hell thanks for the link I didn't know about this

(03-19-2017 09:24 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Where do you come up with these numbers? Same source as the ETF decision estimate? That worked out well.

I'll just leave this here:

Hard Fork

What does the chart in the link mean?

(03-19-2017 10:54 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 09:24 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Where do you come up with these numbers? Same source as the ETF decision estimate? That worked out well.

I'll just leave this here:

Hard Fork

What does the chart in the link mean?

I think that the two posters previously weilding the linked-information believe that it supports a theory that hard-forking is greater than what others previously thought, and that BU support is higher than what others had previously thought.

I still think that we have to see how it plays out in the coming weeks.

BU is claiming that they are planning to fork once support hits around 75%, so we would either have to see whether support hits 75% or whether they decide to fork earlier and if they do what would be the consequences. They also may decide, for other reasons, that it is too risky to fork or maybe core will decide to enter into some kind of compromise that makes some of them happy?

In this recent article, this guy thinks that he has some solutions that can be accomplished without forking.

http://www.coindesk.com/scalable-blockch...-solution/

Indicates the percentage of miners that have changed their mining generation size parameters to be over 1MB (support of BU), essentially giving support to a blocks over 1MB. One chain would not support blocks over 1MB, thus a fork.

At 50%, it's looking fairly likely of a hard fork. At 75%, it's inevitable. Miner's have a lot more control through various tactics than people think.

Where are a lot of these miners located? China. Who overtly controls money, politics, news, basically everything in China? The corrupt government. Ever been on Facebook, or been able to read a Trump article, while in China? I don't think so. Things aren't that decentralized.

Coindesk is fake news. Everyone knows that.

(03-19-2017 11:37 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Coindesk is fake news. Everyone knows that.

I don't know what "fake news" has to do with anything, and your supposed authority that "everyone knows that." Sounds like exaggeration to me.

There are various pieces of information that we can take into account when looking at bitcoin or looking at other things going on in life, whether politics or factual happenings and dynamics, and sure I will give you that some sources of information are more credible than other sources, but it is inaccurate to lump Coindesk into the "fake news" category merely because you believe that to be convenient.

Sure you can take some sources with a considerable grain of salt, but calling them "fake" seems like you want to live in your own little bubble in which you can discount other ideas merely based on association . Doesn't sound like a good way to attempt to be informed, to me.

Ok I've been out of the loop for a while. A hard fork is a bad thing for BTC holders?

(03-20-2017 02:21 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Ok I've been out of the loop for a while. A hard fork is a bad thing for BTC holders?

Both good and bad. If it goes good then bitcoin will have taken a step forward to solving the scalability problem. But it could go bad too. Either way this just proves that bitcoin is like an outdated technology.

(03-20-2017 02:21 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Ok I've been out of the loop for a while. A hard fork is a bad thing for BTC holders?

A hard fork should only happen if supported by at least 75% of the miners. If you accept that these miners who have invested large amounts of money in specialized hardware to mine bitcoins are acting rationally then it must be a good thing if over 75% support it.

(03-20-2017 07:16 AM)Savage Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:21 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Ok I've been out of the loop for a while. A hard fork is a bad thing for BTC holders?

A hard fork should only happen if supported by at least 75% of the miners. If you accept that these miners who have invested large amounts of money in specialized hardware to mine bitcoins are acting rationally then it must be a good thing if over 75% support it.

It seems to me that changes so easily to bitcoin would not be a good thing, and 75% seems to be too low of a threshold in order to provide some kind of assurance of consensus.

In other words, higher consensus points has been a feature rather than a bug of bitcoin to make changes somewhat difficult and to make it difficult for politically motivated takeovers, and any attempts to change the threshold lower is a kind of hostile takeover that threatens to sabotage bitcoin.

Sure, it could end up happening that a fork happens and even is successful at low threshold, something like 75%. We might see this play out in the coming weeks or months. Then we will have two coins and have to decide where to go from there.

By the way, this does not seem to be an attack on actual technological features (or deficiencies) in bitcoin, but instead an attack on bitcoin's governance threshold - and it could be possible for either government and/or large financial actors pushing for this kind of an attack in order to attempt to debilitate bitcoin to some degree and if it becomes fairly easy to fork bitcoin or randomly make changes to bitcoin, then likely the fundamental model of bitcoin as a decentralized, immutable and secure platform could become greatly damaged.

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:16 AM)Savage Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:21 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Ok I've been out of the loop for a while. A hard fork is a bad thing for BTC holders?

A hard fork should only happen if supported by at least 75% of the miners. If you accept that these miners who have invested large amounts of money in specialized hardware to mine bitcoins are acting rationally then it must be a good thing if over 75% support it.

It seems to me that changes so easily to bitcoin would not be a good thing, and 75% seems to be too low of a threshold in order to provide some kind of assurance of consensus.

In other words, higher consensus points has been a feature rather than a bug of bitcoin to make changes somewhat difficult and to make it difficult for politically motivated takeovers, and any attempts to change the threshold lower is a kind of hostile takeover that threatens to sabotage bitcoin.

Sure, it could end up happening that a fork happens and even is successful at low threshold, something like 75%. We might see this play out in the coming weeks or months. Then we will have two coins and have to decide where to go from there.

By the way, this does not seem to be an attack on actual technological features (or deficiencies) in bitcoin, but instead an attack on bitcoin's governance threshold - and it could be possible for either government and/or large financial actors pushing for this kind of an attack in order to attempt to debilitate bitcoin to some degree and if it becomes fairly easy to fork bitcoin or randomly make changes to bitcoin, then likely the fundamental model of bitcoin as a decentralized, immutable and secure platform could become greatly damaged.

How is 75% a low threshold, what are you talking about. A simple majority is 50%. Key word, majority. That means most people support or oppose something.

U.S. legislative branch, which is notably more stringent, has a 2/3rds rule. This is extremely hard to achieve. Over 66.67% of Senators need to agree on something, that is very difficult. To be clear 75% is even HIGHER than 66.67%. 75% is a very high threshold for a consensus vote.

Another thing to note. Over 70% of the world's bitcoin miners are located in a authoritarian regime that is know to do shady, repressive acts in order to get their way.

We should rename this thread CHINAcoin. Not decentralized at all.

CHINAcoin

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:16 AM)Savage Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:21 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Ok I've been out of the loop for a while. A hard fork is a bad thing for BTC holders?

A hard fork should only happen if supported by at least 75% of the miners. If you accept that these miners who have invested large amounts of money in specialized hardware to mine bitcoins are acting rationally then it must be a good thing if over 75% support it.

It seems to me that changes so easily to bitcoin would not be a good thing, and 75% seems to be too low of a threshold in order to provide some kind of assurance of consensus.

In other words, higher consensus points has been a feature rather than a bug of bitcoin to make changes somewhat difficult and to make it difficult for politically motivated takeovers, and any attempts to change the threshold lower is a kind of hostile takeover that threatens to sabotage bitcoin.

Sure, it could end up happening that a fork happens and even is successful at low threshold, something like 75%. We might see this play out in the coming weeks or months. Then we will have two coins and have to decide where to go from there.

By the way, this does not seem to be an attack on actual technological features (or deficiencies) in bitcoin, but instead an attack on bitcoin's governance threshold - and it could be possible for either government and/or large financial actors pushing for this kind of an attack in order to attempt to debilitate bitcoin to some degree and if it becomes fairly easy to fork bitcoin or randomly make changes to bitcoin, then likely the fundamental model of bitcoin as a decentralized, immutable and secure platform could become greatly damaged.

How is 75% a low threshold, what are you talking about. A simple majority is 50%. Key word, majority. That means most people support or oppose something.

It seems pretty logical to me that something like bitcoin should not be easily changed, even by a mere majority of supermajority... because it was designed to be decentralized and not subject to whims. That inability to change easily is largely what gives it value. You can have all kinds of systems that are easy to change, and that will work in those contexts, but bitcoin is a bit of a different animal and quite different from anything that we have ever seen previously, therefore, it is not good for bitcoin and its disruptive foundation for people to easily change it... especially when it already has a very strong foundation. Folks can chose to use it or not based on how it is, but changing it should be very, very, very, very difficult (did I state enough "very"ies in there? )

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  U.S. legislative branch, which is notably more stringent, has a 2/3rds rule. This is extremely hard to achieve. Over 66.67% of Senators need to agree on something, that is very difficult. To be clear 75% is even HIGHER than 66.67%. 75% is a very high threshold for a consensus vote.

What the fuck are you talking about? You think that bitcoin should be some political toy? And, you think that 75% is sufficient to remove bitcoin from politics?

To me, it sounds like you are attempting to use false analogies in order to make bitcoin quite different from what it actually is (or was initially designed to be)

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  Another thing to note. Over 70% of the world's bitcoin miners are located in a authoritarian regime that is know to do shady, repressive acts in order to get their way.

There may be a bit of a problem in bitcoin regarding an inability to know exactly who is controlling mining, but you really don't have enough information to 1) assert that miners are located in places that you describe 2) those miners are controlled in some kind of meaningful and material way by their jurisdictions or 3) that the overall bitcoin system is not able to adapt in order to compensate for the problem in the event that #2 was either true or seeming to be true

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  We should rename this thread CHINAcoin. Not decentralized at all.

Sounds like you are just trying to spread meaningless FUD with your bullshit and your appeal to xenophobia.

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  CHINAcoin

No. You are not trying to mislead anyone.

Your cited article from July 2016 is "very credible", I am glad that you rely on better sources for your information than my previous use of Coindesk for some other minor point that I was making.