A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
and kevlar as been around for a very long time and very helpful at many occasion especially
during the Shane @scryptcloud scam.
-
he invited me to that recent web seminar thing and someone said you where him, which added up at the time.
kenel was the one (from irc chat logs) that was organising a smear campaign (and DDOS), also in the logs there was a Kevlar-FTC in the convo.
I’m not on IRC so it wasn’t me. You have your people very mixed up.
In that same webinar, Brian introduces me. You can hear the difference in our voices and our way of speaking.
-
well my appologise if the Kevlar-ftc character on irc wasn’t you this is back in 2013 btw
-
back to the OPs topic,
why list a new ICO coin under the ftc brand?
its not like the world doesn’t have enough [profanity] ICO coins? and if you’re so into making a new coin why not just go along your own merry way and make one? why involve the ftc brand? (btw brands ur wording not mine)
-
well it could beneficial to FTC
and maybe its time to have new FTC team willing to propose real change…constructive one
-
If anyone wants to dump feathercoins ,Now’s the time. Cryptsy or Bittrex
-
back to the OPs topic,
why list a new ICO coin under the ftc brand?
its not like the world doesn’t have enough shitty ICO coins? and if you’re so into making a new coin why not just go along your own merry way and make one? why involve the ftc brand? (btw brands ur wording not mine)
because it has value in name already, isnt it obvious?
-
If anyone wants to dump feathercoins ,Now’s the time. Cryptsy or Bittrex
why
-
because it has value in name already, isnt it obvious?
but don’t you think it could also bring extra value to the ftc,
-
yes, a body , but also valuable
-
but don’t you think it could also bring extra value to the ftc,
Yes of course but ATM I see 90% threat and 10% potential benefit.
-
Yes of course but ATM I see 90% threat and 10% potential benefit.
Care to explain why you think that adding extra services to the feathercoin brand spells doom?
-
because it has value in name already, isnt it obvious?
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
-
well it could beneficial to FTC
and maybe its time to have new FTC team willing to propose real change…constructive oneWe desperately need new people to get involved. I think Kevlar has proposed an exciting future to aim for. The most exciting project since… Well… Ever?
I’m struggling to find reasons not to push for this!
Why not?
-
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
Any counter suggestions? I’d love to hear more thoughts on this.
-
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
-
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
Once again a bunch of non-arguments against an ICO.
I’ve stated 4 reasons for doing an ICO, and several examples of them that are not ‘extremely bad’, but in fact ‘extremely good’. Kelsey has listed a bunch of non-arguments against it, and Ghostlander has pointed out that some people leverage it into a scam.
What exactly would you like to know beyond the reasons listed for doing an ICO?
-
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
I’m not sure how you add this one up. Same people, same community, new chain, different type of services in addition to our existing ones. How is using the same brand to launch new services under those conditions brand theft?
It’s because it’s Kevlar right? I’m guessing Peter could do it yeah?
-
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
As is usual, you’re a [removed personal attack]
You’ve used the size of your own [removed personal attack] understanding to measure our chance of success, and arrived at the conclusion that it’s tiny.
You then presented this completely uninformed opinion as fact without stopping to understand what the actual ‘failure’ scenarios in the model look like.
You then went on to extrapolate that because an ICO fails, people stop mining a blockchain for ROI. Of course this isn’t true.
You said if BC2 fails, that means that the technical merits of the first blockchain are bad. [removed personal attack] Miners mine a blockchain for ROI, not because a new blockchain which they CAN’T mine comes along.
You said if BC2 succeeds, that means the first block chain ends even worst than the first. Now you’re a BIGGER idiot. We’ve described over and over how the new BC adds complimentary services that add additional value.
Quit with the trolling.
-
Mirrax, I’m trying to understand you here. What are you conditions before you’ll support this. That BC1 dies and is replaced with BC2 and people get to swap coins for shares? That seems a lot more destructive than anything else proposed so far.
