Drunk Live Streamer, Ice Poseidon, Exposed for his Ponzi Scheme and Whose House was Raided by FBI Yesterday Reveals How He Stole Credit Cards and Installed Bitcoin Miners (viruses/malware) Because He Was Too Lazy to Get a Job before Streaming
HEX is a cryptocurrency token built on Ethereum that promises infinity rewards for staking. In the official website, it says:
HEX IS NOT A PONZI.
Yes, I agree. It's not a Ponzi scam. It's a Pyramid scam.
In HEX, no one owes you anything. You mint your own HEX rewards yourself when you end your stake. Like how Bitcoin miners mint their own Bitcoin rewards. You are the network.
That's basically minting value out of thin air. Wow, maybe HEX has an angel backing it that loves to give away free money.
There are no middlemen or managers in HEX. HEX rewards are dynamic like Bitcoin mining rewards. No one in the world can promise you how much you might make running HEX, because no one knows how valuable HEX will become. HEX puts you in charge!
The funds in traditional banks can give interest because they use it to provide loans for businesses. Without anything of that sort, how the hell can HEX continue to provide "high interests"? It's totally a Pyramid Scheme. It works by giving people a false hope that their money is going up in value. But they can't withdraw it as it is locked up. It can go up and up by making stupid people believe the balance sheet they see in their portfolio is what they will get. It's basically utilizing the greed of people with the lure of more money without actually giving more money. All the new money or interest is generated from inflation. It works by getting more people to buy it with referral programs. But when enough idiots of brought it, there won't be any more losers to refer to. Hence, the pyramid will collapse.
Operation Mockingbird - remember that time when Bitcoin was peer-to-peer electronic cash?
Do you remember what it was like in 2013 and earlier when Satoshi / Gavin were running the project and the goal was more users, merchants and scaling? Do you remember that time when the exciting projects were getting merchants to accept Bitcoin for payments, wallet apps, and maps of businesses and people that used and accepted Bitcoin as money? Do you remember that time when the MIT digital currency initiative (sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein and his mysterious intelligence agency "investment money"), MasterCard, and Western Union all invested in Blockstream who suddenly consolidated control of the Bitcoin development group, smearing and attacking anyone who wouldn't get on board? Remember that time that Theymos, who had been pro-Bitcoin scaling suddenly had a personality change and started censoring and banning anyone who talked about scaling bitcoin from the two largest discussion platforms, bitcoin talk dot org and r\bitcoin? Remember that time when fake Bitcoin celebrities with marketing teams behind them started appearing out of nowhere with the view that we shouldn't increase the capacity of Bitcoin so more people can use it? Remember that time that countless NPC's changed the community's narrative from peer-to-peer electronic cash with the goal of merchant and user adoption to "digital gold" or some kind of digital tulip ponzi scheme that's too expensive to use for day-to-day currency? Remember that time when the miners, now consolidated in CCP controlled China, suddenly voted against their own best-interests, and decided to run software that rate-limits Bitcoin to 5 transactions per second, despite overwhelming community opposition? Pepperidge Farm remembers. This is Operation Mockingbird folks, just a 21st Century version of it. So was SegWit, BSV/CSW, and now this IFP bullshit from Amaury.
Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general
I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise. In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments: - BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags - BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash" It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit. My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags. Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community. The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321"The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners? As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis. The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now. Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to). But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure. Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off. Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship. Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto. Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe". EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
"Amongst a whole host of other things, bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" CHANGE MY MIND. Edit: I own bitcoin, but contrary to most people that do, I'm willing to accept that I bought it purely as speculation. Make no mistake I do believe the central bank system is corrupt to its core and bitcoin does address a lot of the issues found therein. HOWEVER, as my original post pointed out, it does still have some characteristics found in Ponzi schemes. Please be respectful, people are entitled to their own opinions.
And, as a no-coiner who needs this for a papertm, the more I look into it, the less sense it makes... If the current mining is anywhere close to "5 datacentres in China," what exactly makes blockchains secure anyway? All that crypto stuff explicitly doesn't protect against collusion among miners, and "they're too big to take the money and run" effectively means it's just a fiat currency with extra steps added... Orr am I fundamentally misunderstanding how the real-world blockchain works? Posting it here, because I guess there's the best chance of getting a boosterism-free answer.
Der Miner erhält dafür neben dem Mining Verdienst für das Finden der Bitcoins (12,5 BTC/Block), auch jegliche Transaktionsgebühren aller verpackten Transaktionen in dem Block. Momentan ist der Bitcoin Verdienst für die Miner durch die Blockbelohnung (12,5 BTC) höher, als der Verdienst durch die Transaktionsgebühren. Dies wird sich durch ... Kryptowährungen wie Bitcoin, die auf dem Proof-of-Work (PoW)-Verfahren basieren, müssen geschürft (engl.: “minen”) werden. Dies geschieht, indem die sogenannten Miner, Netzwerkteilnehmer die dem Bitcoin-Netzwerk Rechenleistung bereitstellen, mathematische Rätsel lösen. Dies geschieht mit eigens dafür angefertigten ... CRYPTO MARKETS. Bitcoin, which started the year at around $3,500, soared to well above $10,000 this summer before crashing back to trade around $7,000 amid fears that Facebook's planned ... Um Bitcoin Mining zu betreiben, müssen Sie einem Miningpool beitreten, was zusätzliche Kosten verursacht. Für das Mining benötigen Sie entsprechende Hardware. Auch hier kommen Kosten auf Sie zu. Je nachdem, wie leistungsfähig Ihr Bitcoin Miner sein soll, zahlen Sie bis zu 2.000 Euro. Es ist nicht bekannt, ob sich Mining auch in Zukunft noch lohnen wird. Wenn Sie nicht genau wissen, was ... StartMiner is Bitcoin miner with fully automatic process. Start earning Bitcoin now! Home; Affilite Program; Payouts; FAQ; Contacts; Welcome to leading Bitcoin mining pool! Our members already received 1969.5970722 Bitcoins since launch 1502 days ago. Start Mining We aim to provide you with the easiest possible way to make money without having to do any of the hard stuff. Start mining ...
These scams do not last long, maybe 20 to 30 days max. Like so many other fake Bitcoin mining Ponzi schemes that came before it like Sierra Hash, SpaceMining, and Hashzone, thousands and thousands ... This Hackers' Report, we talk about: Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme: http://thehackernews.com/2017/06/bitcoin-mining-ponzi-scheme.html Pacemaker Vulnerabilities: http:... Please watch my videos. Robert Kiyosaki: Market Crash is COMING!! How To Get Rich + Buy Gold and Silver Rich Dad Poor Dad - Duration: 51:52. I LOVE PROSPERITY 235,413 views 💰sconto del 3% su Genesis MINING : 6X2Pqj ... Rickards: ‘Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme’ - Duration: 7:28. Hedgeye Recommended for you. 7:28. Investire in Ripple - Il futuro delle banche ... Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme? Trade Genius Crypto & Gold . Loading... Unsubscribe from Trade Genius Crypto & Gold? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 24.9K. Loading ...