Tell me more about this, Rhett and why an opinion about him is relevant for a blockchain... Satoshi Nakamoto has a bad reputation too, why is his coin listed, he seems to be nowhere to be found. Hell, even Bitconnect is listed on Bittrex... So again my question - what is it about BTCP that had millions of dollars in volume every day for a whole month during the snapshot period that should deny them access to the free market for trading? Does not Bittrex has an obligation to do so according to their own statement?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Actually you tell me me what you know about Rhett. I ask because you asked what his past has to do with blockchain.
Short answer. Lots.
This case has corruption written all over it, someone must be paying to keep BTCP off the market.
From what I have seen, he is able to 1) Bring a large group of voluntary developers to work together on a project that seems to be 2) Worked against by special interests since exchanges announcing it change their minds.
If exchanges are being paid to not list BTCP, then that is something that should be addressed. Because these coincidences are not what anyone should accept as normal.
It is not an accusation, it is a strong feeling of corruption surrounding this particular case, and your short answer is not a good enough answer. BTCP now runs on consensus, so what you feel or do not feel about a person involved in the creation of the coin is irrelevant in my opinion.
Someone must be paying to keep BTCP off the market, it feels like strong corruption!
Hmm so it has nothing to do with the fact that he is a habitual coin forker? Or the fact that zcl was purchased in mass before the announcement.
Or let’s look at his projects with Gary le.
Such as Ztoken which was a failed fork. Or the ico they are quietly running. Which is literally a direct fork of a project from grin.
If I was s exchange I would avoid adding projects that were sure to be abandoned as soon as donations ran dry.
so are you telling me you and they know the future?
Bullshit.
Exchanges have ONE job, and that is to LIST coins and make trading markets in secure environment, if they cannot LIST coins, they should run out of business.
Talking smack about a person and using that as an argument for a coin that is already in consensus is just stupid.
Come with some real arguments.
Agreed! Steem and SBD were temporarily disabled for weeks or months at a time.
They also delist coins with only a week or two of notice.
my problems with bittrex is that they are US based and like everyone else they do what they please, freeze coins out of the blue, "don't support terrorism" ie. liberty like withdrawing your own money unless you give up your privacy...
But that's neither here nor there, I'm happy that BTS is around for what it's worth, I would be more than happy if people started being responsible and took some liberty to exchange and trade freely, buut that's in the realms of the "hopes and dreams"
You are right. Everything that is US based is under the gun. The government in general is shooting itself in the foot. Sanctions on Russia for example, "You can't use our dollar for x or xx" and Russia changes to the petro-yuan or barters for oil or missiles. Nice job US.
Bitshares; It is lower volume but the same as others. I bought up all the 0.14 cent bts I could at the lows and it has recently doubled in value. Bitshares is on a public ledger like Steem, so it's all easy to see. decentralized like Steemit. Unlikely that a government ban will impact Bitshares.
It’s not knowing the future, if history sets a precedent.
And exchanges have one job indeed, list coins that will be most visible with the least headache. If not every Joe Schmo would fork and force their way into exchanges.
And it’s not just a person it’s the lead dev. If it were anyone else I’d just be a blip. As an exchange why on earth would a list a coin that has a high probability of being abandoned?