BitShares Forum

Other => Graveyard => OpenLedger => Topic started by: sumantso on June 19, 2015, 09:35:53 am

Title: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: sumantso on June 19, 2015, 09:35:53 am
There has been some concerns that BIT-X may be running a long con, and quite a few people have raised suspicion about it. Since CNX is in a partnership with them, I assume BM and co. have properly vetted them and have talked to them personally? I raise this issue as in case they indeed turn out to be scammers it will cause irreparable damage to the BTS brand.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: Ben Mason on June 19, 2015, 09:44:24 am
Do you have any more detail on the concerns?
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 19, 2015, 10:03:03 am
There has been some concerns that BIT-X may be running a long con, and quite a few people have raised suspicion about it. Since CNX is in a partnership with them, I assume BM and co. have properly vetted them and have talked to them personally? I raise this issue as in case they indeed turn out to be scammers it will cause irreparable damage to the BTS brand.

Source?

http://www.ifsc.gov.bz/licensed-service-providers/list-f/ (http://www.ifsc.gov.bz/licensed-service-providers/list-f/)
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: karnal on June 19, 2015, 10:19:51 am
yeah come on.. if you're making such accusations, give a source. otherwise it's just fud/trolling.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: openledger on June 19, 2015, 10:45:41 am
There has been some concerns that BIT-X may be running a long con, and quite a few people have raised suspicion about it. Since CNX is in a partnership with them, I assume BM and co. have properly vetted them and have talked to them personally? I raise this issue as in case they indeed turn out to be scammers it will cause irreparable damage to the BTS brand.

Feel free to direct any concerns to me in a private message, and I will be happy to help get answers to any questions these many people as you say  may have provided there is a solid reason for them to be raised in the first place!

Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: xeroc on June 19, 2015, 11:53:19 am
.. so why not discuss them publicly then? I prefer the public approach
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: openledger on June 19, 2015, 12:09:26 pm
.. so why not discuss them publicly then? I prefer the public approach

also no problem but have no time to deal with third party "I heard without any proper bearings or docs confirming stuff like this" sort of threads, I hope that can be understood. Have already seen my share of that.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: xeroc on June 19, 2015, 12:16:54 pm
.. so why not discuss them publicly then? I prefer the public approach

also no problem but have no time to deal with third party "I heard without any proper bearings or docs confirming stuff like this" sort of threads, I hope that can be understood. Have already seen my share of that.
Sure .. thx  for being as responsive as you are already .. +5%
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: sumantso on June 19, 2015, 01:18:35 pm
All I want to know is if BM and co have made sufficient research before getting into partnership with BIT-X.com

The concerns I've are without proof and mostly based on circumstantial/hand waving arguments, but there is no harm in getting it clarified.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: vikram on June 19, 2015, 05:45:32 pm
All I want to know is if BM and co have made sufficient research before getting into partnership with BIT-X.com

The concerns I've are without proof and mostly based on circumstantial/hand waving arguments, but there is no harm in getting it clarified.

As far as I'm aware our partnership is with CCEDK and not Bit-X, so moving this to the new CCEDK subforum.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: bytemaster on June 19, 2015, 05:55:45 pm
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.   

Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: openledger on June 19, 2015, 07:05:50 pm
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: sumantso on June 24, 2015, 03:34:39 am
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%

So BM is vouching for someone named Ronny who is vouching for BIT-X? BM, I hope you're not building all these partnerships based on assumptions only.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: bytemaster on June 24, 2015, 06:23:31 pm
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%

So BM is vouching for someone named Ronny who is vouching for BIT-X? BM, I hope you're not building all these partnerships based on assumptions only.

We are working with people who want host a wallet and keep the users in control of private keys and/or perform bridge services.   BIT-X is the provider of nano-card, a working product.   

People call BTS a long-con as well.  Every single player in the space has these accusations thrown at them.   

I only have access to what is public and what these individuals tell me.   If I cannot trust what they tell me, then I only have access to the same information as everyone else.

I am not performing criminal background checks on every potential customer.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 24, 2015, 06:26:51 pm
I am not performing criminal background checks on every potential customer.

That sounds un-American.  ;)
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: openledger on June 24, 2015, 08:27:42 pm
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%

So BM is vouching for someone named Ronny who is vouching for BIT-X? BM, I hope you're not building all these partnerships based on assumptions only.

We are working with people who want host a wallet and keep the users in control of private keys and/or perform bridge services.   BIT-X is the provider of nano-card, a working product.   

People call BTS a long-con as well.  Every single player in the space has these accusations thrown at them.   

I only have access to what is public and what these individuals tell me.   If I cannot trust what they tell me, then I only have access to the same information as everyone else.

I am not performing criminal background checks on every potential customer.

I can only concur with all bytemaster is saying, and would like to add that CCEDK have much to loose if Bitshares is not all what it says it is or at least gives reason to believe it will be in future. It is from our point of view a question of betting on a horse we believe is set to reach finish line, and I would like to think that we have a chance to be the jockey or at least the whip :)

A partnership, provided both parties are serious, enter a relationship in which you depend on the other to reach best success possible.

A final point: The greatest partnerships are made with a mix of a gut feeling, common sense and timing, and not much to do with backgound checks, as they can all be manipulated if a company or individual is cynical enough. Comments like this one is only making us who believes there is a finish line more determined, but it can't help get noticed, and is in my book sometimes the unfortunate reasons for good things to be delayed, lets hope this one is not the case.

I am betting on Bitshares and Cryptonomex to help this project get on the right track with CCEDK right where we would love to be in the very center of all the happening, and can only hope and trust that enough people in this forum realize that you cant play on many horses to win big, but will need to come together and lift together.

Only togethe we will become bigger than ever, it's not me who said this first, but I am ready to keep saying it untill we reach finish line.

You can help the horse increase the speed by starting to support your exchange as your future wallet as well, and go to https://www.ccedk.com/ to help increase the volume, increase the traffic, increase the buzz sound to the world that Bitshares is coming, and with Bitshares a greater way of looking at the world as a whole!

 :) +5%
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: cass on June 24, 2015, 08:43:30 pm
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%

So BM is vouching for someone named Ronny who is vouching for BIT-X? BM, I hope you're not building all these partnerships based on assumptions only.

We are working with people who want host a wallet and keep the users in control of private keys and/or perform bridge services.   BIT-X is the provider of nano-card, a working product.   

People call BTS a long-con as well.  Every single player in the space has these accusations thrown at them.   

I only have access to what is public and what these individuals tell me.   If I cannot trust what they tell me, then I only have access to the same information as everyone else.

I am not performing criminal background checks on every potential customer.

I can only concur with all bytemaster is saying, and would like to add that CCEDK have much to loose if Bitshares is not all it says it is or at least gives reason to believe it will be i future. It is for our side a question of betting on a horse we believe is set to reach finish line, and I would like to think that we have a chance to be the jockey or at least the whip :)

A partnership, provided both parties are serious, enter a relationship in which you depend on the other to reach best success possible.

A final point: The greatest partnerships are made with a mix of a gut feeling, common sense and timing, and not much to do with backgound checks, as they can all be manipulated if a company or individual is cynical enough. Comments like this one is only making us who believes there is a finish line more determined, but it can't help get noticed, and is in my book sometimes the unfortunate reasons for good things to be delayed, lets hope this one is not the case.

I am betting on Bitshares and Cryptonomex to help this project get on the right track with CCEDK right where we would love to be in the very center of all the happening, and can only hope and trust that enough people in this forum realize that you cant play on many horses to win big, but will need to come together and lift together.

Only togethe we will become bigger than ever, it's not me who said this first, but I am ready to keep saying it untill we reach finish line.

You can help the horse increase the speed by starting to support your exchange as your future wallet as well, and go to https://www.ccedk.com/ to help increase the volume, increase the traffic, increase the buzz sound to the world that Bitshares is coming, and with Bitshares a greater way of looking at the world as a whole!

 :) +5%

nothing to add  +5%
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: fuzzy on June 24, 2015, 09:37:59 pm
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%

So BM is vouching for someone named Ronny who is vouching for BIT-X? BM, I hope you're not building all these partnerships based on assumptions only.

We are working with people who want host a wallet and keep the users in control of private keys and/or perform bridge services.   BIT-X is the provider of nano-card, a working product.   

People call BTS a long-con as well.  Every single player in the space has these accusations thrown at them.   

I only have access to what is public and what these individuals tell me.   If I cannot trust what they tell me, then I only have access to the same information as everyone else.

I am not performing criminal background checks on every potential customer.

I can only concur with all bytemaster is saying, and would like to add that CCEDK have much to loose if Bitshares is not all it says it is or at least gives reason to believe it will be i future. It is for our side a question of betting on a horse we believe is set to reach finish line, and I would like to think that we have a chance to be the jockey or at least the whip :)

A partnership, provided both parties are serious, enter a relationship in which you depend on the other to reach best success possible.

A final point: The greatest partnerships are made with a mix of a gut feeling, common sense and timing, and not much to do with backgound checks, as they can all be manipulated if a company or individual is cynical enough. Comments like this one is only making us who believes there is a finish line more determined, but it can't help get noticed, and is in my book sometimes the unfortunate reasons for good things to be delayed, lets hope this one is not the case.

I am betting on Bitshares and Cryptonomex to help this project get on the right track with CCEDK right where we would love to be in the very center of all the happening, and can only hope and trust that enough people in this forum realize that you cant play on many horses to win big, but will need to come together and lift together.

Only togethe we will become bigger than ever, it's not me who said this first, but I am ready to keep saying it untill we reach finish line.

You can help the horse increase the speed by starting to support your exchange as your future wallet as well, and go to https://www.ccedk.com/ to help increase the volume, increase the traffic, increase the buzz sound to the world that Bitshares is coming, and with Bitshares a greater way of looking at the world as a whole!

 :) +5%

nothing to add  +5%

Let just say that we have to begin showing people the power of our community.  However that also means we need to ensure that our community is rewarded for its efforts as well (the referral program can help with that among other things).

As far as potential concerns that might come along with the people  and service providers who join the cause, I will always say the community should naturally be cautious.  That also means, however, that doesn't mean we should discount opportunities because of potential risks.  As taulant says, every change in circumstances presents an opportunity.  And as BM has said many times, all we need to do in this community is to find something we are good at and act. 

Put those two things together, and I can begin to see why we have been doing what we have been doing for so long at beyond bitcoin.  The community people to speak up about their concerns, but it needs equally as much a group of people willing to try to work to both mitigate those risks and also to help improve the benefits for all who join. 

The best way to reduce risk of scams is to know where we want bitshares to go (not just talking about "to the moon" in market valuation either), to ensure a level of accountability to service providers and workers...and most importantly to be such an active and participatory user base that workers and service providers fear losing trust. 
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: sumantso on June 25, 2015, 06:56:42 am
If anyone has any verifiable knowledge that someone we are working with is unsavory then please make a case.   I am assuming that Ronny from CCEDK has vetted BIT-X.

 +5%

So BM is vouching for someone named Ronny who is vouching for BIT-X? BM, I hope you're not building all these partnerships based on assumptions only.

We are working with people who want host a wallet and keep the users in control of private keys and/or perform bridge services.   BIT-X is the provider of nano-card, a working product.   

People call BTS a long-con as well.  Every single player in the space has these accusations thrown at them.   

I only have access to what is public and what these individuals tell me.   If I cannot trust what they tell me, then I only have access to the same information as everyone else.

I am not performing criminal background checks on every potential customer.

You've access to more info than the rest of us; you're talking directly with these people for starters. Your OTT response about criminal background checks and getting defensive as BTS is called a con by some only shows that you're unable or unwilling to understand.

Anyways, I made my concerns known regarding BIT-X and BANX, the community can check it or leave it; I myself am not informed or competent enough to come up with any useful digging. I can see a few of the members (incidentally they seem to be active traders) are happy to swallow everything that Stan peddles out and get their pitchforks out for any skeptics.
Title: Re: Concern regarding BIT-X.com
Post by: Permie on June 25, 2015, 11:56:13 am
Anyways, I made my concerns known regarding BIT-X and BANX, the community can check it or leave it; I myself am not informed or competent enough to come up with any useful digging. I can see a few of the members (incidentally they seem to be active traders) are happy to swallow everything that Stan peddles out and get their pitchforks out for any skeptics.
While I agree members need to be cautious, in this pre-DPOS 2.0 stage I think we are totally in the hands of CMX.
They've build the product that will give every decision over to the members, but it's not out yet.
If you would like to have more personal-certainty then maybe you could get yourself involved in future negotiations somehow.

Re Stan; Perhaps a tad over excited sometimes, but this guy fathered Dan Larimer. Can't imagine how proud he is and I think he shows great restraint in bigging-up his son!
I also agree idolatry shouldn't get in the way, but still - Dan and Stan's free market, libertarian explanations of how bts is designed to solve specific issues is what got me interested in the first place and I wouldn't want anyone to stop giving me 'the big picture'.

If you don't trust BM or Stan or CMX to guide us for another few months then you should adjust your stake accordingly.
If there was no risk or uncertainty here then I doubt you'd be able to pick up a slice of the global-orderbook pie for pennies.