[SOLD-OUT] CCMINER_100TB new asset!



  • @crowetic What asset are you trying to pubblicize!
    Be honest



  • @ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @vier23 Thank you!
    I was not talking about! You have to understand that the new project will be developed in 9/12 months.
    I mean I collect the coins in a long period of time, I do not apsect to take millions of burst in one hour and run on POLO to "dump" them.
    This will be an operations that will takes time, as I said from 9 to 10 months if my calculations are correct!

    Plus, we must understand that trade and change coins doesn't mean DUMP! it's trade and trade cereate volumes and volumes are good!

    You should be a lot more clear with the timeframe then, from what you mentioned... "I will release the next phase to fund 1000TB in the next few days" definitely makes it sound like you're going to release it all at once, dump the coin, and buy the hardware.



  • @ccminer Consider taking BTC for CCminer 1000 it will alleviate the concerns shared about dumping

    This is also correct. Along with specifying more details about the plan, including timeframe, and how exactly the BURST would be sold...

    In this case, with such a large amount requested from the community, it makes sense to give a bit more explanation.


  • admin

    @crowetic 0.5% of a weeks volume is going to put immense pressure on the price? What about the other 99.5% ?



  • @ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic What asset are you trying to pubblicize!
    Be honest

    If I were 'trying' to publicize an asset, there would be an announcement thread for it.

    Just because you think there's a conflict of interest here, does not make it so... in fact, I LOVE ALL BURST ASSETS. As long as they are done in a way that makes sense, and doesn't negatively affect anything that we all want to see happen.

    If you had said from the beginning that the process would happen over more than 8 months, I doubt this sitaution we have now would have come up whatsoever...

    However, I do not appreciate the insinuation that I'm after anything personally here.

    I'm always FOR people doing things with BURST, and releasing assets. I've never been anything but for them.



  • @crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    Here's an image to show...

    alt text

    This shows, you launched your asset on the 13th of November... Right after this there was a steady downtrend, when before that we had a floor above 120... Yes, BTC increase played a part here, but asset releases like this, that DUMP coins in order to buy hardware... in HUGE amounts... also contributed to the downtrend...

    Doing this with 33 BTC worth of BURST, would have a MUCH larger effect.

    I simply don't understand why we would encourage dumping a bunch of coins in order to build an asset of this size. I understood people backing smaller assets doing this, to a point... but IMO BURST cannot handle a 33BTC dump at this time.

    @crowetic I understand your concerns and agree to an extent, but to suggest an asset valued at at a few bitcoins caused a few hundred thousand dollar change in Burst price is not rational.



  • @haitch said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic 0.5% of a weeks volume is going to put immense pressure on the price? What about the other 99.5% ?

    The fact is that there is not DUMP!



  • @nox said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    Here's an image to show...

    alt text

    This shows, you launched your asset on the 13th of November... Right after this there was a steady downtrend, when before that we had a floor above 120... Yes, BTC increase played a part here, but asset releases like this, that DUMP coins in order to buy hardware... in HUGE amounts... also contributed to the downtrend...

    Doing this with 33 BTC worth of BURST, would have a MUCH larger effect.

    I simply don't understand why we would encourage dumping a bunch of coins in order to build an asset of this size. I understood people backing smaller assets doing this, to a point... but IMO BURST cannot handle a 33BTC dump at this time.

    @crowetic I understand your concerns and agree to an extent, but to suggest an asset valued at at a few bitcoins caused a few hundred thousand dollar change in Burst price is not rational.

    I simply pointed out that it could have contributed to it if not done over a period of time. Along with many other assets that were doing the same thing.

    I merely think an asset should be something that is acquired first, then sold.



  • @nox There is nothing rational with this absurd accusation!
    as If I'm going to get 33 BTC in one hour and run to the POLO to change them in 1 seconf!
    I don't even think that a person like crowetic thinks something like so dumb, I simply think he is trying to put bad pubblicity on my future project for some personal (or his friends) benefit!



  • @ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @haitch said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic 0.5% of a weeks volume is going to put immense pressure on the price? What about the other 99.5% ?

    The fact is that there is not DUMP!

    I don't know why you're getting so heated over this conversation, all I'm saying, is I would appreciate if the asset was funded in another fashion, and/or that you explain better what you're doing when requesting this type of funding.



  • @crowetic Well men you come here and accuse me to be responsable to the dump of the price since my operation has been launched, you know sorry if I'm not happy with you man!



  • @crowetic the thing is @ccminer's 100TB asset was done over a period of time (about a month). He released 60,000 assets at a time and only released the next 60,000 when half of the mining power for the next round of assets had already been plotted. People following ccminer's progress would have known that. I guess the misunderstanding started because you were unaware of how ccminer's asset worked/grew. Hopefully everything is ok now, since it's been clarified that it is gradual and not a massive dump of bursts?



  • @vier23 said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic the thing is @ccminer's 100TB asset was done over a period of time (about a month). He released 60,000 assets at a time and only released the next 60,000 when half of the mining power for the next round of assets had already been plotted. People following ccminer's progress would have known that. I guess the misunderstanding started because you were unaware of how ccminer's asset worked/grew. Hopefully everything is ok now, since it's been clarified that it is gradual and not a massive dump of bursts?

    Thank you again!
    You were here since day 0 so you know!
    Everything has been done step by step!



  • @ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @nox There is nothing rational with this absurd accusation!
    as If I'm going to get 33 BTC in one hour and run to the POLO to change them in 1 seconf!
    I don't even think that a person like crowetic thinks something like so dumb, I simply think he is trying to put bad pubblicity on my future project for some personal (or his friends) benefit!

    Have I EVER done anything like this? Would you like me to state publicly that I back you again? I already said that I RESPECT YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

    I have no ulterior motives here, merely stating that I keep having to repeat...

    please either explain better what you're trying to accomplish, when seeking such large amounts in funding, or get the funding from another source to back this asset if possible.

    You never said anything about it taking 9 months, had you done so, I'm certain this whole thing would have been a lot simpler.

    But the fact is, that large of an amount selling will put sell pressure, that's an unavoidable fact.

    Also, by definition, assets are things that you have, but it seems many people disagree on this.

    I don't understand the overreaction to my statements here.



  • @crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @nox said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    Here's an image to show...

    alt text

    This shows, you launched your asset on the 13th of November... Right after this there was a steady downtrend, when before that we had a floor above 120... Yes, BTC increase played a part here, but asset releases like this, that DUMP coins in order to buy hardware... in HUGE amounts... also contributed to the downtrend...

    Doing this with 33 BTC worth of BURST, would have a MUCH larger effect.

    I simply don't understand why we would encourage dumping a bunch of coins in order to build an asset of this size. I understood people backing smaller assets doing this, to a point... but IMO BURST cannot handle a 33BTC dump at this time.

    @crowetic I understand your concerns and agree to an extent, but to suggest an asset valued at at a few bitcoins caused a few hundred thousand dollar change in Burst price is not rational.

    I simply pointed out that it could have contributed to it. Also, 100TB is more than a few BTC.

    If you calculated all of the Burst dumped via Asset Exchange, yeah, it would likely be a staggering amount. Isn't this more a problem of the system rather than the user?



  • @crowetic CCMINER100 is around since 33 days counting today!
    I post EVERY SINGLE DAY about the operations, payout and new drivers!!
    Now that I announced that I'm going to release the new CCMINER1000 asset you suddenly realized that I exist and you felt this urge to comment as you did!!
    Please do not offend other people smartness like this!!!!



  • @crowetic I think the reaction to your statements stems from your initial comment, which was perhaps a little heavy/accusatory in tone. It may have come across a little stronger/more offensive than you intended but I think it came across as more offensive than constructive, hence all the reactions. Let's all try to be civil here and stay calm...we're all part of the same community.



  • @nox said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @nox said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    Here's an image to show...

    alt text

    This shows, you launched your asset on the 13th of November... Right after this there was a steady downtrend, when before that we had a floor above 120... Yes, BTC increase played a part here, but asset releases like this, that DUMP coins in order to buy hardware... in HUGE amounts... also contributed to the downtrend...

    Doing this with 33 BTC worth of BURST, would have a MUCH larger effect.

    I simply don't understand why we would encourage dumping a bunch of coins in order to build an asset of this size. I understood people backing smaller assets doing this, to a point... but IMO BURST cannot handle a 33BTC dump at this time.

    @crowetic I understand your concerns and agree to an extent, but to suggest an asset valued at at a few bitcoins caused a few hundred thousand dollar change in Burst price is not rational.

    I simply pointed out that it could have contributed to it. Also, 100TB is more than a few BTC.

    If you calculated all of the Burst dumped via Asset Exchange, yeah, it would likely be a staggering amount. Isn't this more a problem of the system rather than the user?

    Yes, correct, which is why in the last meeting, we came up with an asset rating agency, which would review assets, and give opinions on them, as well as haitch's ID verification. It would give suggestions, a detailed analysis of the asset and potential performance, then give the seal of approval.

    This asset, however, was released before this decision.

    I think there is a fundamental disagreement over what an asset is... and I personally believe that an asset is something that you HAVE, then you would like to share it with the community.

    In this case, it is something that he would like to have.

    But like I said, I'm partially okay with these types of things, but only if done in the correct way.

    I'm sorry if you took my picture post as directly against you, @ccminer, but it wasn't... it was merely to point out the fact that a lot of selling going on during that time, and the assets doing this type of thing contributed to that.



  • @crowetic I was there at the meeting and you perfectly know that!
    Why you came here like this and you didn't tell me directly there



  • @vier23 said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

    @crowetic I think the reaction to your statements stems from your initial comment, which was perhaps a little heavy/accusatory in tone. It may have come across a little stronger/more offensive than you intended but I think it came across as more offensive than constructive, hence all the reactions. Let's all try to be civil here and stay calm...we're all part of the same community.

    Yea, I was not trying to come across as accusing him as the sole reason this happened, I even pointed out that BTC was also going up during the time, and that there were many others doing this same type of thing.

    The fact is, selling to buy things to make an asset, puts sell pressure on the market, and IMO BURST just isn't big enough to do this quite yet.

    In the future, it should be no problem, but right now, I don't think that we have quite enough volume, buyers, etc... for it to not have any effect.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.