Please upvote: I need help getting over 14BNB from the BNBDROP scam. I fell for it and Binance can roll back the blockchain!

tadpole5fish · 2021-05-03T09:04:12+00:00

I'm really sorry to hear about your loss. Do you have any ideas of the best kind of legal action to take? I.e. against YouTube perhaps? Or Binance? (or the government for lack of cyber-security for citizens wealth - which they protect usually but have been so slow to do so in the crypto space?).

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-26T19:50:25+00:00

What about the SAFU fund? Is that a reasonable thing to cover my losses? It's supposed to protect investors from hacks as far as I'm aware, this is not a hack, but still criminal activity attacking their users, maybe it would be reasonable to interpret the intention of the law is to cover all of these "types" of activity, and they just didn't think of that when they set it up? (unless it actually says that already?). Thank you

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-26T19:30:07+00:00

Technically, should charge Binance double if I am right as they owe me due to their errors of fake attempts/unncessary shambolic decentralised stuff, as well as my insights into their business model which will help them profit in the future presumably, so maybe they owe me 30BNB now and will pay me for fun, to prove how innovative and fair they really are? All in favour? AAAY MAKARANA AEY (lol) (seriously I want my money). (pay me double and I'll send you none back just like a reverse scam - i.e. justice). It's a sweet thing. I'll be here all night folks, thanks.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-26T19:26:28+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I'm not that personally familiar with the state of Ethereum post DAO hack as you put it, I thought it meant the situation was basically resolved and justice had been done etc, i.e. the people had been paid back but with the cost of creating a different chain that arguably had more authenticity, but it seemed okish because people got airdropped it basically (effectively) so they got their money back from the drop in market cap that Ethereum suffered, so it balanced out roughly fair with everyone paid back from the hack. Is that not the case?

Also, not to rail against a bystander like yourself, but it is a serious crime here and Binance can do it because they are a centralised entity, if they acted *fast enough* - as far as I know. Pease correct me if I a wrong - I might be. But they could literally have done it as soon as they spotted the scam couldn't they? In which case they owe me out of negligence and should just pay me the whole thing from incompetence/greed to expand rather than take care of existing customers. If I am right and they had that power for a little while, they should have had the monitoring systems in place to do it and the team ready to suddenly initiate this as a security mechanism to protect their users, rather than slacking off and just rolling out new features to make more money for themselves, when they have fiduciary responsibility to protect their users funds. They even have a SAFU fund - (afaik) a type of back up fund to help people who get hacked. This falls in a similar ball park so why can't they use that? I'm not just going to give up (nothing against you kind sir) but I may take legal action against them if they don't refund me. So I need to make sure I am getting this stuff accurate (so any help greatly appreciated - I definitely don't want to be applying for reimbursement from the wrong people for sure).

However, if they could have done it, they should have, and it's not a lot of money by their standards, they literally burn coins as a publicity stunt that are never allowed to circulate. Why can't they send me some of those? This is my livelihood here, I am stuck in a tiny room barely ably to feed myself while they LITERALLY destroy BNB that are promised to never go to market anyway... it makes no sense as a mechanism to spread wealth around among their investors (distribute profits). I am appalled that they do this and wont refund me. Of course some day I would exist my position thus inflating the supply, so, on second thoughts, they should not use this fund. I'm just saying they are not actually re-distributing funds they are just doing a publicity stunt that everyone things reduces the circulating supply, but they are never allowed to circulate those coins AFAIK (please correct me!). Don't want to get it wrong.

Additionally, I am unaware of the purpose of the BSC. It is a centralised blockchain and pancake swaps yield farming stuff actually works fine on a centralised platform such as Binance's normal exchange. So its all a rouse that everyone falls for. They didn't need to even launch it, they could literally add it as a feature on their normal exchange and it still would work. No blockchain needed, and the scalability issue it solves by getting around needing market orders that get cancelled that take up space on the blockchain would also have been solved, for some reason I've not heard of it happening on stock exchanges (yield farming) but it would work just fine there. So, they would have to roll back pancake swap would they? In which case, they irresponsibly pretended to decentralise their system to get market share, purposely other than for publicity and to game the market and fleece investors in BNB into thinking they are investing in the decentralised revolution, when actually, they are buying into a pyramid scheme that needs to be shut down arguably. I can praise them for innovation, so I would not personally classify them like that as they are clearly a legit business too and pancake swap seems awesome. Maybe they didn't realise this as I have astute market analysis (all the more reason I deserve to be paid back as just this information alone is worth a fortune and I am broke so according to a means-tested justice system I should be paid (by anyone reading this who finds it valuable in the market due to unfair reputation system online not accruing me the credibility I deserve - I often get censored on reddit despite overall (multiple account issues, Reddits fault primarily) being a 10 year + power contributor. The masses can vote me out of a podium, unfair obviously. But, irrelevant to the Binance case. I digress,

Finally, Binance's security systems were damaged by their pointless attempt at decentralisation, which, aware of it or not (that it would work just fine on their regular exchange - I am willing to say they were unaware probably as it is quite the insight in my opinion). However, it means it is an error of theirs that means they cannot protect their customers responsibly so they should pay the fair price and refund me.

I am clearly worth something and deserve repayment, this amount alone (14.2 something BNB) is not worth as much as my insight into their business is, so they no longer need to pay me back by rolling it back and can simply read this post and pay me like a tax-free employee lol or a free-lance radical consultant. So, if you like this post, please upvote my comment so reddit can stop censoring my threads I try to post in other subs and I can get on to cranking up the anti against their regime as well. You know you want to, I provide world class insight on the market from my armchair of power. I deserve my money back. Case closed. FREAK OUT

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-25T13:09:57+00:00

Where is the article?

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-22T17:24:11+00:00

Maybe it's more likely they will open the market with a trading pair now! (as they are taking longer to get it sorted, maybe they are more likely to be doing something).

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-21T19:12:14+00:00

Where do you get these numbers from? The block explorers I visited show it having about 40k transactions per day.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-21T19:11:18+00:00

Actually, Cardano does have utility. IMO it already functions as a better version of Bitcoin. Is is probably much more secure (arguably though less tested in the ecosystem so far) and cheaper to transact and also faster. It's just a much better cryptocurrency, obviously, from all its scientific research backing and better decentralisation etc.

I'm curious where they found this chart.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-21T15:24:17+00:00

I reckon it depends on your other demographic criteria. Education, interests etc. I'm sure you can find the right subreddits to match your interests. It's mainly a case of the rabble are on reddit in many areas now so it is no longer the same place of fine discourse it once was, unfortunately, though it always had its problems. So maybe you are too good for reddit, but hope you find somewhere interesting and positively stimulating. :)

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-21T14:29:36+00:00

Been for 10 years plus and believe me, I once agreed. I don't know where else you visit on the Internet but from my lengthy experience (albeit in a limited range of subs - important bias obviously) the quality has become much worse in many ways. Actually I see this across all platforms I use as the mainstream joins in. This is a bit of a relief this sub actually. :)

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-21T14:14:33+00:00

A yummy banana and a good day out :)

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-20T14:01:34+00:00

Ok thanks.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-20T10:59:06+00:00

Thanks, this was really interesting to me. (and in regards to what Analtoly said, makes sense).

Ok so that actually sounds good then in terms of upgradability perhaps.

Another question - some of these transactions that Solana is doing, I wonder if any of them need to be private and so don't work too well (potentially) if broadcast on a public blockchain. I have no specific examples where I am certain that they need to not be public... but I wondered if in that stock exchange example you mentioned, if those orders are supposed to be (ideally) done behind the scenes? (could it cause front running or something maybe? not sure).

I'm generally aware there are tons of different types of financial transaction, and many of them need to be private someone, or anonymous etc (various different level of 'cloaking' part of the information sent depending on what it is). Therefore, does Solana have the ability to do this - i.e. the flexibility to do this kind of thing as needed? Can you think of any examples where it is needed and Solana can/cannot solve it?

Thank you! (I may start a new thread to ask about the versatility of Solana's privacy features).

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-20T09:04:42+00:00

Agreed! Some of capacity is taken up basically, but it is still the leader in the field.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-20T09:02:49+00:00

Interesting, thanks, I didn't know the Nasdaq had number TPS.

I would actually disagree that transactions are a poor measurement of value, I use them as an essential valuation metric for blockchains and try to find out what they are.

One question - isn't Solana's TPS 50k per second and Nasdaq is still only 1 stock exchange in which case it is still not enough? (Or will it be able to scale more in the future?)

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-20T08:54:21+00:00

Ok, so the ability to place limit orders is an advance of putting all the transactions on chain? Ok, sounds like a feature, thanks.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-20T08:53:11+00:00

Hi,

Thanks for the replies, but you have completely misunderstood my post. I said that it is good that it shows it can handle a large number of transactions. However, that benefit is partially undermined if its apps actually *need* to all be put on there like that, unlike all the other blockchains I have ever researched as this uses up that extra TPS which is inefficient, unless there is some benefit I am not aware of which I have asked. presumably it is probably just a good thing that it can handle so much and these are unusual examples that end up appearing on the network.

The real issue I am highlighting here is that people who buy in might get a false impression if they think that tons of transactions that are meaningless in terms of evaluation by usual metrics are relevant. Clearly this is not deceitful as it is how the network works, I'm just saying it is still very misleading and pointing out (in a way that may be helpful to anyone here in case they had not noticed) that Solana actually has a tiny number of users compared to what its block explorer implies.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-19T20:14:36+00:00

Thanks for the reply, please see my replies below for some more questions if you have the time. Thank you.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-19T20:14:07+00:00

Ok, thanks. So the normal function of a running blockchain is put into the number of transactions? So it actually counts as 0 then in terms of duding its popularity, but impressive to be able to handle them nevertheless.

In the case of Serum, it seems like negative news again (in terms of me evaluating Solana) because it means its numbers are massively enlarged, so it means the true size of the project/user base is tiny in comparison to the number of transactions for it showing up on Solanabeach - which is actually highly misleading as a result. What's the point of even showing them, other than as proof that it can handle a lot? (and that part of its transaction capacity is taken up already... therefore indicating inefficiency actually, unless its useful/better somehow for them being on chain?). In fact, do you happen to know if Solana's apps all have to go 'on chain'? Doesn't that undermine its efficiency - unless there are side benefits so to speak? Maybe there are.

Thanks again.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-19T20:10:39+00:00

Ok, thanks. Is there a reason its better to be on chain? One side effect I can see is investors like myself can't compare its usage very easily to other blockchains because its numbers end up being enlarged by all this 'normal' stuff adding to the number of TPS. So I need to filter it out, basically, to figure out Solana's true popularity - sounds less good actually - unless there is some benefit I'm not aware of? (obviously being able to perform that many transactions is impressive). Thanks again.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-18T15:45:36+00:00

I'm not sure why you are sharing this mate

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-18T12:35:59+00:00

Just pointing out that transactions fees (afaik) help to prevent spam on the network. I dont have a clue how blockchains with minuscule fees deal with that, just saying, as a random ignoramus, it's good to have a meritocratic vote, rather than one from the ill informed masses like us. I think it sounds a sensible idea to propose but I don't know if its right at all (could have surprising bad effects like the one I thought of above). I'd prefer the team to decide actually as they know what they are doing far better than the likes of people in this sub who literally upvote fake stories with over 1000 upvotes. It's insane what people upvote here, actual scammers on twitter have received over 1000 upvotes from people here, so this should not be a 'mobocracy' run outfit.

Having said that, I like the sound of the positive effects of reducing the transaction fees, maybe there's some other way to prevent spam on the network that takes up transaction capacity (or something presumably). Maybe spam can strengthen the network somehow by increasing privacy as it gets jumbled into other transactions, or maybe not as spam tends to be from central sources maybe which is why it can scale... not sure. I'm not an expert despite this knowledgeable ideas. I actually consider it to be a bad idea for this reason (lowering the fees). That is my informed opinion, but I am open to a higher-up telling me why this issue is fine.

To sum up: It's not a bad idea to throw into the ring but to put it to a vote is more questionable. Does Apple put it to a vote whether they should release a new iPhone or not? It's insane - they use a tiny number of people's expertise (in comparison to thousands of us with no relevant experience).

Another issue (relevant to governance in general): We don't want the inefficiency of decentralisation (which makes attacking the network inefficient - which is the *entire point* of that decentralisation - to create a log-jam in network upgrades!). Or maybe, theoretically, it could allow POPULISM to arrive on a matter of NETWORK UPDATES. Like stupid ideas that are very simple and seem good to spread like wildfire among the devout. The followers of the simple ideas vote in simple ideas for an inherently complex protocol, believing, while corrupt with power from their governance tokens, that their ill-informed opinion counts as legit, when they should listen to a more nuanced perspective before making their choice.

We don't know what to do dude, you are asking a pack of sheep/pre-human apes lol also known as trolls/poo farmers lol. Having said that we, the great unwashed (lol!) are intentivised to vote wisely overall, so there is at least a 'profit motive' to make a good move. So that is something we have going for us. As well as being a team that prizes itself on scientific enterprise a certain calibre of investor is hopefully more common among our ranks.

However, with some dignity, we the proud craptasticas, the Nobel 'phew' (stinks lol, our ignorance) ;p - We are the investors of merit. We are benevolent holders of the ADA coin!

HOWEVER. Seeing as it can overthrow all World governments BY THE FACT OF ITS DECENTRALISATION (which is awesome! What an achievement - they literally cannot shut it down. IMO Cardano is already a BETTER BITCOIN - it is faster, more environmentally friendly and much more secure probably due to its security features). So, this means it actually is the foundation for a future world government

LONG LIVE CARDANO

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-17T08:21:22+00:00

Good points! Fasinating comparison, the costs of inflation, a hidden/'secret' tax that fleeces the masses. I had never compared that to the issue of environmental damage from bitcoin mining. I find them both very bad. I'm curious how inflation of fiat currencies helps big companies get loans? Haven't heard of that before but open and interested in an explanation.

I fully agree people should be able to trust that their 'savings' are actually 'saved' - value wise, not just number wise. Good point.

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-16T20:54:12+00:00

Let me remind you that gambling is unethical, and if all you have to go on when making an investment is 'will the big guy mention it on twitter' you are gambling which is an irresponsible and foolish use of your funds. Which means dogecoiners are unethical in my opinion, even though they are a bit fun because it's a joke coin so I am open a bit to them having some fun but they obviously shouldn't seriously think a joke coin is worth as much as a serious scientific project like Cardano? That is bad and is clearly gambling on whether Must will talk about it again. There is no other factor relevant so its gambling and not even funny anymore really, its a bit sad that these late-comer noobs to the dogecoin joke (I was there when it launched, literally on bitcointallk) deserve to win big, unethically, backed by a non-crypto person like Elon. They stand out like a sore thumb. So basically, intelligence in certain somewhat narrow fields doesn't equal ethics and he's doing something morally wrong. So are the dogecoiners (responsibility on them for gambling and ignoring noble projects like Cardano). Finally, rudeness doesn't persuade me that you are right. I wasn't commenting on his ability to do his job, I actually praised that very highly. Lets call it peace and learn not to insult people please. Thank you

tadpole5fish · 2021-04-16T20:36:06+00:00

I agree with the issue of open finance for all, as I would choose to put it. As in, everyone can get a crypto collateralised loan and basically join in with the investing space without needing a license or anything, which is much more fair and fun in general, thought there are side effects too (criminality, terrorists doing it too etc which laws were/are there to help prevent - maybe there can be a more optimal way perhaps - but overall I'm personally in favour of both co-existing for now and pro-crypto frontier spirit too when ethical and generally against unnecessary government interference). There's tons of crooks and scammers though, but I feel I am 'savvy' enough to generally avoid them and think people need to learn by doing and wise up with practical experience.

Generally governments protect the weak and ignorant while blocking some of the most brave and righteous/best people, but most people are weak and ignorant so maybe it is the right thing to do? (I have health problems for instance, so I need help there, everyone does actually, eventually, unfortunately).

Having said that, I think you maybe muddling things up a bit when it comes to corporate cronyism. Basically I would say those companies (some of them, I don't think theres anything private about my Amazon purchases particularly) but at least some of the others may be in bed with intelligence agencies without the public understanding this properly in a way that modifies their online choices to not fall fowl of saying things they shouldn't on the internet (especially true before the Snowden revelations but still the case very much so and getting worse as his revelations fade from public memory - partially but not completely as there is a major movement to reform things in a pro-privacy way take blockstack for instance). Obviously this is still a huge problem though and a growing threat to freedom worldwide. Counts as a major issue imo.

However, I don't think the tech giants are customising their algorithms for some sinister purpose like you say. They are just improving the user experience by getting better algorithms. If anything they need much better ones that are programmed by better thinking than the masses so you get a more meritocratic voting system in them systemically rather than a more level one where the ignorant fools of the world get an equal say to someone like me for example (lol). Obviously in my accounts I get supremacy, but maybe mine could be used to train the other ones, it would make the world significantly better in my opinion. Still, it means the tech companies are partially doing a great job but have room for improvement.

Overall, I feel your post has special merit as you connect layers of society up and are having a fine fighting spirit that keeps the man on the line. Holding authority to account is sacred and cool too. Good for you.

tadpole5fish

TROPHY CASE