The Atlantic article analyzed

Here we will post all original accusations and arguments people who hate onecoin wrote all over blogs and comments. We will deeply analyze, dissect and answer everything with objective arguments. People will be left to decide which arguments are more logical and true to them
CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:14 pm

Look at these 2 images very closely.. Tokens submitted to mining and coins *mined* in pools. Coins found. Coins appear mined on difficulty 79

Pool ID xxx Coins Found 0.01265823
Pool ID xxx Coins Found 0.02531646

Coins mined on difficulty 79.00 +0.02531646 escrowed
Coins mined on difficulty 79.00 +0.01265823 escrowed

All these happened during the downtime. This is SQL "mining". Not only are the block generation stopped. See also latest transactions over 20 hours ago.

Image

Image

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:38 pm

If downtime happened before you made those "minings" this can only mean that their back office DB made all this and it was back logged/scheduled for being submitted to the blockchain for actual operation.
If this is working and this is the only "sql" operation being done, what the hell was on the maintenance :)

I repeat we do not understand how back office and the blockchain interact. Thus you can only have assumptions.
I will try to get a response from IT but I think I will not get it cause probably they would need to disclose how the system works and they apparently do not do that and they do not care about certain people inventing SQL or whatever cause they know what they have and they look pretty confident with it.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:00 pm

If downtime happened before you made those "minings" this can only mean that their back office DB made all this and it was back logged/scheduled for being submitted to the blockchain for actual operation.
Really.. It shows Pool ID and all. I don't find that explanation very likely. That kind of downtime is rare, so would they really had built this kind of scheduled system looking exactly like real time blockchain operation.. Not likely imo.
If this is working and this is the only "sql" operation being done, what the hell was on the maintenance :)
Their "blockchain system" was on maintenance, meaning this system creating all the blocks and transactions which have no apparent ties to real life at all. ;)

Of course they have somekind of blockchain data generating system running, which creates this data you see on backoffice blockchain view. I mean the data has to come from somewhere. Is that also SQL based or some altcoin based system doesn't really matter, because there's no link to real life. My take from all this is, that coin operations are really all done in SQL, the blockchain system creating the backoffice blockchain view data might be altcoin based. I agree with onecoinscam.info that the blockchain system is kind of a simulator, which is not connected to the real life operations, but meant for producing arbitrary transaction data, so leaders can say "look at the backoffice, we have a blockchain".

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:59 am

CryptoXpose wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:00 pm
Really.. It shows Pool ID and all. I don't find that explanation very likely. That kind of downtime is rare, so would they really had built this kind of scheduled system looking exactly like real time blockchain operation.. Not likely imo.
You don't know what pool ID represents.
In my opinion based on observations and talk with some people, and also based on how bitcoin exchanges work, that has nothing to do with blockchain cause real mining of coins is done only in the blockchain where coins are discovered with each block and it is done by the company and all mined coins are sent to the main pool. Of course, back office DB stores the info how many OC there is in the main pool the similar to how coinmarkercap stores circulating supply of any coin or how bitcoin exchanges show your Bitcoin balance on their account system and they get that info from a blockchain.
So, when you "submit tokens to mining", you are actually only exchanging them to already-mined Onecoins (mined regularly, not premined). This is done in the back office at first, and after it is approved and stored in the back office DB, it is sent to the blockchain to be stored permanently. This is how also all the bitcoin exchanges work, back office is account centric and you start transactions there, and the blockchain is coin centric and those back office DB send data to the blockchain to be confirmed and permanently stored.

Let me demonstrate you this on "real world" on public tradable cryptocurrencies.
On kraken.com my ETH wallet is 0x45AdceA75EE0BDE789fEDEa6816E163602472A76:
Image
and my balance was around 0.056 ETH

Tonight I sold ETH to BTC and I made a transaction at around midnight 00:11 August 12:
Image

This means that I no longer have my ETH and now I should have my BTC.

When I search my ETH wallet on Ethereum blockchain explorer we can see that this transaction does not exist in the Ethereum blockchain, the last transaction was the same 0.056 ETH paid to me by genesis mining 11 days ago:
Image

Yet my Kraken.com balance shows 0 balance for ETH and newly bought 0.00468 BTC, I made this screenshot so my date and time is seen so it is clear I took the screenshot after the transation (I am multitasking so I there is delay):
Image

Ok since I have my BTC now, my Bitcoin wallet at kraken.com is 3Kd18E4zchZTGo1WSoq6Md4Q6cPt4ean6K
Image

So when I search the Bitcoin blockchain explorer, I also can not see this transaction in the Bitcoin blockchain:
Image

Conclusion? I had my ETH, sold them, bought BTC and now I have BTC, and none of blockchains, not ETH or BTC show my transaction yet my transaction is clearly shown in my back office and my balance now shows BTC.
So seems like I could do this with both blockchains offline.

When will these transactions be recorded in blockchains? I have no clue, I will monitor but I can show what happened earlier:
Here are two transactions I did on my coinmate.io wallet. I received around 0.849 at 13 May 15:27 and I sold those later that day at 13 May 22:54:51:
Image

My Bitcoin wallet address on coinmate is 1HXZa6r66Yv75peNbfyLTEPMnWPWMDy1Vu:
Image

When I search my address on the Bitcoin blockchain explorer:
Image

We can see those transactions were recorded to the blockchain.
My deposit was recorded at 2017-05-13 15:18, so about 5 minutes before my exchange back office recorded it, which is logical cause sender first sent those coins to the blockchain and then my exchange recorded it to their back wallet. This sender sent those coins from direct wallet, cold storage so his transaction was recorded in a blockchain instantly cause there is not back office system as exchanges (and Onecoin) have. But my BTC sell transaction was recorded in the blockchain at 2017-05-15 17:42 so almost 2 days after it was recorded and approved in my exchange back office. Seems like I could execute it while the blockchain was offline ;)

So, it is totally normal that transactions are made in back office DB (it is what Khan referred as SQL on that audio) and it is normal to have a backlog in case the blockchain is clogged or offline as was the case with Onecoin at 01.Feb 2017. and we see it is nothing strange to Bitcoin exchanges too. Onecoin must have a backlog system cause it can also be a safe switch should there be any problems with the blockchain at least in this fully centralized stage.
And also, we know that the backlog system exists even since the old blockchain cause people were submitting too many tokens and they waited to receive their coins for months since there weren't enough mined coins, they could not be delivered in the back office. Those operations were waiting for when there are available mined coins. In the new blockchain, way more coins are mined in much faster blocks so now there is an excess of coins in the main pool so it is also possible to do such "mining" transaction in the back office and those transactions will be sent to the blockchain to be validated and permanently stored. I am sure if you would try to send coins to another account that would work and it would be validated in the blockchain later. The only real "problem" for now is that we can not search blockchain for our transactions.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:00 pm
Their "blockchain system" was on maintenance, meaning this system creating all the blocks and transactions which have no apparent ties to real life at all. ;)
Of course they have somekind of blockchain data generating system running, which creates this data you see on backoffice blockchain view
So let me sum something up:
1) First, you guys were saying that there is no blockchain in the company so large and any one could fork any blockchain out there for the small amount of money. It is cheap to start blockchain from the scratch which is hilarious.
2) Now you say there is some kind of "blockchain data generating system" what ever that is and they use it just to generate some data in the blockchain viewer? SRSLY ? DOn't you think this insults people's intelligence?
CryptoXpose wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:00 pm
I mean the data has to come from somewhere. Is that also SQL based or some altcoin based system doesn't really matter, because there's no link to real life. My take from all this is, that coin operations are really all done in SQL, the blockchain system creating the backoffice blockchain view data might be altcoin based. I agree with onecoinscam.info that the blockchain system is kind of a simulator, which is not connected to the real life operations, but meant for producing arbitrary transaction data, so leaders can say "look at the backoffice, we have a blockchain".
Well, you can agree with them all you want. There is a company on the other side who says all transactions can be traced in the blockchain (by them for now) and there are you guys who do not have access to the blockchain outside of the blockchain viewer and so you put is to your imagination. And your imagination is proved pretty bad on this "maintenance" case that might get its own topic here. I just need to do more testing with Bitcoin exchanges. But should be interesting to see what will you say when they open a blockchain ...

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:38 pm

1) First, you guys were saying that there is no blockchain in the company so large and any one could fork any blockchain out there for the small amount of money. It is cheap to start blockchain from the scratch which is hilarious.
2) Now you say there is some kind of "blockchain data generating system" what ever that is and they use it just to generate some data in the blockchain viewer? SRSLY ? DOn't you think this insults people's intelligence?
First. There's not any "we guys were saying". I speak only for myself.

Second, as I have said about a million times already, but it doesn't seem to get into your head, just to have some blockchain IS NOT the same as having a VALID blockchain recording all real transactions in the blockchain. This is a very key concept.

1) There is no blockchain means, there is no valid blockchain. OF COURSE they could put up what ever altcoin system running in 30 minutes, but it is not a valid OneCoin blockchain. THAT is what is meant with "there's no blockchain".

2) Yes, that what has been said all the time. What is new here? Of course the blockchain viewer data, which is not based on ANY REAL TRANSACTIONS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED, has to come from somewhere, there has never been any question about this. OneCoinScam.info calls this "blockchain simulator". The main point is, there's absolutely no ties to real life transactions that can be seen.
It shows this totally useless data with no ties to ANY real life transactions, so that leaders can say: "look, we have a blockchain!".

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:54 pm

I don't think you can really compare internal Bitcoin transfers in a 3rd party exchange to alleged OneCoin mining.

But as I understand, you agree at least that:
- a member doesn't really mine anything. Tokens are just directly exchanged to OneCoins in backoffice DB, not (necessarely) involving any blockchain operations.

- Tokens are not an asset that is needed for OneCoin mining by the company, as you said there can be an "excess of coins in the main pool" which are waiting for members to submit their tokens. Tokens are just something that members get with packages that can be directly exchanged to OneCoins, but obviously then tokens are not necessary in coin creation.

Do we agree?

Can you then explain, as obviously you agree there's abundance of coins (excess coins in the main pool), why the difficulty level is still going up? Difficulty level going up all the time just further increases the amount of "excess coins in the main pool". Meaning more and more coins remain in company's possession, do you agree?

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:10 pm

CryptoXpose wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:38 pm
First. There's not any "we guys were saying". I speak only for myself.
You speak for your self based on what Bjorn taught you, and you agree to onecoinscam.info and that puts you in the same basket with them
CryptoXpose wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:38 pm
Second, as I have said about a million times already, but it doesn't seem to get into your head, just to have some blockchain IS NOT the same as having a VALID blockchain recording all real transactions in the blockchain. This is a very key concept.
Oh but I do understand what you are thinking but your head does not accept the fact that your assumption is wrong.

I just showed you that Onelife back office operates the same as Bitcoin exchanges, it is a separate system that syncs with the blockchain and as you got your coins during onecoin blockchain downtime, the same way I made eth and btc transactions that were executed in back office of the exchange and balances were changed yet those transactions were not recorded in any of the blockchains.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:38 pm
1) There is no blockchain means, there is no valid blockchain. OF COURSE they could put up what ever altcoin system running in 30 minutes, but it is not a valid OneCoin blockchain. THAT is what is meant with "there's no blockchain".
Now you are trying to change the tune. "NO Blockchain" was meant that instead of a bockchain there is only sql server. Well there is sql server but for the back office, and it interacts with the blockchain. The same as bitcoin exchanges have their own sql server that interacts with bitcoin blockchain.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:38 pm
2) Yes, that what has been said all the time. What is new here? Of course the blockchain viewer data, which is not based on ANY REAL TRANSACTIONS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED, has to come from somewhere, there has never been any question about this. OneCoinScam.info calls this "blockchain simulator". The main point is, there's absolutely no ties to real life transactions that can be seen. It shows this totally useless data with no ties to ANY real life transactions so that leaders can say: "look, we have a blockchain!".
You say those are data not linked to real life transactions, the company says they indeed can verify all transactions and that everything that is going on on dealshaker and back office is recorded in the blockchain.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:54 pm
I don't think you can really compare internal Bitcoin transfers in a 3rd party exchange to alleged OneCoin mining.

But as I understand, you agree at least that:
- a member doesn't really mine anything. Tokens are just directly exchanged to OneCoins in backoffice DB, not (necessarely) involving any blockchain operations.

Do we agree?
My comparison is very valid cause I wanted to show you that onecoin and any bitcoin exchange have sql or whatever server for back office accounting. All balances are also stored there and all transactions are stored there first and then when approved, they are pushed to the blockchain.

Yes we agree that users do not actually mine, they just exchange tokens for coins mined by the company in the blockchain, that is exactly why you were able yo receive those coins during blockchain downtime and those transactions were synced with the blockchain later (send coins from main pool address to your wallet address and confirm) cause back office has the information of available coins in the main pool owned by the company. The only problem that is undermining trust right now is the fact that you can not search and find those transactions in the blockchain.

Based on that, you made you opinion that the blockchian is not linked to back office (real life), but I say what the company says: they are linked, but we can not see the blockchian now, we will see it after ICO finishes and public trading begins.

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:25 pm

CryptoXpose wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:54 pm
- Tokens are not an asset that is needed for OneCoin mining by the company, as you said there can be an "excess of coins in the main pool" which are waiting for members to submit their tokens. Tokens are just something that members get with packages that can be directly exchanged to OneCoins, but obviously then tokens are not necessary in coin creation.

Can you then explain, as obviously you agree there's abundance of coins (excess coins in the main pool), why the difficulty level is still going up? Difficulty level going up all the time just further increases the amount of "excess coins in the main pool". Meaning more and more coins remain in company's possession, do you agree?
Tokens are not the asset, they are given for free with education paid by cash. So if people are buying education just to get tokens and with them onecoins, we can say that Onecoin ICO value is basically driven by cash. Tokens are not necessary for the coin creation by the company, they are more like necessary for coin value creation cause if tokens are submitted to be exchanged to onecoins, that means someone paid cash for education and that someone is a person, a new user making a demand.

They obviously made a different system simple to use for common people but they labeled it with familiar words as "miners" where actually the company is the miner, we are just users or to say ICO participants. That said, the same as more miners in open cryptocurrencies reflect on a higher difficulty, they seem to make similar system here, the more users submit tokens, in time, more tokens are needed for the same amount of coins. Just like in mineable open cryptocurrencies in time, more hash power is needed for the same amount of coins.
Coins in main pool that are not exchanged with tokens and sent to users have no value and they are out of the market (the same as ripple locked 55Billion tokens out of market). Only coins exchanged to tokens and sent to users have this value.
I think it is wrong for people not to know how many coins are owned by people. I sent that to IT. Awaiting answer.

The fact that the company will own most of the coins is good cause they will be able to preserve volatility once public trading starts. They can buy coins if some whale makes large sell order (they need IPO investment money for this), or they can sell coins if there are not enough sell orders to preserve steep rise.
Similar how central banks work in most of non EURO countries. If there is less demand for local currency, and people are buying EURO too much, the bank will then sell some EURO from the reserves to protect too big fall of the local currency value.

This is, of course, my hope that they will do that :) It is produced by my belief in their statement that they care about coin stable price so merchants will accept it. Onecoin is all about usability if you didn't notice. I personally do not care to sell coins later, I want to use them where ever I can, easy with my phone app and QR code.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:21 pm

You speak for your self based on what Bjorn taught you, and you agree to onecoinscam.info and that puts you in the same basket with them
Heh, Bjorn has not taught me anything new about OneCoin. If anything it's on the contrary. Yes I agree with OneCoinScam.info on many things especially on general level. There may be slight differences in details.
just showed you that Onelife back office operates the same as Bitcoin exchanges, it is a separate system that syncs with the blockchain and as you got your coins during onecoin blockchain downtime, the same way I made eth and btc transactions that were executed in back office of the exchange and balances were changed yet those transactions were not recorded in any of the blockchains.
We have known BackOffice is a separate system. That's exactly what OneCoinScam.info also says. The point is, you claim without absolutely no proof, that it's linked to valid blockchain. There's absolutely zero proof of that. All data which is shown, is something which doesn't link BackOffice to blockchain AT ALL. If there was even 1 case, but there's none. There's zero logic not to show member's own data on the blockchain viewer, but show something which can't be linked to real life. The blockchain viewer is purely for show, and OneCoin is hiding information.

And we know what for example Marcelo Garcia Casil said about hiding information. You make money by hiding information. OneCoin is practically hiding pretty much all possible information which you would hide if you wanted to scam.

It is your assumption that OneCoin will show blockchain when it "becomes publicly traded". What's the point of keeping even member's own transaction data hidden now even from the member him/herself? Absolutely zero logic and no point.
Now you are trying to change the tune. "NO Blockchain" was meant that instead of a bockchain there is only sql server. Well there is sql server but for the back office, and it interacts with the blockchain. The same as bitcoin exchanges have their own sql server that interacts with bitcoin blockchain.
Eh, you can't be that stupid. OneCoin having an altcoin blockchain put up in 30 minutes is just as valid as if I put up a blockchain and claim it's the actual OneCoin blockchain. The POINT here is, we can only talk about blockchain, when it's valid immutable ledger including all OneCoin transactions. Otherwise there's absolutely no point to talk about any blockchain.

There's absolutely zero proof that there's any interactions between BackOffice and an assumed OneCoin blockchain. Infact all data that can be seen, point that there's no interaction AT ALL. It's purely assumption and belief based on career scammers' talk that there is a link. ACTUAL DATA SHOWS NO LINK!

I don't believe either, if some cult explains that there's a spaghetti monster ruling the universe, but you just can't see it, but "pay us and wait, and SOON you will see it, and it will give you huge riches".
There's zero reason why they couldn't show it already if it was real.
Last edited by CryptoXpose on Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:48 pm

Coins in main pool that are not exchanged with tokens and sent to users have no value and they are out of the market (the same as ripple locked 55Billion tokens out of market).
There's just a "slight" problem. Nobody (except Ruja etc) knows how many coins are in company's possession, and there's absolutely no described policy that says the company will keep the coins out of the market, as the company hasn't even announced it has coins in its possession(!). There's a huge amount of money to be made by hiding information as nobody knows anything.

Why don't you ask some big name experts in finances and cryptocurrencies if this what OneCoin is doing sound legit to them.
Onecoin is all about usability if you didn't notice.
No I didn't notice.

If forexample my girlfriend wanted to get something from DealShaker with OneCoins, she would first have to register as a OneLife member, probably buy Bitcoins in order to buy an education package, then wait months for the token splits, then put tokens to mining, then wait 3 months until the OneCoins are out of the "escrowed" status, then she is able to get a coupon from DealShaker with her OneCoins..
It's not very handy you know..

I tell you about usability.
I pay my VPN service with Bitcoins. It goes like this: If I don't have Bitcoins, I buy bitcoins from a finnish online service. It takes some minutes until the bitcoins are in my wallet. Then I pay the VPN service, which is even faster cause they didn't wait even 1 verification. Bought in seconds. Boom, my VPN paid with Bitcoins. That's usability and for the exact thing I wanted.

In the city where I live, if I have real cryptocurrency, I'm covered for everything money can buy even if I have nothing else. If it's other than Bitcoin, do a quick conversion in ShapeShift to Bitcoin, then just walk to the nearest Bitcoin ATM and withdraw Euros in less than a minute. With OneCoins you do absolutely nothing, doesn't change anything if you have 1 or 10 million OneCoins, you're not gonna buy food and you'll sleep under a bridge telling to yourself how usable OneCoin is, and how "everything will change in the end of 2018". :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests