One of the more interesting things I saw last night, was Credits led the bull break in Bitcoin by 1-2 hours, at least, which I find remarkable. i'm not sure what it means, but it was interesting to watch.

So, according to their roadmap, they already had MVP back in august 2017. Another portion of bullshit I guess, since what they had was not even a proof of concept, but rather wireframes. No wonder there are just two people listening.
- new blockchain
- new consensus

Guys, seriously. If you are waiting for a patent, that means you already lodged the application. That in turn means that you can safely disclose at least some details of your incredible innovation without a risk of being incompetitive. At lest post a link to the lodged patent application, so that everyone can at least see the proof of innovative idea.

You are confusing their thought process. To hard for them to analyze facts or to press the button of critical thinking.

Okay. I think it is enough. I've been supporting the CREDITS project from the moment they appeared at Bitcointalk, and dispite my support I do not mind at all when critical questions are asked or doubts are raised. I would actually encourage it. A professional project can usually answer such questions and take away doubts. But the discussion should consist of content, not of personal attacks, mud throwing at each other, false linking, etc. This thread is being totally spoiled by a bunch of weazles who's only goal is exactly to spoil the thread.

I have a suggestion to cheus, the starter of this thread.

1. Open a new CREDITS ANN thread (or let the present Bitcointalk community manager do that) but make it this time self-moderated. This will enable the topic starter to remove unwanted content.
2. Put a reference to the new thread in the opening post and in a last post. And then close and lock this thread.

The weazles then can open their own spam thread for their poisoneous posts. And the proper CREDITS ANN thread can be reserved for proper announcements and interesting, decent discussions.

Thats the next step of how scam's react when facts are on board.
First they banned on telegram,twitter, facebook, anyone that was asking for proofs for their claims, deleting posts on medium and reddit as they were presenting facts and exposing their code, and now you want a self-moderated threat so you can ban anyone that is warning newcomers for your scam ico.
No wonder why you have a negative trust.

To be honest sebastian. I would not at all have minded the content of your post and the (seemingly one-sided) research you did. However when you post that same text over and over again it becomes spam and that does not invite visitors to engage in normal discussion. You made your point. You think CREDITS is scamming. Others think differently. What import does it have to you, or anybody, to keep copy-pasting the same thing over and over again?

sebastian was coming on too strong. Give it time, sebastian, give it time and it'll make you proud, if not, we'll beat ourselves up something fierce.

This isn't matter of perspective. Credits is a scam irrespective of shillers and bagholders crying it out loud.

Thats true too but im not trying to warn the guys that are here praising credits.
These guys are greedy investors that know already whats going on so who cares?!
But newcomers that are thinking to invest have to see all the facts and they will hopefully learn to investigate properly before investing.
There is a point that we learn only when we get burned by ourselves but at least its better they know all the facts first.

I'm not blind to the red flags that were raised, and I sincerely appreciate the flag raisers, but I'm also not blind to the green flags, which are definately present also. To focus on one side or the other, BillionDollarMan, is a matter of perspective.

My perspective is that every person, or company, is innocent untill the contrary has been proven. And CREDITS is not a proven scam, so I think it is not fair to label them as such at this stage.

I think it is perfectly fine to raise the red flags when newcomers are visiting the thread by positing counter arguments in dialogue discussions. Then the ins and outs of the red and green flags can be discussed and the newcomer can make up his her own mind. That is different from copy-pasting monologues. The forum was not meant for that. That goes for shillers also whose content doesn't reach beyond 'buybuybuy' monologues.

I feel you two have some grudge against CREDITS. Perhaps you were unfairly banned from Telegram or perhaps you missed out on CS due to the sudden hardcap. If that is the case then I invite you to talk about that. But at least keep it a dialogue, a discussion, both sides, instead of blind copy-pasting.