Topic: [ANN] [NAUT] Nautiluscoin - First Coin w/Stabilization Fund - Digishield - page 133. (Read 901888 times)
November 19, 2014, 01:46:25 PM
How is Bryce Weiner not facing charges from the SEC at this point? Weiner and Bitsta are con-men and should be charged as such
November 19, 2014, 01:40:27 PM
If people want to moderate this thread that's fine by me.
I remember Barrabas plugging brocoin, I think it was on the VRC thread which he turned to complete shit.
I remember Barrabas plugging brocoin, I think it was on the VRC thread which he turned to complete shit.
November 19, 2014, 01:34:05 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Gladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
Just as I thought...this is not insider trading. This is off exchange trading aka aver the counter trading in the financial world. Im sorry barabbas, but your claim is utterly ridiculous.
Coins dont have to be purchased/sold on an exchange. For that matter neither do stocks/bonds.
And you, AGAIN, choose to miss the point. CHOOSE... The difference between insider illegal trading and trading "over the counter" or in any other fashioon is that INSIDERS, are not legally allowed to do ANY SELLING which is not transparent and within the strict windows set. The cannot sell, period, when they want but only when they are allowed, regardless what the market price is. And they have to notify their intention to sell well in advance of such window periods.
Non insiders can, of course, as stated several times before, sell their investments when where and to whomk they choose. But INSIDERS can NOT.
Now back to choose whatever seudo reality you seem fit.
barabbas, you are a pure cancer to this thread, i think that is a fairly uncontroversial thing to say, given the responses to your perseveration. and you won't even address the very reasonable jyap's most recent post, choosing instead to fire away at semantic arguments about what is and isn't insider trading...
so why not just let it go, and go play somewhere else? it seems obvious you're just looking to get into arguments for self-amusement/aggrandizement, so can you just be merciful and do it elsewhere so i and others don't have to read your boring screeds? maybe head over and irritate the BYC folks at coinblab... thanks!
November 19, 2014, 01:30:57 PM
Gladly. If Julia would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves.
Thats so dumb!!!! So basically your saying the federal government is committing insider trading due to the auctioning of SR coins?
Quote
“This sealed bid auction is for a portion of the bitcoins contained in wallet files that resided on certain computer hardware belonging to Ross William Ulbricht, that were seized on or about October 24, 2013.”
http://www.coindesk.com/us-marshals-auction-50000-bitcoins-seized-ross-ulbricht/
No. You are dumb in pretending such correlation. The federal government regularly auctions off all kind of items and commodities it seizes from delinquents.
I know you understand clearly the differences, it just doesn't suit your personal agenda as a NAUT bagholder, that's all.
Otherwise, I don't imply anything. I state facts. It's up to you to make of them whatever implications better suit you.
As for reputation, in a world where investments go solely on reputation (i.e Supernet, Ethereum...) the reputation of Julian Yap seems to be doing quite a number on NAUT's price, don't you think?
You spread lies. You spread false accusations.
You hide behind a pseudonym "barabbas".
You are a coward.
You have a bad reputation.
You contribute nothing positive to society or crypto.
The world is better off without you.
These are facts.
Those are not facts, that is just your very partial opinion.
And I never, ever lie. Ever. As you well know.
Exactly what "lies" I spread? Isn't it YOU posting that you bought directly from Cayce 1 million PINK? I just quoted you. And gave you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were not lying, just forgetful. But it was a LIE. YOUR LIE. Proven. Demonstrated. In your very own words. In writing. Who spread lies?
November 19, 2014, 01:30:05 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Gladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
Just as I thought...this is not insider trading. This is off exchange trading aka aver the counter trading in the financial world. Im sorry barabbas, but your claim is utterly ridiculous.
Coins dont have to be purchased/sold on an exchange. For that matter neither do stocks/bonds.
And you, AGAIN, choose to miss the point. CHOOSE... The difference between insider illegal trading and trading "over the counter" or in any other fashioon is that INSIDERS, are not legally allowed to do ANY SELLING which is not transparent and within the strict windows set. The cannot sell, period, when they want but only when they are allowed, regardless what the market price is. And they have to notify their intention to sell well in advance of such window periods.
Non insiders can, of course, as stated several times before, sell their investments when where and to whomk they choose. But INSIDERS can NOT.
Now back to choose whatever seudo reality you seem fit.
Strange then that you would have been so fond of the Breakout Gaming ICO...or have you changed your mind on that? Arent ICOs/ITOs/crowdsales just insiders selling coins over the counter, when not on an exchange?
Again..your argument has no merit in my view at all. There are real scams in crypto...what you described is not one of them IMO.
Regarding BRO I still believe -and posted to that effect- it is a great idea for a crypto ... terribly badly executed. As far as ICOs, ITOs... whatever, being insider trading, you just refuse to see reality. They are Venture Capital rising, instead, which is a very different kind of deal altogether, buty I will not abound on it any more since it, obviously, serves no purpose.
What I described is what it is, no more no less. I haven't called it scam at any point. Just unethical behavior which is illegal in the real world. You put the rest, not me.
And the markets are rendering a very clear verdict on it too.
November 19, 2014, 01:18:20 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Gladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
Just as I thought...this is not insider trading. This is off exchange trading aka aver the counter trading in the financial world. Im sorry barabbas, but your claim is utterly ridiculous.
Coins dont have to be purchased/sold on an exchange. For that matter neither do stocks/bonds.
And you, AGAIN, choose to miss the point. CHOOSE... The difference between insider illegal trading and trading "over the counter" or in any other fashioon is that INSIDERS, are not legally allowed to do ANY SELLING which is not transparent and within the strict windows set. The cannot sell, period, when they want but only when they are allowed, regardless what the market price is. And they have to notify their intention to sell well in advance of such window periods.
Non insiders can, of course, as stated several times before, sell their investments when where and to whomk they choose. But INSIDERS can NOT.
Now back to choose whatever seudo reality you seem fit.
Strange then that you would have been so fond of the Breakout Gaming ICO...or have you changed your mind on that? Arent ICOs/ITOs/crowdsales just insiders selling coins over the counter, when not on an exchange?
Again..your argument has no merit in my view at all. There are real scams in crypto...what you described is not one of them IMO.
November 19, 2014, 01:15:26 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Gladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
Just as I thought...this is not insider trading. This is off exchange trading aka aver the counter trading in the financial world. Im sorry barabbas, but your claim is utterly ridiculous.
Coins dont have to be purchased/sold on an exchange. For that matter neither do stocks/bonds.
And you, AGAIN, choose to miss the point. CHOOSE... The difference between insider illegal trading and trading "over the counter" or in any other fashioon is that INSIDERS, are not legally allowed to do ANY SELLING which is not transparent and within the strict windows set. The cannot sell, period, when they want but only when they are allowed, regardless what the market price is. And they have to notify their intention to sell well in advance of such window periods.
Non insiders can, of course, as stated several times before, sell their investments when where and to whomk they choose. But INSIDERS can NOT.
Now back to choose whatever seudo reality you seem fit.
November 19, 2014, 01:09:49 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Gladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
Just as I thought...this is not insider trading. This is off exchange trading aka aver the counter trading in the financial world. Im sorry barabbas, but your claim is utterly ridiculous.
Coins dont have to be purchased/sold on an exchange. For that matter neither do stocks/bonds.
November 19, 2014, 01:08:31 PM
Gladly. If Julia would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves.
Thats so dumb!!!! So basically your saying the federal government is committing insider trading due to the auctioning of SR coins?
Quote
“This sealed bid auction is for a portion of the bitcoins contained in wallet files that resided on certain computer hardware belonging to Ross William Ulbricht, that were seized on or about October 24, 2013.”
http://www.coindesk.com/us-marshals-auction-50000-bitcoins-seized-ross-ulbricht/
No. You are dumb in pretending such correlation. The federal government regularly auctions off all kind of items and commodities it seizes from delinquents.
I know you understand clearly the differences, it just doesn't suit your personal agenda as a NAUT bagholder, that's all.
Otherwise, I don't imply anything. I state facts. It's up to you to make of them whatever implications better suit you.
As for reputation, in a world where investments go solely on reputation (i.e Supernet, Ethereum...) the reputation of Julian Yap seems to be doing quite a number on NAUT's price, don't you think?
November 19, 2014, 01:02:07 PM
Gladly. If Julia would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves.
Thats so dumb!!!! So basically your saying the federal government is committing insider trading due to the auctioning of SR coins?
Quote
“This sealed bid auction is for a portion of the bitcoins contained in wallet files that resided on certain computer hardware belonging to Ross William Ulbricht, that were seized on or about October 24, 2013.”
http://www.coindesk.com/us-marshals-auction-50000-bitcoins-seized-ross-ulbricht/
November 19, 2014, 12:59:40 PM
Also I think its important to note the study that just came out showing BTC price is related to hype on the net and in media. Alt coins are no different. Do you consider that a pump and dump?
It is a part of what Crypto is, pumps based on speculation.
http://www.coindesk.com/reasons-behind-bitcoins-price-media-hype/
So thats never gonna change.
You are making some very different accusations about black coin and implying Jyap is doing the same though, which is we todd ed.
It is a part of what Crypto is, pumps based on speculation.
Quote
“Our results indicate that popularity of this cryptocurrency is one of the main factors driving the price. We observed that returns tend to be elevated whenever newspaper articles mention bitcoin more frequently and whenever the number of people searching for it on Google increases.”
http://www.coindesk.com/reasons-behind-bitcoins-price-media-hype/
So thats never gonna change.
You are making some very different accusations about black coin and implying Jyap is doing the same though, which is we todd ed.
November 19, 2014, 12:59:03 PM
Julian...
Don't waste your time with that guy.
Can you give an update on the PoS? Was any work actually done by Bryce and co? Did they ever get a version running on a test net?
If you need people to run your PoS wallet on a testnet, I'm willing. I leave my PC running 24/7 anyway, so keeping a node running is not a problem.
Don't waste your time with that guy.
Can you give an update on the PoS? Was any work actually done by Bryce and co? Did they ever get a version running on a test net?
If you need people to run your PoS wallet on a testnet, I'm willing. I leave my PC running 24/7 anyway, so keeping a node running is not a problem.
November 19, 2014, 12:58:49 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Gladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
November 19, 2014, 12:52:07 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others.
You sure about that?
Quote
“It has not been tested, but I do believe we have the authority because bitcoin, by I think a very rational reading of our statute, classifies as a commodity and the definition of a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act."
http://www.coindesk.com/commissioner-claims-cftc-can-intervene-bitcoin-markets/
There's certainly no precedent but the statute could be enforceable, I don't know. What I do know is that when regulation comes, mane "loose behaviors", for lack of a better term, could be and probably will be re-examined. Either way, is crypto is to ever be taken seriously, obvious ethically-lacking behaviors, such a back room deals, auctioning of features and software created on behalf of investors, etc. need to be eliminated. People used to "help" (you just have to love the euphemism) competing projects, need to be brought to line.
So basically your wondering if crypto will be taken seriously?
What is a back room deal? Is this supposed to be a peer to peer currency/commodity?
auctioning of features? what do you mean?
No, not basically. Definitely. The bad guys have to get burned off crypto if it is to be taken seriously. A back room deal is one made in secret, without any transparency at all. In the real world, those are strictly (at least in intention) regulated and the Feds watch over them besides providing incentives in the millions of dollars to whistle blowers. In the crypto world are the coin of choice of the bad players. I take you have read recent scandals in which coin developers are on the payroll of pump and dump groups such as the ones headed by Prometheus and bobsurplus. Before that, the infamous Black Hand that thoroughly manipulated Black Coin with the full knowledge, support and participation of its dev team. Anyway those are some of the back room deals most notorious, there are many others going on right now that have been more discreetly handled ... so far. Other back room deals are auctions and purchases of features developed -often with backing of donations from investors- by the devs of some coins that are either for hire on a part time basis -like Julian here- of have their features developed available for sale or auction to whoever bid the highest, so they are not necessarily as interested in the success -and raise in price- of the coin as they are in selling those features or services to other competing projects.
The amazing euphemisms that they use, range from "helping" other projects, are just hilarious. Since they actually believe it is not unethical behavior in some cases, they gladly point out that it is sort of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" and, as such, perfectly acceptable,
Anyway, the whole back room scene is just another world of which we are now catching glimpses and only through disenchanted or disenfranchise otherwise gladly and willful participants in the many versions of the shady schemes that rule the alt world and which the general investor is not aware of.
You are being ridiculous to insinuate that Jyap is anything remotely close to the BC and whatever other coin pump and dump.
Personally I don't consider one person buying crypto from another a "back room deal".
What your talking about is way off base. Naut needs a Dev, Jyap is familiar with the coin and has a good reputation. I think its great he is working on the coin.
If Naut was worth some ridiculous amount maybe it would be even worth speculating about, but its not.
There will always be bad guys no matter what. Are there no bad guys on wall-street?
BTC is already being taken very seriously, and is gaining traction at the moment. All the other coins are super speculative and you should go into them knowing that.
November 19, 2014, 12:40:30 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
November 19, 2014, 12:33:31 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others.
You sure about that?
Quote
“It has not been tested, but I do believe we have the authority because bitcoin, by I think a very rational reading of our statute, classifies as a commodity and the definition of a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act."
http://www.coindesk.com/commissioner-claims-cftc-can-intervene-bitcoin-markets/
There's certainly no precedent but the statute could be enforceable, I don't know. What I do know is that when regulation comes, mane "loose behaviors", for lack of a better term, could be and probably will be re-examined. Either way, is crypto is to ever be taken seriously, obvious ethically-lacking behaviors, such a back room deals, auctioning of features and software created on behalf of investors, etc. need to be eliminated. People used to "help" (you just have to love the euphemism) competing projects, need to be brought to line.
So basically your wondering if crypto will be taken seriously?
What is a back room deal? Is this supposed to be a peer to peer currency/commodity?
auctioning of features? what do you mean?
No, not basically. Definitely. The bad guys have to get burned off crypto if it is to be taken seriously. A back room deal is one made in secret, without any transparency at all. In the real world, those are strictly (at least in intention) regulated and the Feds watch over them besides providing incentives in the millions of dollars to whistle blowers. In the crypto world are the coin of choice of the bad players. I take you have read recent scandals in which coin developers are on the payroll of pump and dump groups such as the ones headed by Prometheus and bobsurplus. Before that, the infamous Black Hand that thoroughly manipulated Black Coin with the full knowledge, support and participation of its dev team. Anyway those are some of the back room deals most notorious, there are many others going on right now that have been more discreetly handled ... so far. Other back room deals are auctions and purchases of features developed -often with backing of donations from investors- by the devs of some coins that are either for hire on a part time basis -like Julian here- of have their features developed available for sale or auction to whoever bid the highest, so they are not necessarily as interested in the success -and raise in price- of the coin as they are in selling those features or services to other competing projects.
The amazing euphemisms that they use, range from "helping" other projects, are just hilarious. Since they actually believe it is not unethical behavior in some cases, they gladly point out that it is sort of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" and, as such, perfectly acceptable,
Anyway, the whole back room scene is just another world of which we are now catching glimpses and only through disenchanted or disenfranchise otherwise gladly and willful participants in the many versions of the shady schemes that rule the alt world and which the general investor is not aware of.
November 19, 2014, 12:04:33 PM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others.
You sure about that?
Quote
“It has not been tested, but I do believe we have the authority because bitcoin, by I think a very rational reading of our statute, classifies as a commodity and the definition of a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act."
http://www.coindesk.com/commissioner-claims-cftc-can-intervene-bitcoin-markets/
There's certainly no precedent but the statute could be enforceable, I don't know. What I do know is that when regulation comes, mane "loose behaviors", for lack of a better term, could be and probably will be re-examined. Either way, is crypto is to ever be taken seriously, obvious ethically-lacking behaviors, such a back room deals, auctioning of features and software created on behalf of investors, etc. need to be eliminated. People used to "help" (you just have to love the euphemism) competing projects, need to be brought to line.
So basically your wondering if crypto will be taken seriously?
What is a back room deal? Is this supposed to be a peer to peer currency/commodity?
auctioning of features? what do you mean?
November 19, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others.
You sure about that?
Quote
“It has not been tested, but I do believe we have the authority because bitcoin, by I think a very rational reading of our statute, classifies as a commodity and the definition of a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act."
http://www.coindesk.com/commissioner-claims-cftc-can-intervene-bitcoin-markets/
There's certainly no precedent but the statute could be enforceable, I don't know. What I do know is that when regulation comes, mane "loose behaviors", for lack of a better term, could be and probably will be re-examined. Either way, is crypto is to ever be taken seriously, obvious ethically-lacking behaviors, such a back room deals, auctioning of features and software created on behalf of investors, etc. need to be eliminated. People used to "help" (you just have to love the euphemism) competing projects, need to be brought to line.
November 19, 2014, 11:34:22 AM
I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others.
You sure about that?
Quote
“It has not been tested, but I do believe we have the authority because bitcoin, by I think a very rational reading of our statute, classifies as a commodity and the definition of a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act."
http://www.coindesk.com/commissioner-claims-cftc-can-intervene-bitcoin-markets/
November 19, 2014, 11:34:13 AM
A company can sell stock, under regulation and through public reporting and channels if complying with rules, laws and regulations. A COMPANY, not an insider on any company. Do you see the difference? A company has also a lot of other legal obligations to comply with and certainly can sell it's assets, if approved by stakeholders and boards. An individual can NOT. Like I said, insiders are restricted to two small windows per year in which they can sell their stock and have to predetermine the amount of stock they sell, so they cannot either benefit from bull run markets nor influence the price of the stock otherwise. It's the law. And, of course, the ethical thing to do.
The lesson is over.
what a didactic, perseverating bore you are.
Jump to: