Topic: [ANN] [NAUT] Nautiluscoin - First Coin w/Stabilization Fund - Digishield - page 197. (Read 901856 times)

I posted this before but you willfully ignored it that time too:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101849169

I'd still love to see a source link to where it is linked to BK. I'm still noticing a lack of source links with BKs name mentioned specifically.

VRC had such a large amount on mintpal though. Sync seems to be working on incentives and it's still holding over 1btc.

Yes that will def help, but remember the exchanges make that coin in trade fees, so they end up accumulating a lot of it, so even if everyone kept their coins off exchange, the exchange itself could accumulate a lot in a short time.

"The New York State Department of Financial Services took the first step toward developing these rules this week, with the announcement of a BitLicense. Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky has taken the lead in regulating digital currency businesses with the goal of protecting consumers while fostering innovation. This was the right move at the right time." <--- Brian Kelly explicitly endorses BitLicensing.

Every single authority figure on bitcoin has said that Lawsky doesn't know shit when it comes to bitcoin and that he is clearly trying to ramrod the banking industry's version of legislation down the  community's throats. So Brian Kelly's opinion clearly flies in the face of the entire BTC community. He speaks for nobody except the financial services cartel and you brainwashed knuckleheads.

"With the regulatory picture in focus, the journey into adulthood for digital currencies can begin."

Bitcoin is already an adult. It is you who is the child, kicking and screaming at a changing world where you won't get to wear the tiara for much longer.

"To be sure, this will not be without growing pains, but the BitLicense has the potential to be digital currencies' gateway to adulthood."

Fuck Brian Kelly. Fuck anybody who thinks BitLicense isn't straight evil bullshit. You're not thinking hard enough. Fuck anybody who thinks for a second bitcoin legislation won't be written 100% for the banks and against the common citizen.

problem is no one will help this poor soul, they have to bring themselves out of the depth of this despair =)

Again nutildah, I'm glad to see you're agreeing with the sentiments BK has placed forth in that the lawmakers and legislatures should not be the ones to write the regulation, but those of us in the crypto-world. Always great to have supporters.

Note I've yet to see nutildah provide HARD evidence that BK specifically supports any specific proposed legislature or regulation.

I have also NEVER seen Brian Kelly's name specifically mentioned in any article nutildah posts.

I have only ever seen BK state that he believes the regulation is an inevitability and that we should be the ones to write it and NOT the banks and whatnot.

You need help.

But I mean, maybe you guys want this. Maybe this is your final goal. To use the rest of the world as your slave base because it makes you feel like more of a man. Even though you've earned nothing in this world and owe everything to your parents and good fortune.

Meanwhile, Brian Kelly's friends over at JP Morgan are trying to patent the idea of bitcoin!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/barbarians-gate-jp-morgan-bitcoin-driven-payment-revolution-1460765

Jealous they didn't (couldn't) think of it themselves, they are now trying to create the legal framework to give themselves complete ownership (and centralized control) over the entire concept of cryptocurrency.

Why regulation is bad.

Regulation is bad because it will be written by those who stand to gain the most from having such regulation in place, chiefly the banks and masters of Wall Street.

This will assuredly be the case as it has already been scientifically demonstrated that public opinion has no effect on the setting of monetary policy and that it is instead set by whichever corporations or PACs are currently paying the most money to congress. In this case, policy is being set by the most powerful lobbying force in the universe - the financial services lobby.

Thusly the true utility of bitcoin will be destroyed and the 99% will once again be completely under the control of the 1%.

I think an extra incentive for people to keep their coins off exchange is the best option.

Or you just don't list your coins on the exchange

Well we had discussed some pages back in this thread the worries of a POS, and I think a lot of us agreed the exchanges were the weakest link in the chain.

If there was a possibility of a 51% attack, the easiest way someone could attain that amount of coins would be through theft of an exchange.

So I am all for $NAUT listing NAUT on any exchanges that are not proven protected exchanges.  Since a coin is only as strong as its weakest link, the exchanges become links in your chain, so to have NAUT listed on an exchange, I personally think they need to sign some sort of agreement stating they will keep x amount of coins offline.

If you look at the mint pal problem, this is exactly what happened, they did not have the coins offline like they were suppose to.

Holders of NAUT or any coin for that matter, should not have to pay for a mistake like that.  This means exchanges need to be scrutinized before being able to just set up a website and list a coin.

This goes right back to the regulation that we need, that everyone is so afraid of.  People will say regulation will kill BTC and I say without regulation, BTC is already dead.

There are gonna be things the community doesn't like about regulation, but it is a give and take, there has to be some compromise.


PS no one has mentioned that moolah bought mintpal?  I think there may be some really good news soon about mintpal and dollars to naut and naut to dollars This is pure speculation on my part, I have not heard anything at all.

may be he do not like them that is why.

wow.  i wonder what happened.  It had to have been something in particular.  I just got an email from hitbtc saying they same thing ... That BK changed his mind and is now actually AGAINST listing on there.

i'm very curious because it all seemed legit

new trend exchange not listing coin price goes up lol

You don't see people asking exchanges not to list their coins very often.

I agree. This shows sure diligence from him.

Thanks for pulling that up. This provides me more confidence in BK.

That's odd, I wasn't aware of it. Perhaps they wanted money to list Naut, or perhaps he was turned off by this http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/25mpbf/hitbtcs_volume_is_very_suspicious/

"I posted this somewhere else, I feel like HitBTC is a very shady exchange and at any point when they feel they have enough customer funds they will disappear. They are probably falsifying their volume to gain market share so people will trade on their exchange and keep BTC there.

I've seen this happen dozens of times the past 4 years of being involved in Bitcoin. Please do not use this exchange.

This exchange is trying really hard to stay anonymous. I've asked them countless times to give us more info about who they are."

Doesn't seem like a big loss if that's the case.