Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 807. (Read 3377922 times)

Subject:    Re: CCN Interview
Date:    Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:52:41 -0500
From:    David McLain <[email protected]>
To:    Dan Kelley <[email protected]>


understood

David H. McLain, Esq.
General Counsel
Geniuses at Work Corporation / GAW Miners, LLC
Direct dial:  267-257-8945

________________
Inline image 2


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Dan Kelley <[email protected]> wrote:

    Thanks - technically, we did bring in $$$ from private parties who purchased specially priced Hashlets set for conversion to coin.

    I will talk to Josh about being a lot more careful - though all I can do is suggest

    Dan

    Daniel J. Kelley
    President, COO
    Geniuses at Work
    34 East Dudley Town Rd.
    Bloomfield CT. 06002
    866-554-5861 ext 230

    Inline image 2
    CHANGING LIVES THROUGH INNOVATION

    On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:26 PM, David McLain <[email protected]> wrote:

        fyi - link to interview (and some follow-up comments between Andy and Josh below):

        https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/josh-garza-to-launch-paycoin-media-tour/


        David H. McLain, Esq.
        General Counsel
        Geniuses at Work Corporation / GAW Miners, LLC
        Direct dial:  267-257-8945

        ________________
        Inline image 2


        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Andy Beal <[email protected]>
        Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:22 PM
        Subject: Fwd: CCN Interview
        To: David McLain <[email protected]>


        see below...

        Begin forwarded message:

>         From: Josh Garza <[email protected]>
>         Subject: Re: CCN Interview
>         Date: November 21, 2014 at 4:01:50 PM PST
>         To: Andy Beal <[email protected]>
>
>         Um? thats exactly the same thing. We are private investors and we have the company a crap done of money for the specific purpose of a reserve fund of the coin. We used a note in instead of the coin, and once the coin is available, we will exercise the note.
>
>         this is the exact thing that was said:
>
>         "We’ve struck deals for a ton of private funding round coins"
>
>
>         Josh Garza
>         CEO- GAW Corp
>
>         On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Andy Beal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>             Ok. But you and a partner setting aside your money in escrow is different than taking in money from a bunch of private investors.  
>
>             On Nov 21, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Josh Garza <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>             You and I went over this on the phone the other day. I told you that my partner and I have escrowed money to stand in as the reserve, and then purchase the coins when are we are able to.
>>
>>
>>             Josh Garza
>>             CEO- GAW Corp
>>
>>             On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Andy Beal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>                 Josh - you’re CCN interview makes it sound like you took in a lot of “Round 1” money from private investors. Did this happen?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             “The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this information is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please tell us by return email and destroy this communication and any attachments from your system.”
>
>
>
>         “The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this information is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please tell us by return email and destroy this communication and any attachments from your system.”

@ eightcylinders: . The fact is the crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone elses's property is definitely a crime. I am not saying that destroying someone's crypto currency can be successfully argued in court. We live in a world where it is successfully argued that brazen and obvious criminals are innocent and that innocent people are criminals all day every day. By your logic murder is legal because the glove did not fit.

You keep saying that blacklisting coins through a hard fork, or blacklisting addresses (same thing in your analysis I think) is "taking someone elses property". 

Aside from the merits or demerits of whether such is a good idea (and I am on the fence on that), I strongly disagree with your legal analysis.  In order to make the claim that you make, you would have to be able to show that U.S. law would allow you to sue for fork that disenfranchised [GAWCEO's] coins.  What would your legal theory be? 

Theft/Conversion?  What property was taken from [GAWCEO]?  You still have the old coins in the original blockchain before the fork.  No one "took" anything.  Its just that the majority decided to proceed down a different blockchain that excluded you from participating.  Hard to see any property conversion on those facts, absent an act of destruction of the original blockchain or coins.

Breach of contract?  First off, you would have to demonstrate a contract.  Who were the parties?  Who would you sue?  Everyone participating in the new blockchain?  Every wallet that decided to follow the new fork?

The fact is, crypto is a consensus currency.  If the consensus changes, so does the coin.  If the consensus changes so as to exclude one party or their coins in an old blockchain, then the new consensus forms a new "contract" (if you want to use that theory).  The old "contract" consensus doesn't go away (there is no breach of contract, because the old block can continue), but the coins in the old consensus likely lose all their value as a result of lack of interest/support.  The new fork creates a new consensus, new contract.

I fail to see any legal problem with this.  That is not to say I don't see the practical problems and the precedential problems (e.g., it might set a bad precedent and decrease confidence in crypto generally if people think their coins can be "taken" like that).  But I don't think a legal claim of conversion of "property rights" or breach of contract would lie.

Consider this:  If instead of hard forking, the same folks get together and create a new coin called Paycoin Redux (PAX).  They do an ICO in which any holder of XPY can obtain equivalent value pro rata percentage of PAX coin by exhanging their XPY for PAX; except Josh and any person or entity that can be identified with Josh as an affiliate or family member is banned from ICO participation.  The XPY exchanged is destroyed.  The result of this would be exactly the same as a hard fork, but you cannot possibly claim anything morally, ethically or legally wrong with that.

Eggzackry. Then there is the issue of whether these crooks are actually independant from Garza or not. I think not, and that people like Mage and Crestington are willingly or unwillingly being used to try to wipe some of the stench of scam and the criminal Garza off of Paycoin so that the scam can continue.

@ eightcylinders: . The fact is the crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone elses's property is definitely a crime. I am not saying that destroying someone's crypto currency can be successfully argued in court. We live in a world where it is successfully argued that brazen and obvious criminals are innocent and that innocent people are criminals all day every day. By your logic murder is legal because the glove did not fit.

I don't go for that Team Paycoin are the "good guys" bullshit either.

If the community decided to move onto a new chain where Josh's coins were blocked or stake rates changed in any way there is nothing he can do about it regardless of whether you say it's about property rights or not, morally right or wrong. A Cryptocurrency is never forever, it changes all the time and can be changed based on consensus, he would have to sue every single person who owned the PayCoin for deciding that they want to exclude him.

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

Crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a crime. End of story.

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

I agree.  The best way to fix it is to transfer all your XPY to BTC and use the BTC QT there problem solved 

Why are you guys even debating to kill coins or not to kill coins? This fucking scam needs to die. End of story. Every coin should be valued at zero. The only fork that should be considered is the one that fucking stabs it to death and renders every coin useless digital space.

It is considered "property" only in a very limited way - for tax purposes.  That does not mean that you could maintain a claim for conversion or theft if your coins were blacklisted. 

If someone broke into your wallet and transferred your XPY, **that** would be conversion.  if you sell your XPY for a loss or profit, the IRS will require you to recognize the sale as income or loss.  All true.

Blacklisting a coin in a forked blockchain is not the same thing.  You still have your wallet, still have your coins.  Its just that no one is supporting that old blockchain anymore so the XPY you have in the old wallet becomes worthless.

You would have to somehow argue that U.S. law would protect not just the coins as property, but also your interest in continuing to be able to use the coins on any blockchain.  I don't see how this argument could be made.

i dont agree with that view Paul. isnt this staking change already theft then? because Garza wont be getting 350% anymore just 100% (he didnt agree to this)

he can still use his 350% staking blockchain. people just decided that those are now funny money he can sell to his kids   heres your allowance kids!

Crypto currency is considered property by the United States Federal Government. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a criminal act.

I am well aware that forking to remove coins can and has been done, but this does not make it legal or morally right.