Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 808. (Read 3377922 times)

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.

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.

That is a new breed of Hashtard, he is marked and permanently shamed now. Should be named an Hashore.

That is almost as silly thing to do as a jew in nazi germany going out of their way to mark themself willingly as a jew to get assimilated.

Given a choice I am 100% sure no jews would have done that lmao.

#gawtard4life #trug

hahaha if you're ever feeling bad about making a stupid decision just load this up and you'll feel better hahahaha what a bunch of Hashtards

+1

There is also the issue of determining exactly which coins belong to Josh and or GAW, and then how do you prove, and I mean PROVE, that coins belong to someone else? It would be a simple matter to fake identities and move coins through exchanges and such, I will not list what I think would be best and easiest ways, but I am sure that some (HUGE) amount of this has already been going on. Then there is the issue of whether or not the gang of criminals that helped create Paycoin and run this scam are now "Not Josh". I for one do not buy that part at all. I think all or most of them are still just Josh's stooges. The best way I see for Josh to get his due is to let Paycoin go where it is already heading. Salvaging it for him would at the very least be a public image victory, and most likely a huge financial win as well.

Fuck that asshole Hashking, Fuck GAW, and Fuck Paycoin. (been catching up on Game of Thrones- saw the Blackwater Siege episode last night)

LOL

I wonder where these guys are now ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9wqldqVm6k

or the finished product



And where is this guy ??



And I think we all know who this is At least he was smart and was on the inside and can easily grow this out or shave his head

I really wondered on that. That domain will be almost worthless unless they really publicize that it has been taken back from josh or is resold to someone very transparently (show there are no ties to garza)

I don't know. I was looking at that also, but it looks to me like Josh lied to his lawyers just as much as he lied to everyone else.  I haven't seen anything (yet) that indicates the lawyers knew in advance of his several fraudulent schemes... Keep in mind that a lawyer can represent a client who has previously committed a fraud to try to minimize the consequences.  A lawyer cannot assist a client in committing a fraud but I don't see evidence of that yet.

I understand why people want to take away Josh's coins and end the staking, but can't you see how that will kill the coin? If you can do that to him, or change something so fundamental (remember, the only reason most people have these coins is because they thought they would make money via staking) why would anyone invest in the coin when it can be taken away from them or something else can be changed?

It sucks that these people got conned, it's nice that people want to help, but it happened. Don't waste your/their time and energy on something that won't work.

Here have some snippets from the recent qntra, this is still modest compared to legal advice in the email dump. The lawyer stains is in this thread so either you or someone else can requote it here.

"Brian Klein of Baker Marquart and the Bitcoin Floundation

Unhappy with some of the content Qntra published regarding his scamming, Garza emails Klein, Eric Capuano and Jonah Dorman believing he could hit Qntra directly. Unable to figure out who operates Qntra and from where despite the Qntra contract clearly displayed on the website, Dorman tells Garza that it's difficult to file suit against Qntra. Klein pipes up and claims Qntra authors are bullshit artists. Klein writes:

We should discuss what we might be able to do. There may be ways we can go after these bullshit artists no matter where they reside."


Anything and everything for a buck no matte what, such reputable people, snuggle.

The amount of time you spend sucking Garza's dick and shilling for GAW is laughable.  Go have fun with your scam coin while it still exists.  You fucking neck bearded retard!

Cynical and obvious schtick is cynical and obvious.


Firstly, he didn't buy Stuart a car for Christmas, he said he'd gift his Tesla to him in an attempt to get him off his back about the amount of money owed, then changed his mind and said Stu could buy it off him for a good price, before finally giving in shortly before Xmas day and awkwardly presenting it to him, still with 'Garza' vanity plate, as though he were doing him a huge favour. Trouble is he still has plenty of outstanding payments due on it!

From what I can gather, Homero owes EVERYTHING to Stu, who was clearly being tapped for large amounts of capital over the preceding years on the basis of whatever bullshit Garza was routinely spinning him at a place he references as Mt Snow

It strikes me that Stu was being fed non-stop techno-babble that sounded like it was the sort of 'innovation' which could lead to 'The Next Big Thing' and he was suckered into helping Homero finance his business ventures which apparently required the use of expensive cars long before he moved into fractional-reserve 'virtual mining', otherwise known as a Ponzi scheme.


What Homero Joshua Garza was thinking was that he'd get to consolidate some of his debt into a new structure where he'd be giving Uncle Stu even more share capital in a bunch of useless companies, while also requiring that several hundred thousand dollars of previous debt be forgiven because, you know, he's just sick of hearing about it all the time, right?!

I haven't seen any emails from the lawyers that were even unethical, let alone illegal. Could somebody point out an example of the issue?

The only legit way to change XPY for the better, IMO, is to remove the whole concept of Prime Controller. In the original white paper, they were a nifty concept, but they serve absolutely no purpose in the actual implementation except to make a few people money at the expense of the masses. You can leave all of the existent coins where they are; eventually that will work itself out considering how much GAW sells. Just take away the 100% staking. They should be ordinary wallets since they do nothing special for transactions.

Well that is a little harsh on your part, but Scott just danced with the devil and sold his soul. Stupid fucker!

They are Tech Geniuses, obviously they deserve massive salaries. Dont ya know them, Tickle, sorry Trickle Down Economics.

Someone working at McDonalds deserve a higher hourly rate for the service they render compared to these smucks.

LOL at the salaries these armchair entrepreneurs think they deserve:



I'll have whatever they're smoking.