Topic: IOHK Research and Scorex ARE NOT working with Waves - page 4. (Read 34016 times)

Bad Russians, lol.

Which is precisely why it can't become a "value transfer system" where that is supposed to mean a currency and unit-of-exchange, and not a transfer of value from gamblers and fools to snakeoiltechnocoolbabble salesmen.

Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papers

What changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans.

It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them.


More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone.

Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun.

The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling.

My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses.

Another chunk of bullshit, as usually.

This is all irrelevant.  It's another recursive, permissioned ledger like every other IPO with Russian affiliation.  You need a Nash equilibrium for security aspects, but you also need one for adoption.  If someone premines the entire coin and has the market cornered by design on day one, there's zero incentive for anyone to adopt it when the issuer and his cronies have such advantage over everyone else.  You're just replicating central banking except the value of central banking units is derived through coercion, and without it, it would have no value.

You can't remove mining without turning cryptocurrency into a permissioned ledger either:


From the thread:

IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iota-permissioned-ledger-russian-extortion-scheme-1414866

wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.

u see, naturally I dont give a darn about USA. U obey ur nifty laws, I obey mine.

~CfA~

How so?

Hey I am genuinely trying to launch a "value transfer system". So I think I know the difference between selling tokens versus creating a "value transfer system". What is your rationalization that what you are pre-selling is primarily a currency and not a primarily a speculation  

I mean come on, just give me one reasonable argument. Isn't it obvious that you are no where near having a currency, but do have many pumpers running around this forum with a Waves banner on their signature.

You can sell an ICO legally I presume. One thing you could have done is get a lawyer and have him advise, e.g. blacklisting USA non-accredited investors.

You're a troll and you know it

Where is the "value transfer system"? I see only tokens sold to speculators hoping to make a profit on the rise in exchange price on a few centralized exchanges populated only by speculators. Afaik, the Waves product isn't even ready to ship to actual users of a "value transfer system", how could it be a value transfer system.

The tokens were not distributed for use as a currency. There is no significant use of the tokens for exchanging value for any purpose other than speculation on the price of the tokens.

One way to make it even less dubious, is don't sell the tokens to the adopters of the "value transfer system" so that they don't need to be speculators to justify obtaining the tokens.

yes, he is everywhere this man!!  

There is no gesture to show. One of my employees was listed on the Waves website and represented as a Waves employee. Marketers responsible for pumping waves where posting IOHK whitepapers on the ethereum reddit.

I posted a clarification and then members of the Waves marketing team decided to post links about me leaving ethereum, the head of waves lied about Alex continuing to consult with Waves (he will not continue if he ever did to begin with) and then called me delusional.

As far as I'm concerned this is a closed matter. We have clarified our position and Waves has clarified theirs. If they decide to represent my employees as members of their team in the future, then we will take legal action. I'm sure that won't happen. I wish the project luck and for the sake of the investors hope it all works out

And even if that is the outcome, the banks don't need the tokens and its questionable history. They need only the open source code and the developers who know how to code on it. So again the developers and insiders get everything and the foolish n00b token investors get an empty bag.

I posted a copy in the thread for discussing securities law as it pertains to crypto-currency tokens, so if you prefer to reply there:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14548126

I am interested to read your explanation.

A difference in culture doesn't necessarily imply someone is a crook. What I have observed thus far since I got into crypto-currency (which has been my first exposure to Russians and Eastern Europeans), many of you on this forum appear to have a different system of values than we typically do in the USA and not just about investments. Someone even said your governments had a law against everything, so they learned that laws are made to be broken. Whereas, Americans (perhaps excluding inner city poverty regions) are generally under the impression that a lawful society is a more just and well-functioning society. I am not claiming that ideology is positive, because in fact the USA imprisons more people per capita than any nation on earth and many ostensibly incorrectly imprisoned. And I even know that much business law is abused by the powers-that-be. Nevertheless, I also don't like our software development industry to be dragged into the mud of fly-by-night promotional scams.

The defensive way you reacted to my speculation is I think quite telling. You accuse me when it is both of you who are selling, marketing, promoting, or defending the selling of ICOs to USA n00bs in defiance of our securities laws. I didn't make that decision for you. It might just be a statistical fluke (small sample size) that we have a high correlation between developers from that Communist culture involved with public ICOs which haven't blacklisted USA n00bs (which our law appears to require).

I'd respect you both much more if you were out there creating great software, raising money from private placement to launch profitable ventures, then selling stocks through the legal venues such as Seedr.

Or I'd respect you both for doing pure open source contribution not for profit, if that is your preference.

But I don't respect the marriage of software development with Pink Sheet stock speculation. Software development isn't fly-by-night gold and silver mining companies and other crap listed on the Pink Sheets. And those listed on the Pink Sheets do at least abide by our securities laws.

When Charles says you don't yet have the governance structure set up, I presume he is alluding to the fact that you ostensibly don't even have an attorney advising you properly. And I don't blame him for not wanting his reputation to be associated with entirely unregulated selling of "slices of the next big thing" to unsophisticated investors who can't discern technological fact from hype.

I don't personally have anything against Russian culture (I'm even a bit curious about it). But if I continue to see that people from (former) Communist countries don't have basic common sense about how to operate in the international business arena on any scale other than some fly-by-night promotions, then I will eventually start to be forewarned about being cautious.

Edit: I recall one of my female classmates at the university was Russian. I believe she using me to help her improve her grade by studying along with me, knowing that I was attracted to her. I had forgotten about that.

I agree with you that it is possible, but it would require that the platform be extremely compelling. Only in that instance will banks and other conservative, often heavily-regulated business touch anything in a gray area. We've seen how they have been very reluctant to get involved with Bitcoin, for example. It hasn't prevented a few trailblazers from venturing into that gray area, but only once Bitcoin reached a relatively enormous size and impact (relative to the apparent prospects of new crypto projects, not relative to conventional finance).

looks like the Munero alt-coin police has arrived in dem thread to CLEAR THINGS UP HERE.

WATCH OUT


~CfA~

I agree with your speculation in the first part, but I partly disagree with the conclusion which is bolded. They are building something that doesn't have to rely on US laws or financial institutes, but if you want complete mainstream adoption it obviously is helpful.

In this case it seems possible that the end-product can be marketed to banks or finance businesses even if the kickstarter part was funded by a non-(US)compliant funding. Can still pass as a grey area.

The question certainly makes sense. I'll be happy to clarify it for him should he request that I do so. Until then I will await his answers and ignore third party speculation as to his answers.