[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 17.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ytterbium on October 29, 2013, 09:47:19 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

You think the SEC has control over what software people install on their computers?

Bitcoin can already be used to transfer money to terrorists and drug dealers. If you think those things are less of a problem for the government then unregulated securities you're definitely smoking crack.

Unregulated securities directly threaten the very lifeblood of governments -- money. If you think that drugs or terrorists are a greater concern to governments, you must be new here Cheesy

*That said, i doubt colored coins will be the undoing of bitcoin.

jeffshed

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

troll hat-

i think puppet might be an american and is a little sad his country is cracking down BTC securities so much...

troll hat off-

dexX7

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1026

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

On top of that, I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Somewhat similar discussion:

https://www.google.com/search?q=porn+blockchain+site:bitcointalk.org

stereotype

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

Thats a scary world, you think you live in.

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: Sou on October 29, 2013, 09:34:17 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:12:35 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:10:35 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

And what could they do about that, exactly?

Don't encourage him, man.

I'm not sure he's trolling, actually I think he isn't, that's why I'm answering Wink

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

Irrelevant: they might decide to do anything for any random reason, so we shouldn't really care about what they "might" do.
Anyway it's not possible to prevent colored coins from being implemented, there's much interest and they'll hopefully be sooner or later, so it's again even more irrelevant to worry about that.

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

You think the SEC has control over what software people install on their computers?

Bitcoin can already be used to transfer money to terrorists and drug dealers. If you think those things are less of a problem for the government then unregulated securities you're definitely smoking crack.

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

Sou

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

(Bitcoin related text here)

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:28:09 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:12:35 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:10:35 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

And what could they do about that, exactly?

Don't encourage him, man.

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:12:35 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:10:35 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

And what could they do about that, exactly?

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:10:35 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Because he's an idiot.

kleeck

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

https://karatcoin.co

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 09:12:35 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:10:35 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

Which would actually be true, with colored coins. It could be a security exchange, a car dealership, a drug bizarre, you name it. It'd almost be like something that you would lend you access to the world. It would connect you with people from all over the globe who were looking to buy or sell various things. Like, an electronic commerce network. Wouldn't that be neat? Think of it as a world wide web of people connected through this technology!

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: Lohoris on October 29, 2013, 09:10:35 AM

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 08:59:47 AM

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: jeffshed on October 29, 2013, 05:45:29 AM

who cares about the sec!

Anyone soliciting funds from US investors had better care. Thats pretty much every bitcoin asset issuer out there.
Not that the situation is any different for European or Asian markets, where very similar laws exist.
ALso: http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_crossborder.shtml

Quote

once a blockchain solution comes about it'll be all good!

That could eliminate the need for exchanges, but wouldnt help anything for asset issuers, who would still be breaking the law. On top of that, I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Puppet on October 29, 2013, 04:39:11 AM

SEC appears to be gathering info on bitcoin denominated asset issuers:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3430985

I realize thats for bitfunder, but who in their right minds believes they wont track the assets down to the other exchanges where most of these assets moved to since ever since BF started refusing US investors. The clock is ticking.

Good thing the SEC doesn't have jurisdiction outside of the US then!

jeffshed

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

who cares about the sec! the whole world doesn't revolve around the US!!

once a blockchain solution comes about it'll be all good!

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

SEC appears to be gathering info on bitcoin denominated asset issuers:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3430985

I realize thats for bitfunder, but who in their right minds believes they wont track the assets down to the other exchanges where most of these assets moved to since ever since BF started refusing US investors. The clock is ticking.

radiumsoup

sr. member

Activity: 356

Merit: 255

Quote from: jeffshed on October 28, 2013, 08:30:52 PM

Quote from: ferskvare on October 28, 2013, 12:00:07 PM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 28, 2013, 08:37:04 AM

Quote from: radiumsoup on October 28, 2013, 01:27:40 AM

Because it's foolish. http://www.fpanet.org/ToolsResources/ArticlesBooksChecklists/Articles/FinancialPlanning/TheFallacyofSunkCosts/

very good post.

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed. But at this point, the sunk cost fallacy does not apply. Why? Because the fallacy implies you are stuck in a runt, with all previous investment already gone. Here, we still have shares, and today we know that we have been recieving dividends at a steady rate. Sure, there is still doubt surrounding the validity of this project/investment, but until it goes bust/is proven a scam/does not yield dividends, it is not, per definition, sunk cost.

yeah i'd have to agree. my purchase is actually going fine. for anyone that bought in at .0002 wouldn't be at that state. the divs are coming in fast.

On the other hand if your still holding from .002-.004 it obviously applies

both you guys apparently missed the point that the sunk cost fallacy post was in response to the following, and was not meant to apply to anyone who has bought at current levels:

Quote

At this point, if someone has suffered a paper 90% loss, why not hold on and see if a rabbit does indeed pop up?

jeffshed

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

Quote from: ferskvare on October 28, 2013, 12:00:07 PM

Quote from: Lohoris on October 28, 2013, 08:37:04 AM

Quote from: radiumsoup on October 28, 2013, 01:27:40 AM

Because it's foolish. http://www.fpanet.org/ToolsResources/ArticlesBooksChecklists/Articles/FinancialPlanning/TheFallacyofSunkCosts/

very good post.

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed. But at this point, the sunk cost fallacy does not apply. Why? Because the fallacy implies you are stuck in a runt, with all previous investment already gone. Here, we still have shares, and today we know that we have been recieving dividends at a steady rate. Sure, there is still doubt surrounding the validity of this project/investment, but until it goes bust/is proven a scam/does not yield dividends, it is not, per definition, sunk cost.

yeah i'd have to agree. my purchase is actually going fine. for anyone that bought in at .0002 wouldn't be at that state. the divs are coming in fast.

On the other hand if your still holding from .002-.004 it obviously applies

kingcrimson

legendary

Activity: 1025

Merit: 1000

Quote from: radiumsoup on October 28, 2013, 09:55:55 AM

Quote from: salviel on October 28, 2013, 03:05:34 AM

Quote from: radiumsoup on October 28, 2013, 01:05:56 AM

they're stubborn either because they've given up hope altogether and have written off their losses, or because they know there's an artificial floor propping the price up for them, and as long as they see bids on the book, they know they have someone else to give their bag to when they get really desperate. (The third alternative is they think Sam's going to pull a rabbit out of his hat in the third act.)

Actually, I'm still holding shares because I am getting an amazing dividend percent after buying dirt cheap when some of my ultra-low bids I placed on btct.co got filled at during the panic sell at the end. Seriously, a few more weeks and I'll have my entire purchase cost of 2 btc paid for.

Relevant part bolded. These dividends cannot be sustained without IMMEDIATE action by Sam to increase hashrate by 30%+ per week.

By the way, (since getting back in at cryptostocks using just a little tip money) I've made over 300% flipping this (which I promptly withdrew to throw at a few more low-hanging AM shares). But no way in hell I'm buying more with the current state of things. Labcoin is so far behind the curve of broken promises, it's laughable.

AM is no haven, it is the titanic. Mining securities are a black hole, we are all just hoping to dump on the next fool, but we are the fools.

Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 17. (Read 1079974 times)