Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 49. (Read 387491 times)
My friend told me that this topic is a high quatity about altcoin.I just buy some XCR and i think this price of XCR is too low,what do u think?
The case caused me to lose any respect towards the organization pulling such a trick. If they regard me as scum, so be it both ways.
There is no limit whatsoever these sad clowns will do if we let them. They can make any laws and when they are not convenient, change them, amend them, or just act irrespective of them. The less people resist this fuckery, the easier it is for them to continue. The first point of realization would be to realize that any use of force or threat thereof, towards your freedom, is a crime. On their part, not yours.
I somewhat agree this is often the case, but generalising and saying "no force full stop" turns it into an utopian anarchy which exists only in fools' dreams.There is no limit whatsoever these sad clowns will do if we let them. They can make any laws and when they are not convenient, change them, amend them, or just act irrespective of them. The less people resist this fuckery, the easier it is for them to continue. The first point of realization would be to realize that any use of force or threat thereof, towards your freedom, is a crime. On their part, not yours.
If there isn't someone entitled to the use of force to mantain order, someone else will just decide to use force to his own advantage: this is anarchy.
So, unless you plan to become a Warlord in a world controlled solely by Warlords (in that case please let me know and I'll consider moving into your territory if that happens), you should aim to fix the government, not just to bash it.
And the Poloniex IPO hasn't even started yet
Busoni will be bankrupted by lawsuits in 6 months if that happens. It would be the end of Poloniex. The IPO is unequivocally illegal under U.S. law. The exchange will be responsible for any and all losses to investors.Poloniex has been on top of the list of the "going to die soon one way or another" for many months so far.
The fact that it still hasn't died doesn't mean anything.
Anyone keeping funds there must be either insane or terribly misinformed (i.e. and it definitely isn't sane to keep funds "random somewhere").
We don't have much time remaining:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/03/ecuador-will-be-the-first-country-to-start-digital-currency/
Powers-that-be are also taking control over Buttcoin, with mining centralized in a couple of pools, and soon the money supply locked up off-chain:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8649126
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8663871
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/03/ecuador-will-be-the-first-country-to-start-digital-currency/
Powers-that-be are also taking control over Buttcoin, with mining centralized in a couple of pools, and soon the money supply locked up off-chain:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8649126
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8663871
And your remedy to the situation is what? First of all, I am a little surprised of your continued compliance. We would not need any coins if all the people just decided that enough is enough. The problem is not economy, it is the perpetrators of injustice.
We don't have much time remaining:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/03/ecuador-will-be-the-first-country-to-start-digital-currency/
Powers-that-be are also taking control over Butthurtcoin, with mining centralized in a couple of pools, and soon the money supply locked up off-chain:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8649126
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8663871
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/03/ecuador-will-be-the-first-country-to-start-digital-currency/
Powers-that-be are also taking control over Butthurtcoin, with mining centralized in a couple of pools, and soon the money supply locked up off-chain:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8649126
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8663871
OMG! Monero! is it totally broken? 
No need to say the same thing in every thread. Esp. as I know that you're techically lying, i.e. creating an impression of being worried and actually wanting to buy low.
People tend to forget easily (GLBSE, BTCT, Bitfunder)
OMG! Monero! is it totally broken?
...
It might satisfy it, I don't really know what Supernet is. Very possibly it does, from what I've read of it. Ethereum has perhaps a similar issue.
Certainly none of the other items on offer at poloniex would satisfy that test.
Open sourced distributed developed software money is neither a common enterprise, nor does it depend solely on the efforts of#4.
Centralized development can become problematic however as it pushes the line closer to #4.
#2 Expectation of profits... There seems to be quite a bit of that being promulgated.
It might satisfy it, I don't really know what Supernet is. Very possibly it does, from what I've read of it. Ethereum has perhaps a similar issue.
Certainly none of the other items on offer at poloniex would satisfy that test.
Open sourced distributed developed software money is neither a common enterprise, nor does it depend solely on the efforts of#4.
Centralized development can become problematic however as it pushes the line closer to #4.
#2 Expectation of profits... There seems to be quite a bit of that being promulgated.
When it comes to Ethereum the ether itself may of many not meet the test, but I fail to see how the promise to create or deliver the ether in the winter or 2015/2015 does not meet the test.
Quote
Also, please note that before the release of the Genesis Block in the winter of 2014/2015, ether will not be usable in any way, in fact it won’t technically be created until that point in time.
https://www.ethereum.org/ Here is the nine month chart of Litecoin mining difficulty as presented by Bitcoin Wisdom. Note the more rapid increase from May through July as Scrypt (fixed) ASICs displaced GPU mining rigs for that altcoin. Hash rate increased almost 8x during this period in which litecoin prices fell 6x. Interesting that the hash rate has leveled off in the past month as litecoin prices capitulated in August.
To a greater extent even than bitcoin, it appears that mining difficulty has no positive correlation with litecoin price.
To a greater extent even than bitcoin, it appears that mining difficulty has no positive correlation with litecoin price.
You must factor in the mHash/$ and mHash/watt improvement.
Removing the GPU miners removes a lot of adopters and potential txs and value. Replaces them with fewer entities running ASICs (not everyone has more capital to invest, selling your GPU doesn't return 100% of sunk costs). Now it has stabilized at this lower level. Probably like all market driven effects, it is oversold because of inertia of emotions and speculation.
To my untrained eye, there are a few more "coins" on poloniex (the only exchange I pay attention to) that satisfy the same test.
Are they closed source, or centrally developed?
That gate wasn't constructed until centuries later. The reinterpretation is thus erroneous.
The experts disagree, so can we. Maybe it was babbling nonsense, maybe it was profound.Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
This case would apply to derivatives contracts, and futures contracts.
No, that is not right at all. Did you read the article? It involved a leaseback scheme, not derivatives or futures at all.
The "investment contract" interpretation has been used to prosecute all manner of "investment schemes."
It does not apply to trading and exchange of capital.
It does apply to offerings which entail the use of capital by others, futures, derivatives, contracts for difference, or securities, and it emphasizes substance over form with the test which you articulated well:
Quote
The test is:
Quote
1. investment of money due to
2. an expectation of profits arising from
3. a common enterprise
4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party
I don't really see how supernet could fail to satisfy that test.
It might satisfy it, I don't really know what Supernet is. Very possibly it does, from what I've read of it. Ethereum has perhaps a similar issue.
Certainly none of the other items on offer at poloniex would satisfy that test.
Open sourced distributed developed software money is neither a common enterprise, nor does it depend solely on the efforts of#4.
Centralized development can become problematic however as it pushes the line closer to #4.
#2 Expectation of profits... There seems to be quite a bit of that being promulgated.
I edited my post after Smooth replied.
Smooth did not delete my parenthetical. "(Poloniex is the only exchange I pay attention to)."
I'm sure the same or similar "coins" are traded on other exchanges.
Smooth did not delete my parenthetical. "(Poloniex is the only exchange I pay attention to)."
I'm sure the same or similar "coins" are traded on other exchanges.
The "investment contract" interpretation has been used to prosecute all manner of "investment schemes."
The test is:
Quote
1. investment of money due to
2. an expectation of profits arising from
3. a common enterprise
4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party
I don't really see how supernet could fail to satisfy that test.
To my untrained eye, there are a few more "coins" on poloniex that satisfy the same test.
You may be right.
Putting a security on a blockchain does not turn it into something other than a security. It might ultimately make the law more difficult to enforce, but it won't be particularly hard to enforce it against Poloniex. I don't know that leads to bankruptcy though, it could easily just mean a tolerable fine plus delisting or maybe just delisting, no further listings of that form, and not even a fine. We are of course guessing here.
Scrypt-N ASICs
Litecoin uses Scrypt not Scrypt-N
The "investment contract" interpretation has been used to prosecute all manner of "investment schemes."
The test is:
Quote
1. investment of money due to
2. an expectation of profits arising from
3. a common enterprise
4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party
I don't really see how supernet could fail to satisfy that test.
To my untrained eye, there are a few more "coins" on poloniex (the only exchange I pay attention to) that satisfy the same test.
Here is the nine month chart of Litecoin mining difficulty as presented by Bitcoin Wisdom. Note the more rapid increase from May through July as Scrypt (fixed) ASICs displaced GPU mining rigs for that altcoin. Hash rate increased almost 8x during this period in which litecoin prices fell 6x. Interesting that the hash rate has leveled off in the past month as litecoin prices capitulated in August.
To a greater extent even than bitcoin, it appears that mining difficulty has no positive correlation with litecoin price.
To a greater extent even than bitcoin, it appears that mining difficulty has no positive correlation with litecoin price.
That gate wasn't constructed until centuries later. The reinterpretation is thus erroneous.
The experts disagree, so can we. Maybe it was babbling nonsense, maybe it was profound.Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
This case would apply to derivatives contracts, and futures contracts.
No, that is not right at all. Did you read the article? It involved a leaseback scheme, not derivatives or futures at all.
The "investment contract" interpretation has been used to prosecute all manner of "investment schemes."
The test is:
Quote
1. investment of money due to
2. an expectation of profits arising from
3. a common enterprise
4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party
I don't really see how supernet could fail to satisfy that test.
That gate wasn't constructed until centuries later. The reinterpretation is thus erroneous.
The experts disagree, so can we. Maybe it was babbling nonsense, maybe it was profound.Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
This case would apply to derivatives contracts, and futures contracts. Or to a security. So I don't see it as a problem for Poloniex though it may keep Risto from coming to the USA, sigh...
If the SuperNet is a security of some sort it could bring trouble.
I don't really know what it is, it is difficult to determine from what is written in the Supernet treads I've come across.
It seems to mostly be promises, which could put its issuer in hot water depending on how it is handled.
Edit: Calling it an IPO (or even an ICO) is likely a mistake. It may confuse the regulators against the interests of those involved.
True. But I think the "ICO" is very clearly in violation of the law. This creates a liability when they are sued by investors who lose money as a result.
Which law specifically do you think is violated?Is Poloniex doing anything at all with securities?
Even Bitshares and XCP aren't traded there as securities.
Nothing they sell is a share of a company, or anything like that, is there?
You are looking for a security as in a share of stock or some other traditional and specific form. That is not required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
Key phrase: "broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof"
Jump to: