Topic: Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network - page 138. (Read 309742 times)

I think there is one more thing to consider here. Agoras coins are like shares in the future Agora platform. Now if I invest my dollars (or btc) to get the share, and some have invested their time working to create the value to  the share (as options in the regular scheme), having free-of-charge (gifted) shares floating in the market reduce the value of the initial share. A gift of an asset (token) that is traded in the market is always on the expense of all asset holders

I think that some sort of cooperation with  Dor's project can be interesting and useful and maybe profitable to both communities of coin holders but it have nothing to do with the stolen coin and these have to be taken out of the equation as of now. Whoever got the stolen coins can prove they came from that address and can be compensated by Ohad with btc or new Agora in the pre dump value .  I can see a good reasoning behind giving a little bonus for choosing new-Agora over btc  since for the project well being it is much better that the btc will stay in the hands of the developers of tau.

This seems to be a good solution.

If Dor gives back the 90% he has and ohad buys it off him, ohad only has to destroy 50k coins from his stash.

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

only one of them is known (though holds 90%)


it's not about raising the tokens supply, but adding all buyers up till today ~10% more tokens (automatically with the distribution of the new token), except the 500K.

Those who bought the 500k coins should get back what they paid in BTC + 15% gain.
They get compensated a bit and nobody is hurt.

Tau chain logical reasoning would not approve.
There is zero possibility that current holders will not turn out diluted by just raising the token supply a bit.
For no dilution to take place one would have to give current holders infinitely more tokens to make the 500k infinitesimally small in relation.

I don't know if i am alone in this thinking but those 500k coins that were dumped, i think 1 person got the majority .

that about 400k of coins , at currently market value which would now be 20 cents a piece , is like winning the lottery , its like 80,000 dollars

that to any project so young can be extremely damaging , especially if it advances beyond 1 dollars in the future or more , not only if the coin manage to reach a complete sell out of tokens at 42 million but out of the current amount that has been sold total , it makes up a good 10-15% at least share of all coins currently in circulation to investors .

Giving away 100,000 dollars to those who bought into the scammer dumping , then having to give away even more to compensate those investors that didn't get scammed seems a bit counter productive , giving even more free coins away.

Giving the coins in smaller bundles to 10 different projects would be a much more efficient advertisement for the coin but this would still just cause dumping and effecting the price and giving away potential and actual value .

if those who bought those super cheap coins where able to keep 5-10% of the coins they managed to buy + more coins to cover the actual BTC they spent buying those scam coins , at current market value.

this would be a reward for giving back coins , while also making sure any incurred loses they would suffer from returning them are covered , this would't cause a potentially large amount of coins out in the open held by a few and wouldn't effect the price anywhere near as much, while still saying thank you and helping out those affected by the dumping

as things stand now, preventing loss is most important.
two cases are theoretically possible to be actually called losses: dilution of existing buyers, and buyers of the 500K not getting the new token.
under the primum non nocere principle (first do no harm), the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

I also think that no coins should be given freely to anyone (very bad idea), in such case the coins will be dumped as soon as possible, and hurt the project and the market.
One of the other solutions must be followed instead. I believe that the best option at the moment is to purchase the coins back at cost + giving a limited compensation to the seller returning the coins for his willingness to cooperate.

I agree with this. Most holders will treat it as free BTC and probably dump it.

Sir, you are a boss!

Nice work dude

Well, if Synereo will agree to sharedrop an equivalent amount of AMP on Agora holders, I guess that could be a very workable deal as far as I'm concerned!

Actually, and although this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, I'm increasingly convinced that Tau would be an ideal plateform for Synereo. Social networks are heavily reliant on linked data, semantic models and logical inference which are core constituants of Tau's DNA. Synereo also seems to be leaning more and more toward a functional paradigm. I even had a doubt when reading this conversation where Lucius Greg Meredith lectures Vitalik Butterin about the brokenness of Ethereum's assumption that a max gaz cost can practically be computed for random turing complete contracts that may call other contracts in a possibly infinite recursion. I was almost expecting that Greg was going to mention Tau and MLTT. But instead he mentionned Special-K and Pi-calculus. Haven't dug it, but from the outset it does seem that Special-K would be a good fit in Tau.

Now from a functional perspective, if we add Agora to the mix, the synergies are becoming mind blowing. Doing logical inference and large scale principal component analysis on a massive dataset not only is a good application of Tau, but also requires large amount of distributed computational power which Zennet is all about. The typical use case shown in Synereo's marketing materials is a social network that allows professionals to rate each other, list their services and hire other professionals. Again something that is of a troubling complementarity with Agora as a job market where the focus is on the commoditization of work as a form of provable computation, and its pricing.

I'm probably getting a bit ahead of myself, but I do get this bizarre gut feeling that Zennet, Synereo and Agora would be an explosive combination, and a perfect fit for Tau. It's also a remarkable coincidence that both projects are based in Israel and that the developers appear to know each other.

Edit: typos

I honestly think that is a terribly idea .

It will increase interest in free money and dumping , if they are being given away, a large majority wont care about the project

thanks klosure!

on a different topic: i was speaking with Dor and he raised the possibility to divide all tokens among all synereo's (amp) holders, either current holders or in their upcoming crowdsale, as it will increase interest in our project. what do you people think?

Some update on the situation.

We have been investigating the identity of the scammer over the last couple of days. Luckily, he appears to be an amateur who thinks he is safe going through Tor but doesn't know how to set up his routing table properly to have out-of-band traffic route transparently over Tor. He is also suprizingly naive and fell for the obvious click bait that Ohad put in his latest email, thanks to which we now have a full packet dump and IDS traces of his multiple failed attempts at fetching an imaginary "final_proposal_v2" file that Ohad convinced him was waiting for him on Tauchain's server, complete with misrouted DNS queries, unobfuscated http headers, and a whole bunch of system finger prints. We also have his session info at TrustWave and TrendMicro (which he doesn't know how to configure properly either it seems), and plenty of gmail endorsed email proofs of this fraud.

As if that wasn't enough, as some have already noticed he has also been careless about managing his sock puppet accounts and keeps making the same grammatical faults (are been, is been, was been...), using the same broken idioms everywhere, and having his accounts support each other's fishy claims. We have been able to correlate him with a good bunch of Bitcointalk and social media accounts with a high degree of confidence, which means that we have a lot more charges to put against him when this affair goes to court. Oh and his ledger trails are laughably easy to track and nicely matching with addresses used by his sock puppets.

At this point we are confident that we have plenty enough material to justify engaging legal action against him. We are still discussing about what course to pursue on the matter. I'll be posting on the progress.

In the mean time and until further notice, we should still assume that the funds are gone and we will need to address quickly the issue of reissuing the assets, decide how to absorb the loss, and resume trading. Let's have this discussion going and come to an agreement.

midnight GMT is too soon as i see people trying to schedule discussions and the time is running till then. let's postpone it in another 24 hours to the next midnight GMT

we don't even know who the buyers are except one, so as for now buying them back is simply impossible due to lack of information. and yes this comes from the sales, no other source and it's the project's best interest to follow the buyer's decisions, and the amount is not huge.

Then I think the only thing that can be done is to distribute new tokens, 1 for 1, except the 20.5M.

Buying back the 500k from honest individuals may seem like a reasonable effort too, but if you would be using BTC gained from the ICO/IPO (or whatever this is), then is that really worthwhile? Taking money out the the development pot is possibly worse than diluting the legitimate coin supply... I'm only guessing here at your source of BTC for the buy back.

bittrex are regulated in the USA (toughest regulation). so they really cant do anything or even tell us what they can do.
the current situation is that bittrex won't revert the trades, and only one buyer from the buyers who bought the 500K is known.