Topic: The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug - page 3. (Read 24383 times)

With the increased publicity altcoins has been getting combined with the hacks, i get the feeling gov't oversight / regulation will be stepped up at some point...no idea how effective they'll be though

Side note, you see those dark circles under that guys eyes in the video.
Symptoms of Liver Stress or Damage, not good.


 

Attorneys comment on the likelihood of SEC or other regulation/action against DAOs or crypto-currency in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=7789

---

I say bullocks on your arbitrary distinction:


Stealth mining is like hiding the prospectus if you want to compare it to investment norms.

Either you have fair and wide distribution or you don't. But I say ethics has nothing to do with it. Choose which forms of distribution you think make the most sense business wise. Ethics just drags us in the arbitrary mud slinging.

"Crap I failed to buy that 1000% ROI crap."

We were crazy for ignoring what Bernie SandersMadoff was selling, until the clawbacks[1]...

Oh so you aren't aware they can come take your profits long after you've disposed of the asset. This is a clawback.[1]

[1]	http://www.businessinsider.com/the-truth-behind-how-gerald-celente-got-screwed-by-mf-global-2011-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/two-mf-global-clients-share-their-stories-2011-11

Stealing (scams, oligarchy, etc) is not the exception, rather it is the norm of human nature. Always will be.

The Lord warned us that this is the nature of man.

Don't forget the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Pitching the word 'revolution' in the first marketing sentence is a more effective way to start another ETH style pump.

Here we go again with the inane fantasies of the Delirium (Bitalik Vuterin) ecosystem.


No there is a very significant difference.


You seem to not believe and/or understand why direct democracy results in abject failure.


Direct democracy has never existed and never will, because organization of work is incongruent with such a flat decision hierarchy. It is one of the reasons that Communism ends up as despotism.


Athens was run by the merchant class. There was no direct democracy. There never has been and there never will be, because flat structures do not function. The uniform distribution doesn't exist in nature, it is only a delusion of man.

Can you imagine a ship at sea in a storm with 100 people at the helm fighting over each navigation decision.

What you will end up with is a normal corporate structure with a board and the investors will vote to elect the board which oversees and makes the decisions for the corporation.

This is no different than an ICO that matures into being a real company with shareholders.

The real issue here is that crypto-currency which is not distributed by decentralized proof-of-work is masquerading as an illegal unregistered investment security. Thus the desire to side-skirt securities law by creating a token that can vote on governance. But this functionally must end up the same as a voting share in a corporation, thus it is still an illegal, unregistered investment security.

Please quote my post before it is deleted by the mods.

An AMPs investment security that is not "worthwhile" is still an investment security.

I'll be quoting this in the thread for future SEC investigations since you are disingenuously misrepresenting the facts to intentionally promote an unregistered investment security to n00b USA investors on this forum.


Provide a link to all the complete written specifications written in terminology and explanation that non-process calculi experts can analyze. This has not been provided.

Handwaving in video Hangouts is irrelevant and is the way you disingenuously mislead the n00bs speculators here.

Face it dude, you aren't going to win a debate about truth with me, because I am on the right side of truth and you are not. And I am smart enough to unweave your manipulative words.


I mean of course in the context of my prior comments that SpecialK may have no bearing on whether this Synereo system as a whole will function without game theory failure as a whole. One can't apply what is true about a component as evidence of what is true about an amalgamation of components w.r.t. to game theory. Duh!

There is nothing ad hominem in my statements. I speak only to the facts (and the lack of written non-technobabble, non-handwaving facts providers by Synereo) of the matter.

BitFomo, the argument that the government won't care about the securities law violations in crypto IPOs, instamines, PoS coins, masternode coins, coins paying debasement to the developers (Z.cash), seems reasonable because the elite have bigger fish to fry.

However, the period of 2018 to 2020 is going to be utter scorched earth economic collapse followed by a coordinated monetary reform into a one-world reserve currency system, thus we could see governments become very totalitarian in terms of going after all illegal actions wherein they can confiscate people's money due to some law broken. They will hunt those with significant money, not nickels and dimes.

I would steer clear of violating laws as much as possible, if you have any money. As for thinking you can hide your money from the government in Bitcoin, the centralization (centralized control) of Bitcoin will eventually kill that.

Do you really think TPTB, the mainstream capital flows that are short the dollar+gold+Bitcoin, and the world's socialism is going to allow the "rich" (i.e. the upper middle class) to ride away with gains in gold and Bitcoin as the rest of the people become impoverished by the economic collapse

If you want to ride through this coming apocalypse unscathed, then you need to be extra diligent on not providing simple legal justification for confiscation of your wealth.

First the government doesn't really seem that interested or get involved to the level of paranoia people have unless people... And a lot of people are outright raped with things that are illegal regardless of crypto classification.  Paycoin, BFL and mtgox.  Their actions seem to indicate that they are interested in prosecuting people for the most famous outright scams to try to encourage a tiny bit of accountability.

I have been overseas for six months in three very different countries and I have an entirely new respect for how the government protects the dollar and attacks those who threaten it.  Foreign entities with monetary policies and domestic entities trying to remain private.

If the government is as bad as you say then if and when they take aim at crypto - the swipe of a pen by some appointed official can and will make things in crypto they want to be against the law illegal regardless of what is / isn't legal now.  You may have the chance to abide by the new rules (report all your Bitcoin keys, etc), exit crypto and pay taxes or become a target.  I'm not sure abiding by current rules is going to save or help much with a government that already is in violation of its own constitution and numerous other laws on a consistent basis.  If they decide to attack crypto on a whole - today's legal standing will not matter.  Crypto will exist inside of their new rules or be strong enough to stand outside of them.  I do not perceive existing laws to be any type of protection against fighting against the USD if the government decides their is a big conflict of interest.

At this stage I think tracking the blockchain provides them with far more value than threats when it comes to illegal activity (or that is their impression)

With that strawman statement which does not address the points of the Howey test, you obviously do not comprehend the thread that was provided to you. You probably didn't even read it or read it carefully.


No one understands the details including yourself. For if you did, you would explain it here in sufficient technical detail so as to be unambiguous statements.

You are BS and you know it.


You are referring to components of the system such as Special K or Microsoft's use of process calculi, but the devil is in the details. This usage of some components of his research has no bearing on whether any of this is applicable to Synereo. Without the details, we can't tell you exactly why you are wrong.

And you certainly don't know the technical details either.

Any way, I don't have more time to waste on your nonsense.


Sue me in the USA (which is the only jurisdiction which you can enforce on me). Hahaha. So we can go in court and talk about selling illegal unregistered investment securities. There is nothing slander nor libel in demanding proper disclosure with all the technical details explained so that laymen investors can evaluate if this AMP token is a worthwhile investment.

Any way, this is all a waste of my time because Synereo will fall and JAMBOX will not. And JAMBOX isn't selling and hyping tokens. Talk to me again in 6 - 9 months. Until then, any thing other than technical details from you is hot air.

Lol, Synereo with a $9 million marketcap and only $0.016 million ($16,000) of probably fake (insiders buying from themselves) daily volume. You snakeoil salesmen having a hard time getting fools to buy this fake market cap now.

---

---

In the USA that is only for criminal (not civil nor class action) cases and even then it is "beyond reasonable doubt".

I added to my prior post. Re-read please.

Also note class action cases can subpoena foreign entities. I learned that from a recent Armstrong blog. Wait  I will find the link and edit this post.

Edit: the audio is at the bottom of this blog post:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/selling-bullshit/

In most civilized countries any doubts are treated to defendant's benefit. Vitalik doesn't need to worry.

That is your defense   (joke, because you and I both know Iota is too small a fish for the SEC to fry any way, not much less the issue of layers of legal hurdles in between the SEC and Iota/you ... thus it is silly to allege any serious chance of action being taken against you personally[1])

Seriously you are undoubtedly correct in the overall scope of this, although one could argue that he is likely thought by the public investors to be on the level of a board member in terms of how he was making public statements about how much ETH they were selling and this would finance them for 4.5 years. I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake.

[1] my only point to you is really that I wouldn't play legal jurisdiction game theory unless I had no other good options. I personally wouldn't do it for ethical reasons of trying to respect other cultures and their legal systems. If I thought it was absolutely necessary (in some Libertarian idealism) to achieve some greater good for society, I could perhaps justify it. And that is why I never intended to get into a war with you, but your iotatoken partner is a hot-head who couldn't resist making a war in this thread. And it spread. I care a little bit about not siphoning off all the crypto gamblers' funds to insiders of altcoins which are going no where, but I thought you had enough interesting technology in Iota to justify earning $100,000 or so on it. I thought you'd be satisfied with the $500,000, but I guess I must realize you only get what maybe 12.5% of that? Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave.

No chance Vitalik was a director or a manager. Tech guys hate such positions because they distract from tech stuff.