Topic: The Criminal Coin (Read 1944 times)

The bitcoin is not a zero sum game. If the bitcoin price rises in the long term, it is a positive sum game.

There's no such thing as a "genuine crypto investor".  A "crypto investor" is nothing else but someone trying to rip off someone else in a zero-sum game.
In other words, if you're in the business of gambling, sorry, "investing" in crypto, you're already an outright scammer.  That said, there's nothing wrong with it, because you're only trying to rip off people that are scammers themselves, and try to do the same.  But this is also the reason why there's nothing wrong with the DAO hacker.  He was just a smarter scammer that understood the game better than the other scammers that tried to rip off one another.  Although.  Finally, these last ones were the winners in the scammer game with something unexpected: they wound back history by breaking the block chain.  But hey, in the scamming business, there are no rules, right ?
(but then, nobody is a criminal, right ?)

BTW, look at your signature: you're making publicity for a Ponzi scheme: an ethereum doubler.
That's essentially what every "crypto investor" is doing.

The criminal and nefarious endeavours that went into creating and supporting this ETC Criminal Coin are truely shocking. How any right minded individual could post their support for a coin intentionally banded together to fleece genuine crypto investors is physically sickening. But we all lot forward to the first DevCriminalCon. Perhaps we could have the relevant judicial authorities storm it to arrest the crooks.

I don't find that what he did was wrong.  On the contrary.  However, I will admit that it was not FRIENDLY.

This is like knowing how to beat your adversary in a chess game, but deciding not to do so, just to be nice and friendly.  But playing by the rules and winning, is not "wrong".  Even if your adversary didn't know the rules.

I don't understand why people call etc a "criminal coin." From my knowledge most people support it because they want a coin with an irreversible blockchain. The actions of the eth community shows that if a large amount of people lose financially, they are prepared to alter the transactions.
It has nothing to do with helping criminals, what the hacker did was still wrong.
(I do not hold any etc or eth)

The argument is this one: a successful "attack" in crypto is not "criminal" but is "winning".  This is why there is nothing criminal about the DAO failure, except to strip the rightful winner of the lottery from his gains by changing the rules.

A successful breaking of AES wouldn't be "criminal" either, but a success of the one finding the trick, and a failure of AES.  In crypto, breaking crypto is the normal thing to attempt - otherwise there is no need for crypto.

So the only criminal coin, if any, is ETH, who didn't respect its own engagements, by stripping a winner from its bait.

Now, you can say, that the game is more complex, and that "being able to change the rules at will" is also part of the game.  In that case, ETH is not a criminal coin, but an even smarter attack.    As crypto is warfare, you can hardly call "the enemy trying to hit you" criminal.  But you could consider that "changing the rules of warfare" just as well a tactic.

So in the crypto scene, NOTHING is criminal.  It is a battlefield, and may the one that outsmarts and destroys the other best, win.

As such, neither ETC (where someone used the crypto according to the announced rules to make a surprise win), nor ETH (where the surprise attack was to break the block chain) is criminal.  Both are ways to rip off the other, which is the goal of this game in the first place.

So, in summary: the DAO hacker outsmarted ethereum/DAO, and was hence a winner (on ethereum/ETC).  But ETH outsmarted the DAO hacker, by breaking the block chain.  As such, ETH was an even greater winner in this war game, by inventing an even bigger weapon.

You have done nothing but use ad hominem attacks. You've already lost the argument son.

You fucking FRAUD !

You admitted to dumping ETC coins for profit.

What in the fuck do you think OWNING and SELLING coins means ?

s u p p o r t

Spew bullshit galore about some "Criminal Coin" then you have the fucking balls to admit to selling them ?

Guess what i do with coins i think are a scam asshat ?
I AVOID THEM !

I don't go running to Poloniex to make money off them then run here and bash the shit out of them.

You are such a fucking fraud its not even funny  

So you're unwilling or incapable of answering my question. Thanks for playing wheel of trolls.

Minecache is a cock sucking tranny

Just curious, what crime has ETC committed. I love how ETH is the legitimate ethereum and everyone got refunded, but somehow the fake ether that everyone got for free still is criminal. I just don't get the logic. Either ETC is the real ether and ether was stolen or it's a sharedropped copy and ETH is real in which case no crime happened.

ETC is the criminal coin at the moment. But if there DAO hacker does not sell, then there will not be much loss.

As you well know there is no love nor support from my side for any endeavour I believe as criminal. And in this case the ETC Criminal Coin. But I'll throw it out there. "With a lot of exciting stuff on the horizon", name just one piece of "stuff" to spark my curiosity that ETC is not at it's very own core 'criminal' and will advance the cryptosphere?!?

This thread does not deserve to be bumped with discussions so I'll create another one.

na na na naaaa na na na naaaa hey hey hey Goood byyyyeeeeeee!  so long shit coin!

That's normal, isn't it ?  Otherwise, immutability is gone, and if you can pull it off against a gouvernment, you can pull it off against just anybody. 

That's the nice thing about monero: its fungibility. 

It can actually work also the other way, with Monero. If some of the participants get caught and the government seizes the coins, as happened Silk Road / Bitcoin / US Government then it would also not be possible to pull a "Ethereum style fork" in order to undo the government seizure.

This is the eternal confusion.  You can say that about cash too: the only way to get cash from a bank account is to withdraw it from a known account with known identities.   This has nothing to do with the anonymity of cash, but rather with the non-anonymity of bank accounts.  It is not because the OTHER ITEM against which you trade with an anonymous coin is giving away your identity, that the coin itself is the culprit.  If you want to exchange against fiat bank account money, then the anonymity is lost because of the fiat bank account, not because of monero or another crypto.

As long as you stay within the crypto world, distributed exchanges are/will be possible. 

But the real use of anonymous crypto is of course when it closes the economic circle.  For instance, suppose that I sell illegal weapons for monero, and I want to buy drugs with monero.  I never leave the chain.  THEN this anonymity works.  I exchange weapons for drugs, and I use monero as an intermediate store of value.  And here, this anonymity is of value, because if some participants get caught, chain analysis will not allow to complete the missing knowledge.

Since the age of empires (the classical period), the monetary items to be used in commerce have always been under state control, because who controls the "blood of the economy" controls essentially everything: you make the riches and the poor, you pay armies and traitors and it happens essentially in an invisible way.  Even gold and silver was a kind of "fiat" during the Roman times, because their conquests served essentially to take slaves, and to open silver mines that financed the state and its wars.... to conquer more territory, to obtain more slaves and silver mines. 
The European nations did about the same at the end of the middle ages in America with the gold mines over there.  So even gold and silver have been "fiat" money, in the sense that they served as seigniorage financing of the state.  Next came of course diluting the precious metals in state coins.  The Romans did it already.  Fiat money is simply "infinitely diluted gold and/or silver".  The dilution reached infinity in 1972.

States will never allow a monetary asset that they can't control as the main blood of the economy.  So forget the idea that you will LEGALLY have bitcoin as a general currency - unless - and that is my hope - that it sneaks in and takes states by surprise, weakening them, and in the end, make them collapse.   States can't live without pumping money.  They are the parasites that need to drink the economy's blood to survive.  They will not allow foreign blood to flow in the majority of economy if they cannot make it, control it, and take it away at their whims, unless they have been weakened enough that they lose their power.

Bitcoin is a totally different beast than any other state money, whether it be gold or paper fiat, in the sense that bitcoin cannot be state controlled - unless China seizes all the mining, and bitcoin becomes Chinese money.  It will never be accepted by states as a currency. 

At best, states themselves will invent some kind of state crypto, of which they get the seigniorage, they get to decide upon the forking, and they have the exclusivity to mine/mint/print it.  At which point it is not a free crypto any more.  Bitcoin could be state-forked into such a thing.  But it won't be bitcoin any more. 

It would be a freedom nightmare: a compulsory blockchainish state currency, somewhat monero like, but with a state golden viewkey, so that they, and only they, can see every transaction.

If you want to call that "crypto", be my guest. 

Already starting, what with a lot of exchanges implementing aml/kyc regulations, strict identity verifications with even some requiring video verifications. It's starting to be the same as banks and credit cards. So, anonymous coins?