Topic: TPTB_need_war Bitcoin Fork in the making! - page 4. (Read 11460 times)

Excuse me? "Us" referred to ArcticMine and myself, the only two people I remember on this thread that make your constant references to Monero remotely sensible, even though it is still a nonsensical argument.


Excuse me? I convinced TPTB to do nothing. He's his own person, capable of objectively evaluating reality and making his own decisions, or at least he was until this recent breakdown.


At this point I find myself largely in agreement with altcoinUK, I'm afraid.

My advice is to get yourself back to the US, preferably to a large city with good medical services, and seek the modern and competent medical attention and treatment that you so obviously need. The oregano oil isn't working for you.

TPTB_need_war, please stop this comedy, as it is transforming into a tragicomedy.

By now everyone who ever spoke to the TPTB_need_war account understand that the HONCHO account is a TPTB_need_war sockpuppet. Fine. You tried to come back this way, but it is getting creepy as you try to speak for the TPTB_need_war account like "AnonyMint is one clever mofo" and "Holier than thou, as AnonyMint would write" and "fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm" and "AnonyMint is more ideologically driven" and so on. Nobody on earth speak about TPTB_need_war like this ... except TPTB_need_war himself.

Take my word, stop this please,  it is getting weird. We respect your intellect in many ways, don't destroy your remaining own reputation like this.

I wonder if you honestly believe you've succeeded in convincing people that you and AM are not the same person.  You're clearly delusional enough.
I've been reading your posts here on and off for years now, your MO hasn't changed one bit.

Will he use his mind? Please tell me it will involve telepathy!

The hypocrisy of claiming Monero is not a coordinated entity from one side of your mouth, then defending your tribe "us" out of the other side of your mouth.

You may even believe that the two sides of your mouth are two people, so that they are not inconsistent.

You succeeded in hoodwinking AnonyMint and destroying his reputation by convincing him that he would be on the successful side by speaking out against ICOs, premines, etc.. So that the former reputation that AnonyMint had became unusable when it was time to use it.

You've laid so much waste in your wake. And potentially destroyed the one person who could have actually fixed crypto for all of us.

I hope you are proud of your result.

But I wouldn't be too smug. AnonyMint is one clever mofo. I am sure he will no longer use words.

In fact, I know his next plan. And he will turn the definition of mining inside-out and upside-down. And you will bow at his feet. Keep your television tuned. The fireworks haven't yet begun.

"Issuer," "security," etc. are all legal terms defined by statute and which have been interpreted by courts.  The Howey test is one case about one particular type of investment contract (one involving real property) and whether it constituted a "security" under the Securities Act (U.S. Jurisdiction).  The court looked to investor expectations to help determine that the contracts in question were securities.  Whether the securities needed an "issuer" was never in discussion - obviously they do, they don't come from nowhere and they are creatures of contract, which require people or other entity with a legal existence (like a corporation, partnership, llc, etc).  

Question: what jurisdiction is being discussed/contemplated? Why not start with some definitions from the relevant statutes from the relevant jurisdictions instead of making stuff up? How will long-arm statutes be avoided?    
OP has said nothing in 10+ pages, Caveat emptor.

I think I agree with that. Not sure the relevance to this thread, but then I saw no relevance to Monero having been brought up at all, except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security.

Right back at you brother.

Always enjoy seeing non-lawyers twist their logic to obscure their criminality from themselves. There is proverb, it is nearly impossible to teach a man whose livelihood depends on not learning.

But it is better to not refute them, so they may continue to reap what they sow.

Well I think it is time to stop playing word games don't you. Better to play with real things such as knives, guns, functioning software, and other less ambiguous means of defining conquest.

In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return.

Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto).

It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make.

In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread).

1. Even if this were true, it wouldn't help your argument. Monero could be illegal and your propose scheme could also be illegal. Your statement proves nothing.

2. It isn't true. TPTB's proposed scheme, viewed from the perspective of "economic reality" in its totality, incorporates an ICO that will be used to raise money to support a collection of related efforts by related parties, including the JAMBOX effort. it was also stated that the ICO coin coin will be a vehicle which can be used to acquire JAMBOX tokens from people who want to sell them (and suggested this might be the only such vehicle). This ties the components together in a scheme that structurally has no viable analogy with Monero. So the two are structurally different and incomparable. On this basis it is entirely possible that either, both, or neither could be legal.

I'm reasonably confident you won't, and can't, find a "legal bypass" that allows investor funds to flow into developing something that has the reasonable expectation of somehow benefiting the investors (and if it doesn't, the investors either won't buy it or are being scammed). I'm also reasonably confident that not everything that is illegal will be prosecuted, so everyone will have to make their own judgements on this. TPTB seemed interested in these issues of legality, more so than me in some ways.

So you propose a security without an issuer?


No argument there; however compliance with investment security law does not mean there exists or there does not exist an illegal activity in another area of law.

I said I would give you the last word, yet you ask me a question.

Because Monero more clearly fits that Howey test than the proposal AnonyMint made. So the greater likelihood is that AnonyMint's proposal is legal than is Monero.


I shouldn't point out that I just caught you in a failure of logic, because then you might conclude I must be TPTB.

Smooth stay tuned. The fireworks are only just beginning. You won't want to miss it.

I will sign off.

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

Your FinCEN guidance is entirely out-of-band of investment security law.

I don't want to argue with you. I wasted too much time here already.

Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?


I'm pretty sure you're engaging in appeal to hypocrisy. My relationship with Monero and the legal analysis of Monero is not relevant to your claim here of there being a "legal bypass", especially if you claim that Monero is also not legal. Surely you must see the futility of that line of argument. If not then I guess TPTB has associated with someone who can't think very clearly.

Let us start with the basics: Who is the issuer of the alleged security?

The definition of obfuscation is you will not see.

Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security.

That Monero is forcing hard forks on a periodic schedule clearly shows the developers are in control of its future which investors expectations are based on. I read in Monero Speculation that Monero investors are investing based on the expection of Shen-noether implementing Ring Confidential Signatures.

The obfuscation is actually quite weak.

"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.

I'm done. You take the last word. Good luck.


Done. You wrote earlier "IANAL". Please remember you are not a lawyer.

Please do, since he is dead wrong on this. By the way a better example would be Ethereum.

Again, I don't see the relevance of Monero. If there is a relevant principle involved I'd guess it can be considered in the context of this project without reference to another.

Likewise, my personal interests have nothing to do with this project as far as I can tell.