Bitcoin Forum

This is an unmoderated thread to discuss Jinn/IOTA and to figure out the truth of what is really happening.

Originally, Jinn assets were sold on the NXT exchange under the premise that they would turn into legal "profit-shares" that would be distributed to the asset holders.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081)

Then it was decided that these Jinn assets wouldn't entitle their holders to a share of the profits, but instead they would be redeemable for a cryptocurrency called IOTAs.

IOTA - JINN SWAP (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/)

Then, it was declared that IOTA wasn't really a cryptocurrency.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201723/#msg201723 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201723/#msg201723)

Then, it was declared that IOTA shouldn't be considered an investment.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201628/#msg201628 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201628/#msg201628)
https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201890/#msg201890 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201890/#msg201890)

Why does David/Uniqueorn/Triangle/iotatoken keep changing the terms of the arrangement with investors?  How can he say that people haven't lost anything when what is being given to them, "a non-cryptocurrency, non-investment", is different from what was originally promised, "profit-shares"?

Of course it's not an investment, it's a software token on the same level as Ether or REP in Augur. No one has 'changed the terms' even once, but after EU decided to recognize cryptocurrencies as a currency, you can no longer use this word casually, hence the clarification.
This is things you need to take into consideration when you run a legit project like we do and not just a random forum scheme.
Of course you'd know all of this if you had actually read these threads.

So in summary: your thread is confused FUD.


*Edit: Just noticed that you are the same guy who didn't understand how IoT could make better products, so won't waste more time on you*

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081)



Please, clarify how a "profit-share" is *NOT* an investment.  How can you honestly sit there and say that people didn't purchase Jinn as an investment when you told them they would be legally transferred "profit-shares"?  


https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201723/#msg201723 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201723/#msg201723)

Really?  If the terms haven't been changed, why is IOTA no longer considered a "cryptocurrency"?

Already responded to all of this. Read up again troll. /last message to you

No, you didn't.  You didn't respond to any of it.

The truth of the matter is that you don't have any idea, legally, how to structure any of this and therefore, you are changing the terms of the agreement on all of your investors in a futile attempt to feign compliance.

How can you claim this is "*NOT* an investment"?  Do you honestly believe people just gave you money and expected nothing in return?

IOTA is software. We got 2 long documents explaining this and several threads. Stop stalking me, thanks.

I thought that was going to be your last response.


That is like claiming that Bitcoin is just software.  Are IOTAs not transferable between parties?


I'm not stalking you.  This is my thread.  You came here on your own volition.

Stop stalking me. Thanks

Again, you are here responding on your own free will.  Here is the legal definition of "stalking" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking).  There is no court in the world that would consider you coming here on your own accord and responding to me as me "stalking" you.  There is nothing illegal about me starting my own thread and having an unmoderated conversation about your lack of business acumen.

This is your third post after you said that it would be your "last message".

Do you know that the inability to follow through on your decisions, repeating nonsensical statements as fact and a persecution complex might be signs of mental illness?  You might want to see a psychiatrist about your behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Yt0xJKDY8

bye

This is your fourth post after you said that it would be your "last message".  Please seek mental help and resign from your position at Triangle / Jinn / IOTA.  You owe your non-investors that much.

The fact that David Sonstebo (https://nb-no.facebook.com/people/David-S%C3%B8nsteb%C3%B8/584917321) cannot respond to these basic questions and instead attempts to deflect the conversation away from himself by expressing a persecution complex is quite troubling.  It is a sad fact that in today's society there are still those among us that suffer from mental illness and instability.  Sometimes, these people are our friends, relatives or neighbors, and sometimes, these people are "CEOs" of start-ups.  Nobody knows what makes them snap, but when they do, it is devastating for all parties involved.  Businesses fail, friendships are lost, and families are shattered.  The only advice I can give to any of these non-investors is to get as far away from David Sonstebo as you can before he totally loses it and wipes out your non-investments.

Everyone that wants all info on IOTA that is not from an obsessed troll:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262688.0

Where did you take this from? I'm not sure I got you right, do you mean that those who don't swap JINN for IOTA will be left with useless junk?

What would they be left with since it is considered "*NOT* an investment" by the CEO?

So it was just your guess?

It's a logical conclusion.  If Jinn assets are "*NOT* an investment" and after a certain date they aren't redeemable IOTA which the CEO claims is "NOT a cryptocurrency", what are they?

Go back to the forum you were just banned from and read the thread, everyone else got it.

Everybody else didn't get it.  Other people have pointed out that you are contradicting yourself and are confused.

How can you say that the "terms haven't changed even once", when you are now stating that what people purchased should "not be considered an investment or a cryptocurrency" when you sold it to them as "profit-shares"?

Perhaps Iota folks may have started to morph the presentation of their endeavors to prospective "investors", because of this thread I did on the legality of selling unregistered shares to investors:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0

In any case, I do not take sides on this issue. I am not making any accusations of bad intentions nor intentional fraud.

If they have already raised money in the form of shares (and I have no position about whether that claim is true or not because I don't know), I will just note that per my thread above, it is seems impossible for them to now claim they are not offering an investment and have it stand up as a valid argument in a court of law w.r.t. to (at least USA) securities law.

Not at all. This is standard software sale, same way Ethereum, Augur, Gems, Voxelus etc. does it. You need to understand that this guy is a troll, he was banned for stalking, false accusations and death threats on nxtforum the day before.

I don't read nxtforum, so that means nothing to me. I haven't seen any stalking on this thread at all. I've seen you avoid the questions about conversion of the JINN asset into IOTA, and the quoted promise that the JINN asset would be legally converted into profit shares.

Was that quote false or out of context?

Haven't avoided any questions. Like I said, it is clearly explained over at the nxtforum (only relevant forum for this discussion). JINN tokens always represented crypto tokens tied to the sale of hardware payed out via tokens. Since then legalities has changed in EU and so we're looking into how to best do it in accordance with the wishes of JINN holders. End of discussion. I wont continue to feed this troll.


If you want to continue the convo, take it over to nxtforum. Wont answer here again.

Then you should simply sign off here. Bitcointalk.org users can discuss it among ourselves.

Why don't you stop lying for once.  I wasn't banned for "stalking, false accusations and death threats".  I was banned because I ask the tough questions that nobody wants to answer and have the guts to stand up to the weenie ass mods over there on NXT forum.  The mods over on NXT forum selectively enforce the rules to their liking.  Even though they state in the forum rules that insults are not allowed, they didn't have a problem with another forum member calling me "retarded".  They saw the post and didn't delete it or reprimand the poster.  Yet, they consistently took down my posts that were critical of their actions, even though my posts didn't break any of the forum rules.  Long story short, I started a poll in which I asked the community if the mods were retarded (https://nxtforum.org/meta-forum/are-the-mods-retarded-%28serious-question%29/).  I never stated that they were in fact retarded, but when the poll ended, the votes came in unanimous that they were in fact "raging retards".  I will always support free speech and free elections and I can't help what the community over at NXT forum thinks about their mods.  They obviously banned me because they can't handle the truth and don't like people who ask unpopular questions.

But enough about me, let's get back to you misrepresenting Jinn / IOTA to your non-investors.


No, it's entirely in context.  Follow the link and read it yourself.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081)


You never answered the question.  Not here and not on NXT forum.  Again, how can you say that the "terms haven't changed even once" and that people haven't lost anything, when you are now stating that what people purchased should "not be considered an investment or a cryptocurrency" when you sold it to them as "profit-shares"?

Your logical conclusion is wrong.

The misunderstanding regarding status of JINN arises because the lawyer recommended not to extend on JINN definition beyond one set during that dutch auction. It's part of our legal defense - to avoid answering the question just because some person who purchased JINN from the original purchasers may attempt to catch us at our word to get more rights than was planned.

So, the conditions haven't changed, if you need more info the only viable way to get it is to contact us privately (be ready to provide proof of JINN ownership).

PS: I hope you'll get the issue and will stop spreading the misinformation.

JINN failed.
IOAT is just a copycat of DagCoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.0). ;D

JINN is alive and well.
IOTA is 100% original, which can be proved easily. Oh and also creator of DagCoin is enthusiastic about IOTA and will security check it :) So keep on fudding and trolling kids.

 
Nothing special. Same as Ether :

Ether is a product, NOT a security or investment offering. Ether is simply a token useful for paying transaction fees or building or purchasing decentralized application services on the Ethereum platform; it does not give you voting rights over anything, and we make no guarantees of its future value.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/launching-the-ether-sale/

Ownership of ETH carries no rights express or implied. Purchases of ETH are non-refundable. Purchasers should have no expectation of influence over governance of the platform.

http://3amdeveloper.com/terms-and-conditions-of-the-ethereum-genesis-sale/

So, will investors who hold Jinn assets after the IOTA redemption period is over be legally transferred profit-shares?

You don't get it guys. You don't wait for mass-adoption after the network launch. You surf the hype and you sell at least 5-6x the ICO price, that's what happens with every good ICO coin, and IOTA token seem to be a really good one.

just another get rich scam idea

1. They are not investors.
2. They will get what was promised 14 months ago.

Hard to believe when they were promised "profit-shares".


You saying it now (either here or in your disclosure documents) does not make it so.

Who was promised of "profit-shares"?

Jinn buyers, according to the claims made in this post. I don't know whether they are correct or not, nor do I know whether your posts are correct. I only know what I read.

According to that dictionary definition, people purchasing or expending money on IOTA tokens are also investors, unless you are going to prohibit IOTA tokens from ever being traded (not sure how that would work) and only allow them to be used as network access. They offer "potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value".

Lawyers will have to work out the legalities, but when it comes to the English language and matters of substance, they are clearly investors.

 

There was a lot of misinformation spread by those who wanted to sell JINN for as higher price as possible. Maybe they were just scammers, there are a lot of them in cryptospace. Also note that sometimes I use word "investors" because it's much simpler than to explain all the details. It's just a shortcut and any attempts to catch me at my word are silly. Without the context "investor" can mean anything, so I'm not sure it's a good moment to quote Merriam-Webster dictionary.

I'm not catching you on any word, I'm looking at the dictionary definition and silly claims that people who quite obviously "put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value" are not investors. That's nonsensical.

No. That's not how the law works. ANYTHING can appreciate or depreciate in value post-purchase. IOTA is software. We got 2 documents: Terms of Sale and Risk that EXPLICITLY state that IOTA IS NOT either securities or investment, it's SOFTWARE. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
This is the same for all software and crypto-software, including Ethereum, Augur etc. This is the law, done deal.

I can't believe you have bitten this hard on the bait of a troll. Haha, smarten up man.

I live in a country with high inflation. People buy a lot of USD to save their money. Are they investors?

Seems all of you need to read my linked thread more carefully. Saying that "it is not an investment" doesn't make it so. The legal criteria are covered in great detail in my linked thread.

Again this doesn't mean I am accusing anyone of fraud or bad intentions. I am not taking sides on that concern. Rather I am just pointing out that every single cryptocurrency that is marketed to speculators, is an investment, regardless of any disclaimers issued. Study the law. Delusion won't help you in a court-of-law (even if it is not a kangaroo court).


W.r.t. to securities law (as I covered in my thread above), a government issued currency is not an unregistered security. But a private issued cryptocurrency always is, unless it was issued primarily to non-speculators (non-investors) for use as a currency token and not as an investment (e.g. a game currency given away from free and primary to participants of the game not to investors and speculators in the potential rise in value of the tokens).

You can't escape the intent of the securities law, which is to protect speculators and investors from "get rich quick" scams.

For example, americanpegasus argued that Aeon is not an unregistered investment security because it is issued by proof-of-work and no party received the proceeds. Yet if there is a community of speculators centered around the core developer (smooth) who are obviously by their forum posts involved for investment and thus this group is looked upon by investors as responsible for the future potential value, then this is an unregistered invesment security as defined by the Howey test. If rather Aeon was primarily distributed for free to n00bs who don't have a clue about investment and the primary use of the tokens is to spend them, then one could argue it is not an unregistered investment security under the Howey test.

Some people believe the USA securities law is not the model that applies globally, but I personally wouldn't risk that. The EU seems to be codifying the similar intent of the law. The globalization of the USA style hegemony is well underway.

Right now we talking about: if A follows from B, does it mean that B follows from A. Look at that example about people buying USD. Smooth claims they are investors. I claim that  being an investor means XXX, but XXX doesn't mean that you are an investor.

PS: There is a famous sophism related to that, can't recall what it was.

Yea sure you know more than a team of lawyers. Ok, great.

It's software, it's not a cryptocurrency. It's a cryptograhical token that can represent ANYTHING. It can represent computational data, computational power, bandwidth, jesus juice, whatever. It's NOT a cryptocurrency. It's not about disclaimers, it's about EXPLICITLY explaining what IOTA is and what it isn't. Which we have done. Law is on our side. You are both victims of a troll that has been banned on BTT And Nxtforum twice for trolling, slandering, spamming and death threats. Pathetic.

I don't want to get in a fight with you. I have nothing against your project. My only concern is that all of us are getting into trouble with the law w.r.t. to unregistered investment securities. I am concerned for you guys too as well as for investors and all of us. You may be getting really poor legal advice (lawyers can make more money getting you into more trouble).

Could you please have your lawyers come debate me in my thread about what constitutes an unregistered investment security. I want to pick their brains and see who is correct. They can debate me anonymously, so they have no legal culpability.

Rather than just appeal to authority, have them come in my thread and prove their superior knowledge. All of us would surely love to see more input from real lawyers. For some reason, they are afraid to post at this forum (even anonymously).

Sure, that'll be no problem as soon as you give me your full name. I refuse to waste my time and resources on debating someone who bit the bait of a notorious troll so hard. As soon as you give me your full name we can continue this in a professional and serious manner. Until then you are sadly just a unaware accomplice of a troller.

What jurisdiction are you talking about?

IMO, as a matter of common English usage, if purchased to hold for any meaningful period of time, yes. It certainly offers potential profitable returns [from] appreciation of value. I've certainly heard people talk about "investing" in various (fiat) currencies. Such usage is quite common.

Legally, ask your lawyer, don't ask me, or anyone on a forum.

Thanks and like said: this has been done. Not only by us, by Ethereum, Augur, Gems, Voxelus etc. It's quite basic. You just bit the bait of a troll and for some reason started thinking there were controversy here, there isn't. You seem like an otherwise intelligent guy, so I have no idea why you decide to waste your time trying to discredit a legit project that warns everyone upfront of all risks, that does something productive and useful and also legal. Power of the troll I guess..

I never discredited anything. If you think questioning double talk is discrediting, then you must feel you are on shaky ground somehow.

When you claim that people who are buying an asset with the prospect of appreciation (or who were allegedly promised profit-shares) are not investing in it, that is double talk.

Legally, I don't even care, nor do I find those discussions interesting since legal systems tend to get so complex that only specialists can even have a hope of understanding them (and even then they disagree). I'm mostly an anarchist, so as long as what you are doing doesn't mislead anyone, do what you want. But you can't stop questions about it on an unmoderated thread.

His name is public and is all over his thread with his pictures and he's even posted some videos. If that is your attempt to dismiss his points, you've failed terribly.

That would be a pathetic ad hominem, so no, which my arguments clearly show, but if we're going to expend time and resource on this debate, it will be between real people, not forum names.

But then again, you were both victims of a notorious troll, so I guess legit-checking isn't your strong suit. Anyways, I wont engage further in this troll thread. All answers has been given (like they were from day 1 in 2014), so have fun with the trollparty you guys got going.

Please note that the concerns I raised apply to nearly every (if not every) cryptocurrency, so this is not pointing a finger at Iota/JINN. So please do not take it as an attack on you guys.

I agree with smooth's implied point that securities law action appears to mostly come about due to losses and complaints from investors, so one way to potentially prevent trouble is to make sure all the speculators in your coin are not upset in the end (and hopefully it becomes a true currency and the initial investors can cash out and everything is fine). Not being misleading is also helpful in terms of preventing accusations, but it doesn't assure that investors won't become disgruntled.

The USA Supreme Court stated that the Howey test is not bypassed by any schemes and disclaimers. Rather the intent of the law is always in force and it said the court is astute in seeing past any obfuscations and directly to the economic reality of the situation.

So that is why I have claimed that a cryptocurrency that is never marketed to investors and is always given for free to non-investors, will have a must higher chance of failing the Howey test for what constitutes an unregistered investment security.

P.S. my full name is easily found (e.g. just search The Digital Kill Switch and refer to my post on this forum which contains my full name) or just go into my thread and click the newspaper clipping that contained my full name as of 17 years of age (and afaik it hasn't changed hence). But please don't turn this into some sort of legal battle against me, please I am not attacking you guys and I am just raising concerns that apply to cryptocurrencies in general.

Btw, my father was former West Coast Divison attorney for Exxon and handled the Valdez spill case. He later was General Counsel for THUMS (a consortium of the major oil companies dealing with environmental law issues afair). My father's specialty apparently was contract law. And afair graduated top of his class at LSU when it was a top ranked university for Law degrees at the time (may still be). Given that legal briefs were laying all over the place were I was living from a teenager and especially in my early 20s, then perhaps some of that rubbed off on me as I was a curious reader.

Well there you have it. A "real person" (by your definition at least -- as if we're not all "real people" somehow) whose points do not derive from any posts on this thread by someone you claim is a troll or otherwise. He posted the same points long before this thread existed.

So go ahead and debate with a "real person" as you requested. I will read with interest.

To be sure: I got no beef with you, personal, legal or otherwise. But we have an ongoing SOFTWARE sale that you proclaim is a securities offering, which it isn't, which we have explained and disclaimed clearly, including all risks associated with the software itself. This means that when you claim it is indeed an investment/securities offering, you may mislead potential buyers of our software, which may or may not incur us damages, which is why I now choose to exit this otherwise hilarious forum-troll thread and will only continue communication in a legal domain. So it's your choice.

So you meant USA jurisdiction it seems. Interesting, what odds that the USA can enforce its laws against me, a citizen of a country belonging to the opposite political block, a country that is under heavy economical sanctions initiated by the USA, a country that is protected by Russian nuclear fist...

I am not claiming anything in a legal sense. I have numerous times appended the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer ("IANAL") and that readers should consult their own attorney.

I am only sharing my layman's opinion of what I have read about securities law.

If you feel you are adequately covered by your legal advice, then I have nothing to say against that other than what I already shared as my personal layman's concerns and not against your offering in particular rather musings about cryptocurrency's securities-law related legal status in general.

Again I wish you best luck with it. And I will bow out of the discussion. If your attorneys wish to anonymously contribute to my thread about those concerns, that might be illuminating. Obviously they may not feel it is in their interest to bother to do so. I can accept that reality.


In the thread I linked to, I explained why I think you should not be so smug. For example, according to USA law if you sell to USA investors, you fall under their jurisdiction. (and the G20 is getting organized on enforcing each other's laws) But again, to each his own.

If you are USA citizen, then even marketing to USA investors qualifies, even if there isn't a sale.

2 years ago I posted on this forum how many fucks I give to USA laws, nothing changed since that. Thank you for the advice not be so smug, but I won't follow it this time.  :D

Note the USA investors have to be concerned with USA securities law to some extent on a coin that is marketed by a non-USA entity, but as I understand it (IANAL) their culpability is significantly less than the one who is marketing the securities. Some details on that is covered in my linked thread.

Also my limited attempt to dig into the labyrinth of EU law seems to be moving toward harmonization with the USA law (with great difficulty/complexity due to needing to harmonize also all the laws of the nations in the EU). This was the intuition I gleamed from reading some of the EU laws and the progression of the laws.

The above applies to EU laws too. Iota sale is regulated by EU laws, JINN - not.

Well then you are in a labyrinth of European law that seemed to me be quite complex to analyze (mix of deference to national laws mixed with EU harmonization), so I punted on the analysis and just assumed it is eventually headed to harmonization with the USA over time and thus I don't want to sell what would be defined as an unregistered security under USA law (especially given I am a USA citizen).

If you guys under legal counsel have decided to proceed under EU law, I have nothing more to say.

Thank you.

Edit: knowing that you are operating under EU securities law, readers should be cognizant of the fact that you will I assume be required to limit discussion around such legal issues to certain presentations. Thus readers perhaps could consider not to necessarily interpret presentations as deception (but again I can't advise anyone and each reader should consult their own attorney). Again I am not well versed on all the specific accusations against Iota/JINN raised in this thread and have no opinion on those accusations. I was merely sharing my layman's musings (IANAL) about cryptocurrency securities law status in general.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081)

Are you seriously going to act like you don't know who was promised "profit-shares"?  "EVERYONE WHO HOLDS JINN TOKENS" was promised to be "legally transferred profit-shares" according to Triangle (aka David Sonstebo / Uniqueorn / iotatoken).



I'm curious as to what you think they are then?  Charitable donors?



Really?  Then why did you describe it as such?

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201696/#msg201696 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201696/#msg201696)
https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201723/#msg201723 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201723/#msg201723)



Do you have the launch codes and command authority to extend this nuclear protection to David Sonstebo who is in Norway?



The truth of the matter and reason behind this flip-flopping is because David Sonstebo has no clue regarding the proper legal procedures to follow to be in compliance with the law.  This is why he promised "profit-shares" to Jinn holders and is now saying, "Well, they aren't investors."  This is why he stated that IOTA was a cryptocurrency and is now backtracking and now saying that it isn't a cryptocurrency.  He either didn't consult with knowledgeable legal counsel before he started selling assets or has incredibly bad legal counsel.  Obviously, Come-from-Beyond doesn't care and is relying on mutually assured destruction to be his legal defense.  This isn't going to turn out well for David or Jinn "holders".  I seriously doubt if any Jinn holders, who do not redeem their assets for IOTA, ever receive any legal form of "profit-shares" as promised.

You say this because it was shown that you had been wrong but you can't admit this publicly, we all get it. I have to stop arguing with you, you obviously will continue to ignore all arguments. This is sad, I liked spirit of decentralization within you...

I said that because David changes the wording of the agreement with investors to minimize his/your legal culpability, we all get it.  I can't believe that you actually said, "Who was promised 'profit-shares'?", when your partner, David, clearly stated it on January 27, 2015 (https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081), you obviously will continue to mince your words to suit your interests.  This is sad, I liked the spirit of decentralization within you and I didn't think you would put profits before truth, but I won't sit by and allow people to be misled and incur losses due to double-talk caused from gross legal negligence.

It's the same issue as with Smooth and "investor" definition. Now you do exactly the opposite of what you wanted - you mislead people. I already explained upthread that JINN wouldn't become useless after Iota sale, but you prefer to pay attention to other things, not to my clear statement. What is it called when a person ignore things that disprove his position?

Time to stop going in circles. Refer to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1273040.msg13145784#msg13145784 for clarification.

As I anticipated:


...


The legalese complication of straightforward understanding of Iota, it purpose, function, and adoption comes across as dilutive to marketing in terms of the way I would approach it.

I have never found that grand merger of disparate areas (e.g. a cryptocurrency with some complex hardware plans) hits the sweet spot.

I would not involve my serious software endeavors in such distractions.

To hit the sweet spot of cryptocurrency is going to require laser beam focus on adoption.

(oh so why I am bothering to comment here then! whoops)

Seems you all got yourselves into this misunderstanding by weaving complexity which requires legalese.

Grief my father is an attorney, but I try to steer my plans as far from needing legal input as possible. I released some code modules recently and declared the license to be the Unlicense.

It is going to be interesting to watch how this turns out. I think it will end up being yet another confirmation of Murphy's Law and the subtracted value of selling basketball shoes bundled with basketball rimscourts.

Marketing 101. Observe what I do.

Hm, none of the subjects (JINN nor IOTA) are cryptocurrencies. Looks like we again hit definition wall, like it was with Consistency.

You were defining the consistency at the peer-to-peer network layer and I the consistency of the block chain semantic layer.

Seems we hit the pigeon-holing wall again.

A cryptotoken or decentralized exchangable datum is just another way of describing the same notion of the existential cryptocurrency in some meta-model of abstract equivalence.

Some attorneys and judges are super smart. They can distill down such attempts at obfuscation to their economic equivalence.

It's not so clear.



Do you understand that these two statements are contradictory?

Since David has flip-flopped on IOTA being a cryptocurrency and not being a cryptocurrency, don't you understand that people might be apprehensive when you give contradictory statements?  How can you on one hand say that "they will get what was promised" and on the other ask, "Who was promised 'profit-shares'?"?  This is why I said that I doubt JINN holders who do not redeem their assets for IOTA will receive any profit-shares.  It sounds like you are questioning if anybody was promised "profit-shares" at all.

Additionally, regardless of my feelings towards David, you know that you are legally protected from EU/US securities laws, but he is not.  Do you really think that it is right to allow him to string himself out and bear the full burden of any legal repercussions brought about by your joint endeavour?  Anybody with common sense can tell from his statements that he is woefully ignorant about securities laws and his legal responsibilities.

Already explained upthread.



He follows legal advice of the lawyer, so he is fine I think. Read http://188.138.57.93/tos.pdf and http://188.138.57.93/risk.pdf if you need the details.



It's hard to prove that David violated EU/US laws (which didn't happen) when everybody knows that JINN was initiated solely by me. I doubt a USA prosecutor will spend a lot of time on a case where monopoly money (NXT) were handed over to a guy from Russia (which hides Snowden the Enemy #1) whose official reply to any official requests from USA/EU is "FUCK OFF". And all this just for a zero chance to charge 50'000 USD penalty (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/us-sec-fines-erik-voorhees-unregistered-bitcoin-ipos/)? I don't think you believe in this.

If IOTA tokens or JINN are deemed illegal securities in any jurisdiction, doesn't that mean that any citizen of that jurisdiction selling or buying them (a trader in an exchange for example) is doing something illegal?

Maybe. In my country a company can be fined for up to 1000 USD for that. A private person can get max 500 USD penalty if a currency is involved. BTC, NXT and other altcoins are not treated as currencies so it will look like monopoly monies exchanged for monopoly cards, i.e. having no legal consequences at all.

Find someone new to troll please, this is getting tiresome.
We called IOTA a cryptocurrency in the beginning due to it not being a legal term. We have been in crypto for years, so the term is ingrained in our brain as a casual way to talk about cryptographical tokens. However, since we began work on IOTA EU changed it's stance on what a cryptocurrency is and thus we had to update it BEFORE the sale. It's 100% an issue of terminology and law. You have been informed of this 1000 times, but you keep going on about it in a pathetic: "GOTCHA!!!!!" troll loser way, because you truly got absolutely no reason to exist if you can't troll someone.  According to yourself, you have been banned (https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/2kool4skewl-banned-from-bitcointalk-org-(/) from this forum for trying to peddle a cheap troll Nxt clone called Nexx back in the day and you have been banned at Nxtforum for spamming, stalking, slandering and death threats. I think it's time to grow up and get a good ol' life.
IOTA is software, nothing more and nothing less. AS HAS BEEN STATED EVERY SINGLE TIME since we launched it. Now I will demand your legal name, if you are serious and not just a troll, this will be no problem. If however you elect not to hand it over, it is unequivocally an admission of you being a useless troll.

IOTA is software. End of story. Please stop engaging these trolls.

so why do you and cfb still want to wast your time on this kind thread? I never see Vitalik and Joey Krug to waste their time on this kind threads. Everyone knows what was going on with Jinn and Iota and ample information has been given already.

You should believe in ordinary people. Regarding the trolls, you don't want to spend time on them. If you think they are trolls, the ordinary people will think they are trolls as well. Trolls don't have influence and they only hurt their own reputation. if persons believe in trolls and do not have the discretion to tell what are the facts in this kind situation, it is theirs problem.

The serious projects should stay away from Bitcointalk as far as possible after the crowd sale as Ethereum and Augur have been doing.    

I agree 100% and this is why I have been trying to end the conversation over and over again, which is why I escalated it to the point of demanding the legal names of the parties involved, so everyone can see that they are indirectly admitting that this is just trolling on their end.

FrictionlessCoin disappeared, BlueMeanie disappeared, Hazard is still thinking how to reply, Blocktree didn't want to put money where his mouth is. How do you want me to relax while running simulation?  :D

You know, I miss Frictionlesscoin.

Tip of the hat to you Friction!

I agree, the trolls want you to respond to them... If you ignore them, they have nothing to work off of.

I been googling trying to find out what Jinn Labs is and I reached the following thread. And interesting in this post from 2014, you CfB mentioned the CAP theorem:

https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5545.msg106294#msg106294

I still have no concrete idea what Jinn Labs is (haven't read the entire thread). The website http://www.jinnlabs.com/ doesn't function.

Also is the only point of the following that you are proposing hardware based on a 3-valued bit (trinary) instead of a normal 2-bit (binary) machine?

https://github.com/JinnLabs/SaM/blob/master/src/SaM.java

Also it was eludicated in my thread that (at least under USA securities law) after a period (afair 1 year) then the unregistered shares essentially become unburdened under most scenarios for those who were not the principals involved. I would have to go digging in my thread for the details.

Essentially the innocent victims who are just purchasing and not marketing the shares, do not seem to incur a great amount of culpability. Disclaimer: IANAL.

Edit: although as a "participant" (ahem not an "investor", :wink: :lol:), perhaps you would consider the public perception and valuation impact that would come from any civil or criminal lawsuit hinging on securities law violations. Maybe valuation would increase due to publicity from such? (or decrease, I dunno)

The Jinn project is indeed a hardware processor project, we're developing trinary-async processor.

Jinn processor supports Distributed Computing on hardware level, it can't beat CAP theorem but it can reduce its negative consequences to some degree.

In the sister thread of my securities law thread, someone who claimed to be often consulting with securities law attorneys pointed out that Erik Voorhees escaped severe criminal proceedings only because he refunded all the money to the investors before the SEC could finalize their actions.

So it was much more costly than some $50,000 fine. The level of financial culpability apparently depends on the level of losses and investmentparticipation you are creating. The culpability for jail time is not so limited, especially if someone willfully violates securities law. Again no specific allegations of your case (IANAL). Erik got lucky. Maybe because his scheme was not so willfully snubbing the regulators. Yet you have CfB here acting like his Romanian cohort Mircea Popescu, who I (as AnonyMint) warned the USG will eventually "burn his finger tips up to his armpits".

Hey Putin is part of the same globalist club and this current charade is only temporary and then we will all fall into the NWO together (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg13094145#msg13094145). That is when they will burn your ass over there in Belarus.

Don't forget it was Larry Summers who was over there in Russia after the fall of the USSR to organize the distribution of the nationalized assets to the selected oligarchs who are loyal to the globalist club. Do a Youtube search on Anthony Sutton. Also "Princess of the Orient".

Don't forget who funded the Bolshevik revolution. The globalists are running the show.

Aye, NWO is inevitable. Luckily, laws are not retroactive.

I also doubt the globalists (or even some petty official of the hegemony) has a big incentive to go after you retroactively, but what sort of marketing image does this create for your product that you guys are playing geopolitical hide-and-seek strategies. It is like a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Come on if you want to be taken seriously in business at global scale, then you don't act like a Russian mob. You embrace the norms that the mainstream of society is in.

It seems like maybe you are technically talented, but you are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to play legal games.

Why not just create your technology and win on the merits. If you need funding, then go for angel investment. There are ways to go unregistered that aren't illegal in any major jurisdiction.

I liked your name Iota and your logo. Seemed you have some talents in marketing also.

I believe one thing you can do to comply with US securities law is just make sure all the purchasers of the Jinn shares have been verified to not be US citizens and for the ones that are US citizens have them sign a waiver stating they are a "sophisticated investors". Check with your attorney.

That is my 2 cents. Now I am out of this. Got to get back focused on my work.

Iota is run under EU jurisdiction, no problem for USA citizens here. Noone plays legal games in Jinn, it would be so if I wanted to scam someone, but I stick to what promised. If USA citizens have problem with this, well, maybe they should visit a psychotherapist (I've heard every USA citizen has one) and he will explain that there are other jurisdictions and USA is not the center of the universe. It would be silly to comply to USA laws for a guy from Russian block, wouldn't it?

All legal, marketing, branding, strategy, operational stuff in IOTA is my sole responsibility. CfB is talking about early JINN tokens, not the hardware project in its entirety. We know exactly what we're doing and go by the rules with registered company and eventually 'traditional VC funding route' as we have explained a billion times. This is what happens when you bite the bait of a notorious liar and troll, you think there is controversy where there is none, you think there is lacking info, eventhough the info has been widely available for over a year. I appreicate that you are trying to use your interest in legalities to 'clean up' the somewhat shady space that is crypto, but you have identified the wrong party here. Now we all lay this dead and leave it to the trolls. Thanks

My suggestion is please get your website up with everything explained in one place.

Thanks for the suggestion, but we got it 100% under control. The only confused party here are outsiders and trolls that got nothing to do with this. Now please stop interfering with something you got nothing to do with.

Thanks for saying thanks, but I must point that you don't have it under control when I can't even locate the damn information quickly. Sorry. Okay I will butt out. I don't have any stake at all in this other than to observe and learn as a cohort altcoin developer.

Be sure I don't feel any competition whatsoever from Iota, because our marketing strategies and technical focuses are orthogonal (non overlapping to any significant extent in terms of the demographics and use-case we are each targeting). I am only here to discuss securities law and ramifications as it is applies to altcoin developers and their markets.

Yes we do, the info was readily available for every person it was relevant to over a year ago. That's all that matters. As for the only relevant info now is the JINN:IOTA swap, which is 100% available for every person. Respond to the PM, because this has gone too far.

Apologies I have 8 10 messages in my PM queue and haven't opened PMs in several days because I am busy and I want to be reminded to check it by the notification at the top. If I open, then I loose the notication, so I will wait to open once I am ready to process those.

I don't understand what has gone too far. I guess I will understand after reading your PM.

I am merely commenting as any person who might be interested in Iota would be. I would be curious about the principals, background, plans, etc..

I am merely making a marketing suggestion to you that it would help if that information was coherently explained all in one place. You are free to ignore my "potential user of Iota" feedback.

I don't understand how threatening legal action against your potential users is good for your marketing. Come on man, cool down. I understand this may be a very serious legal issue for you, and thus I better just shut up because apparently you are extremely paranoid.

Geez man, I am just a forum person making some observations and comments. But apparently I touched a nerve.

Let's end it here. I will get around to the PMs soon. No bad feelings please. Sorry to hear if you have such a legal status that you need to be so paranoid. I surely hope I don't get myself into such a predicament which is precisely why I have been doing the discussion on these sort of securities issues, so I could learn and share.

Open source. But again I understand for you, this appears to be a very serious legal discussion. So I end here. Adios.

Let's both cool down. I'll follow up on PMs soon.

If you say that Jinn holders, after the redemption period for IOTA is over, will be "transferred legal profit-shares", then I believe you.  I think you are an honest, decent guy CfB, but in all seriousness, I don't think either of you have any idea of the legal ramifications involved.  Hopefully David is getting good legal advice, because I even though I don't like him, it would still be unfortunate if he was prosecuted because of this.  I know a lot of bad attorneys that have now become bad insurance salesmen.  Please make sure you get proper, decent legal counsel.


My point is of course that you are changing the terms to suit your exposure to your legal culpability.  Granted, laws change and I can see how that necessitated the change from "cryptocurrency" to "non-cryptocurrency", but what is your excuse for stating that people who purchased "profit-shares" (your words) in Jinn are now "NOT investors" after the sale?  The only reason for this of course is an ill-fated attempt to reduce your legal exposure.  This tells me that you are getting bad legal advice or consulted with your attorneys after the initial Jinn sale.

That's right, officially, 2Kool4Skewl was banned from this forum for mockingly creating a thread for my own cryptocurrency called NEXX (a fairer clone of FrictionlessCoin's NEX), but anybody who looks up NEXX can see that it's a total joke in which I didn't steal a single satoshi.  The reason I was banned from NXT Forum is because the mods didn't like my opinions and take everything way too seriously.  I never sent anybody a death threat.  I did send Farl4bit, a mod, this picture:

http://i64.tinypic.com/apfuht.jpg

"Kill yourself" isn't a death threat, it is a suggestion that he commits suicide.  I also never "spammed, stalked or slandered" anyone.  Please, get your facts straight.

Btw, regarding your use of statistics to claim some properties of a hash function:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/34523/is-it-appropriate-to-use-haveged-as-a-source-of-entropy-on-virtual-machines#comment92979_34552


I realize you were only modeling it as a "transformation function", but depending on the intended usage, those statistics may not being stating much. I didn't really dig in enough to know... just saw that from Tom Leek and thought I'd pass it along...

sorry no one care, it's just a get rich quick scam crap that no one would bother. idea after idea of get rich quick scam throwing around and jinno/tota is no different. LOL, the name, it sound perfect. this get rich quick scam altcoin world sound just like fairy tale.

adoption! adoption! adoptoin! adoption! and adoption!
any altcoins of having any mass adoption at this point is 0%. ah, trading and hype only.
remember the paycoin walmart, bestbuy and amazon etc... etc.. scam? LOL

This is different than paycon.  Paycon was a 110% scam built on a mountain of lies. 

Triangle is an actual company, Jinn is an actual attempt at creating marketable ternary hardware and IOTA is actual software not vaporware.  I might not agree with David on some issues, but this is a legitimate company with real products.  You and I might not think that there is a large market for this type of hardware/software, but that does not make it "get rich quick scam crap".  This substantially better than a lot of other alt coins / crypto businesses because they are a real enterprise actually trying to do something unique.

you need to be smarter than this.
paycon, paycoin or iota/jinto are all the same
i don't reply to all the dumb/stupid/nonsense threads that don't mean i haven't read it. the level of ignorance and dumbness in crypto is way beyond anyone would think.

paycoin, gaw miners and paycon. let me know the different, similarity and how they're related to one another. you can just ignore my inquiry but chance is i would ignore your crap just like i have ignored thousands of other craps like your.

the story of this reply is just to proved you're one ignorant moron or just greed/scam have blinded you. you think i wouldn't know what is paycoin or paycon.
i have seen it all and chance i've warned majority of them.

hint; gaw miners is a legitimate scam company, well, just like your triangle.

I've been in crypto a long time too and seen a lot of scams.  Imo, Triangle is trying to be a legitimate company with legitimate products.  Paycoin / Gaw Miners was started to perpetuate a scam on novices.  They are two totally different things.  I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I think Triangle / Jinn / Iota is a good investment and will make you money because I think imo they have a lot of hurdles to overcome.  I'm not an investor in any of them, Triangle, Jinn or Iota.  But, I'm not going to say that they are a scam though because that would be an outright lie.  Imo, they have good intentions to deliver on their promises.

yes, the promises of getting rich first then moving on. i already figured  this is just a shill thread to bring a shit idea out of a rat hole. one crack and i got my answer

The creators of Keccak (SHA-3) proved that a hash function based on the sponge construction is as secure as its transformation function. This isn't true for LFSR and Merkle-Damgard. The quote talks about PRNG, of course, noone will base security proof of a hash function on its statistical tests, but these tests are the must to show how good confusion and diffusion are.

For my German Altcoinblog I have interviewed IOTA-CEO David Sønstebø aka iotatoken. I think this interview could be also very interesting for the English-Speaking Community so I created two versions:
English: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-with-ceo-david-sonstebo-english-version/
German: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-mit-ceo-david-sonstebo/

Yes, my English could be better, I know  ;)

Your reference is iffy...in the AEON thread, in his everyday patter there, smooth shows a lot of technical knowledge. If he were Risto, then Risto's also one helluva techie.

Most people who are here can see that Risto and Smooth are not same persons.

But even if somehow one guy would be able to be so opposite, i am sure that Smooth quarry would not have so much problems staring making profit while quarrying stone in Crypto Kingdom game. At that time, about half year ago, game was run on Google spreadsheet and on IRC.  Risto was rolling dices, since he organized that stone quarries subgame. Smooth struggled so hard to find the magic formula. He bought all drills, shovels, workers, secretaries, security guys, ...   Just to try to get his quarry profitable.  If Risto and smooth would be same persons then smooth quarry would run profitable first week and not after a month or two and hge investments. :)

Obvious scam. Pure and (elaborately) simple.

Thank you for your elaborate analysis.

Iota will be the perfect coin. No scaling issues. Brand new way to make the ledger. Talk about not cloning, lol. It doesn't have a blockchain, it has a Tangle which is much more sophisticated, and lighter.

And they have a plan, IoT

Lol ha ha

Where did you get that. Its horrific!! Jesus Christ! Oh, sorry

"May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;"
Ephesians 3:18 (KJV)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+3%3A18&version=KJV

"ut possitis conprehendere cum omnibus sanctis quae sit latitudo et longitudo et sublimitas et profundum"
Ephesians 3:18 (Latin Vulgate)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/eph/3/18/s_1100018

Greek versions
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B49C003.htm#V18
https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/eph/3/1/t_conc_1100018
https://www.blueletterbible.org/rvr60/eph/3/1/t_conc_1100018
https://www.blueletterbible.org/mgnt/eph/3/1/s_1100018
https://www.blueletterbible.org/tr/eph/3/1/t_conc_1100018

A nice update on IOTA can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2000113.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2000113.0) by Jean-Luc, the lead dev of NXT. He compares IOTA to a scam.

It seems IOTA still hasn't finished the claims process and refuses to even respond to emails from investors about this, but instead choses to reply with threats and KYC measures, and of course by trolling the topic.

When IOTA to bittrex ?

IOTA is not on Bittrex yet, but is already had its great growth and still has good potential in the future. On Bittrex, they offer another DAG based crypto - Byteball, compared to growth of IOTA (10bil USD marketcap) or Raiblocks (2.8bil USD marketcap), it has the growth phase still ahead (680mil USD marketcap). And compared to these 2, it has the most advanced eco system with working wallet, smart contracts so this has good potential.

Are you talking about IOTA or Byteball?

IOTA has a very good temporal advantage in spite of the other ones.

So whats going on with David why did he just drop the Jinn project ?