Following what Drew (Mister know-it-all but knows nothing) says about tainting coins does not make the blockchain centralized, I would like you to read this part of a research paper from the University of Zurich, about the decentralization of the bitcoin. This applies to Pac also and any coins. "Coin Tainting
Given that Bitcoin transactions basically consist of a chain of digital signatures, the expenditure of individual coins can be publicly tracked. This enables any entity to “taint” coins that belong to aspecific (set of) addresses and monitor their expenditure across the network. The literature features a number of proposals that cluster Bitcoin addresses, and gather behavioural information about these addresses.
Coin tainting is currently used to achieve a degree of accountability in the Bitcoin network; if an address misbehaves, then Bitcoin users can decide to stop interacting with the address (i.e.,not accepting its coins), thus deflating the value of all the coins pertaining to that address. For instance, following a theft of 43,000 BTCs from the Bitcoin trading platform Bitcoinica, the Bitcoin service MtGox traced the stolen BTC and locked accounts that were receiving the tainted coins.These incidents show that powerful entities in Bitcoin can—rightfully or not—deflate the value of BTCs owned by specific addresses. If these entities were to cooperate with the handful of developers that have privileged rights in the system, then all Bitcoin users can be warned not to accept BTCs that pertain from a given address (e.g., using alert messages).
Even worse, developers can hard-code a list of banned Bitcoin addresses within the official Bitcoin client releases, thus blocking all interactions with a given Bitcoin address without the consent of users. Furthermore, while coin tainting can be used to “punish” provably misbehaving addresses, it could also be abused to control the financial flows in the network subject to government pressure,but also due to social activism. This empowers few powerful entities that are not necessarily part of the Bitcoin network, such as governments and activists, to regulate the Bitcoin economy. Even if all Bitcoin decisions and operations were completely decentralized—which they are not—coin tainting presents an obstacle to a truly decentralized Bitcoin.
Coin tainting can be especially detrimental if coins are not widely exchanged among Bitcoin addresses. This enables entities to damage only a specific set of addresses, without alienating other addresses in the system. Other users are then also likely to “boycott” the tainted coins." I recommend you to read this research paper from here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdfWell, it is not a paper "from" University of Zürich - only one of the authors appears to be from ETH Zürich actually, and not from University of Zürich. To the point though: yes, the ability to ban addresses is an inherent property of any blockchain cryptocurrency out there. In my opinion: not banning addresses involved in theft (or any other serious crime) is not really an option, since cryptocurrency should not be financial safe haven for crime, regardless what effects it has on (de)centralisation. The true issue lies when developers of a closed source cryptocurrency project would hide the fact that addresses got banned since this is, mildly put, prone to manipulation with no transparency (even if in some cases the intention might be good). Beyond that, there is always a question on what authority has an address been declared a "criminal" one and got banned from the network - ideally one would have a court order for that, but which court has the expertise and jurisdiction over a world-wide used blockchain with coin owners spread over many continents and countries, particularly if the owner(s) of the addresses are unknown...? |
|
|
|
 REMINDER: The last (and hopefully greatest!) PAC community meeting of the year 2019 is scheduled for tomorrow! Date: December 9th, 5 PM EST - 9 PM GMT - 10 PM UTC Place: Please join the HQ-Conference Audio chat that is located underneath #conference-questions channel of the PAC discord server (invite https://discord.gg/Bx2HKfy). Please use conference questions channel as your AMA (ask me anything), but please keep it reasonable and professional. These are questions for directors and direct questions to Drew - if you have some reasonable suggestions and we find them appropriate to be read aloud on the live conference call, we will air your question or suggestion live for the YouTube video that the PAC Global team plans to publish. Hopefully until then! |
|
|
|
After reviewing the PAC masternode network, there appears to be a few masternodes suffering from performance issues due to excessive peer connections. The PDF linked below shows the potentially affected masternodes. PAC Global team suggests updating to the newest wallet version available (b5cdfa551) as it reduces the required amount of intra-masternode (or quorum) connections to a moderate amount, without affecting network security. The PDF can be found here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/373842836862533632/652612283532312595/PACaudit-02122019.pdfFor the newest version of the wallet, as always, please visit: https://www.pacglobal.io/wallets.html(Other builds are still being added to this release, so please exercise patience.) |
|
|
|
What???
At the moment the price for 500K $PAC is $103
Folgory propose to sell these 500k at 4/5 times the real price!!!! Who is stupid enough to buy 1 masternode while you can buy 4 on exchange.
Who is stupid enough to shill that scam? Except the one drunk of Vodka, nobody will use that scam, fortunately.
Have you missed the second sentence of the announcement for this service stating: "Prices run as the average price over a time period, so be sure to compare prices. But for those wanting to onboard into cryptocurrency, you now can use your debit/credit card. As simple as that! " The PAC price varied from 0.00016 to 0.001 USD in the last month, 0.001 USD bringing the price of a masternode (= 500k PAC) to 500 USD. The current average price for 500k PAC according to CMC is not 103 but 163 USD. In Graviex, I can get 500k $pac for 105$. Youlike it or not, that's the reality. I am certain Folgory (or any other similar service for any other coin) is not using (only) Graviex to pull prices. Besides, on the next day, the price will be different and perhaps lower on another PAC exchange. And yes, you can almost always achieve a better price by manually looking for just about anything you can buy online or in a store with or without a credit card - nobody is denying that. |
|
|
|
What??? At the moment the price for 500K $PAC is $103 Folgory propose to sell these 500k at 4/5 times the real price!!!! Who is stupid enough to buy 1 masternode while you can buy 4 on exchange. Who is stupid enough to shill that scam? Except the one drunk of Vodka, nobody will use that scam, fortunately.  Have you missed the second sentence of the announcement for this service stating: "Prices run as the average price over a time period, so be sure to compare prices. But for those wanting to onboard into cryptocurrency, you now can use your debit/credit card. As simple as that! " The PAC price varied from 0.00016 to 0.001 USD in the last month, 0.001 USD bringing the price of a masternode (= 500k PAC) to 500 USD. The current average price for 500k PAC according to CMC is not 103 but 163 USD. |
|
|
|
A completely new and unknown exchanges, and already 850 Million dollars...   With only 2700 subscribers  Waouw... I see how PAC Global take care of their investors. You literally ask them to throw themselves into a trap or dangerous scam from a lithuanian exchanges. A proof again that you are so desperate to find a decent exchange that will accept your shitcoin. So you promote scams to give illusion that you are active. I guess Cookiess answer same big load of texts, DYOR and blah blah. But you're paid for that, so... Again wrong, the exchange is not Lithuanian. It seems that you consistently spread wrong information - why is that? |
|
|
|
You can now buy PAC directly with a debit/credit card with no KYC or sign up at https://pacglobal.folgory.com/Prices run as the average price over a time period, so be sure to compare prices. But for those wanting to onboard into cryptocurrency, you now can use your debit/credit card. As simple as that!  |
|
|
|
I think that you are the one who does not understand. Being able to compete with one another is of central importance for the conflict of interest. If a (group of) person(s) is involved with two competing entities, these people will indeed not be able to stay unbiased - helping one entity in many cases would automatically mean "hurting" the other, which is a clear conflict of interest (as they should not be "hurting" the other entity in any way). If, on the other hand, two entities do not compete with one another, such major type of conflict of interest cannot exist.
You wanted another example of conflict of interest Clown...  Here you are promoting Pacnode. What if I am a pacnode competitor? If you are a shared (or full for that matter) masternode provider for PAC, just can simply ask to be listed there (for free) and tell what kind of contact data you want to have there. Nobody did that until now except for PACnode. On the old $PAC website, there was a (short) list of providers (among other important links) - every provider listed there has asked to be added (or removed) from the list. I personally think there is no reason for such a page with that content (which will have a greater reach than a FAQ document) should not contain such information again, once the website is ready (but I do not know if this is planed). In general though, this is as far as it gets when one wants to talk about the potential conflict of interest here. In theory, one can claim that PACnode is / could be at advantage over other providers since it has the same CEO as the PAC Global. For very much that reason I pointed out that the PAC Global is an open source project, so everyone has access to the generated data/products etc. at the same time. Moreover, the developers/heads of various providers can join the PAC Global development server (as anyone else can) to have a more direct access to the PAC Global developers - some of developers/heads of various providers are already there and are getting support while they take part in discussions / bug pinning. A consequence of that was that, for the last fork, PACnode was not the first provider to upgrade its masternodes. Hence, the advantages that PACnode might have are just theoretical ones. Beyond that point, nobody wants that everyone has their PAC in PACnode - this would mean an organisational and technical centralisation of the PAC Global network, which is not optimal from many different points of view. |
|
|
|
PACnode is not owned by PAC Global LLC or vice versa - from a legal point of view they are independent entities which share the CEO. "A CEO is elected by the board and its shareholders." (source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceo.asp). In any case, thank you for clearly going out on a limb to hurt this project - I am sure that owners of over 6000 active masternodes are all happy about it. I personally would not want anyone, who believes your claims, to get involved in the project - that would simply mean they either did not do their research or have little clue about legal aspects of business. Lol... Cookiess the guy from a team which tweet about a fake youtube account, a fake exchanges scam, want to educate me. The same team which are leaded by a house painter, an industrial engineer student, want to teach me what is a CEO and a conflict of interest. Start by educating yourself. Who are you trying to fool? PAC team VS thousand of professor in business who have hundred years of experience. Are you fucking serious?"A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. "For example, if you have to decide if the collateral for a masternode should be increased or NO, Don't you think that your stupid CEO will be influenced by the fact he has a company making money by masternodes? Are you that stupid Cookiess? How could you be sure that Drew will make the right choice for the best of the interest of masternodes holder or Pac company? Please don't put yourself in a bad situation by answering to this question. Let me educate you Cookiess: "Conflicts of interest abound at the board level. They constitute a significant issue in that they affect ethics by distorting decision making and generating consequences that can undermine the credibility of boards, organizations or even entire economic systems. Many corporations require board members to sign a conflict of interest policy at the time of appointment or to declare any conflicts of interest at the beginning of board meetings. Conflict of interest policies normally specify how directors should avoid conflicts of interest. This narrow focus only scratches the surface, given the scope, responsibilities and dynamics of decision making in the boardroom." Now, 6000 of masternodes does not give a proof of you being taken seriously. I remember one guy complaining 1000 NO votes in once against his DAO. This is a proof that at least one guy had 1000 masternodes. Another one ex-team member saying he holds 700 masternodes. "A director occupies a position of trust in a company and must therefore avoid situations in which the director’s own interests conflict with those of the company. This is enshrined in the Companies Act 2014 (the “Act”) as the duty to avoid conflict unless the company releases the director from that duty. This briefing looks at some points to consider when faced with conflicts and how they can be either avoided or mitigated and managed. Directors’ Duties The director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest is linked to the duty not to make a personal profit from his or her position. It also applies to the duties to act in the interests of the company, to act honestly and responsibly, to act in accordance with the company’s constitution and for the director to exercise an independent judgement. Questions of Conflict Does the director have a financial, business or familial relationship with a party to the arrangement that would reasonably undermine the director’s impartiality to the company’s detriment?" I have to try to educate you since you are either wrong or mixing things up - for example: 1. You have been claiming that PAC Global CMO is mechanical engineer (although I have been telling you he is not that). Now, all of the sudden, you are claiming he is industrial engineering student. Please, go and look up the difference between the two. In any case, clearly your "research" yielded wrong results. 2. In the initial post you were commenting on PACnode being declared as a third party. When I responded to your comments, you switched subjects and instead of "third party" you are suddenly talking about "conflict of interest". Clearly, you are mixing the terms up: being a third party and being in conflict of interest is not opposite to one another. The term "third party" is about which entity is responsible for what (in a legal sense, towards customers etc.). For example, if PAC Global board would decide (btw. "The board has the power to overrule the CEO's decisions, but the chairman of the board does not have the power to overrule the board") on something, PACnode (and its board) cannot be held responsible for it and vice versa. They are third parties. As for the very same definition you picked out: "A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. " you mentioned following example: "For example, if you have to decide if the collateral for a masternode should be increased or NO, Don't you think that your stupid CEO will be influenced by the fact he has a company making money by masternodes?" This is irrelevant, since PACnode is not making profit for itself - the owners of PAC are making profit. In addition, there is no difference between a PACnode managed masternode and other PAC masternodes. In other words, every decision which PAC Global makes affects every masternode owner in the same way, regardless where their masternode is managed by PACnode or not. and another example: "How could you be sure that Drew will make the right choice for the best of the interest of masternodes holder or Pac company?" Same as above: your example/question affects all masternode owners in the same way and not only the minority of masternodes which are managed by PACnode and is, therefore, irrelevant. Any other examples? So, as to the first sentence of the above definition: How can serving interests of PACnode be working "against interests" of PAC Global or vice versa? As for the second sentence of the above definition: What duties (which can be adversely affected) are we talking about in our case? Before you answer, please note following: 1. PACnode and PAC Global have no political or law-making power or influence. 2. The two entities are not competitors. 3. The PAC Global project is an open source project - everything what is being done can (but does not have to) be used by everyone willing to do it. 4. The two entities, while one is essentially aiming to develop the PAC blockchain network as a technology and the other is helping PAC owners to make profit by managing their masternodes, are not profit-oriented companies/organizations themselves - they are aiming to work at 0 profit (income = expenses). In addition, PAC owners that use PACnode as a service can put PACnode out of business by simply withdrawing their PAC (at nearly 0 cost) from it. As PACnode is slowly growing, this seems not to be the case - nobody seems to be worried. Also, you have heard about a guy having 1000 PAC masternodes? Right, please stop using hearsay as arguments. More importantly: Could you, please, address someone without insulting them first? I think you really have to read again and think twice,just the fact you said "both entities are not competitor" is a proof you didn't understand anything. Precisely because they are not I think that you are the one who does not understand. Being able to compete with one another is of central importance for the conflict of interest. If a (group of) person(s) is involved with two competing entities, these people will indeed not be able to stay unbiased - helping one entity in many cases would automatically mean "hurting" the other, which is a clear conflict of interest (as they should not be "hurting" the other entity in any way). If, on the other hand, two entities do not compete with one another, such major type of conflict of interest cannot exist. |
|
|
|
The last (and hopefully greatest!) PAC community meeting of the year 2019 is scheduled for next Monday! Date: December 9th, 5 PM EST - 9 PM GMT - 10 PM UTC Place: Please join the HQ-Conference Audio chat that is located underneath #conference-questions channel of the PAC discord server (invite https://discord.gg/Bx2HKfy). Please use conference questions as your AMA (ask me anything), but please keep it reasonable and professional. These are questions for directors and direct questions to Drew - if you have some reasonable suggestions and we find them appropriate to be read aloud on the live conference call, we will air your question or suggestion live for the YouTube video that the PAC Global team plans to publish. Hopefully until next Monday! |
|
|
|
PACnode is not owned by PAC Global LLC or vice versa - from a legal point of view they are independent entities which share the CEO. "A CEO is elected by the board and its shareholders." (source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceo.asp). In any case, thank you for clearly going out on a limb to hurt this project - I am sure that owners of over 6000 active masternodes are all happy about it. I personally would not want anyone, who believes your claims, to get involved in the project - that would simply mean they either did not do their research or have little clue about legal aspects of business. Lol... Cookiess the guy from a team which tweet about a fake youtube account, a fake exchanges scam, want to educate me. The same team which are leaded by a house painter, an industrial engineer student, want to teach me what is a CEO and a conflict of interest. Start by educating yourself. Who are you trying to fool? PAC team VS thousand of professor in business who have hundred years of experience. Are you fucking serious?"A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. "For example, if you have to decide if the collateral for a masternode should be increased or NO, Don't you think that your stupid CEO will be influenced by the fact he has a company making money by masternodes? Are you that stupid Cookiess? How could you be sure that Drew will make the right choice for the best of the interest of masternodes holder or Pac company? Please don't put yourself in a bad situation by answering to this question. Let me educate you Cookiess: "Conflicts of interest abound at the board level. They constitute a significant issue in that they affect ethics by distorting decision making and generating consequences that can undermine the credibility of boards, organizations or even entire economic systems. Many corporations require board members to sign a conflict of interest policy at the time of appointment or to declare any conflicts of interest at the beginning of board meetings. Conflict of interest policies normally specify how directors should avoid conflicts of interest. This narrow focus only scratches the surface, given the scope, responsibilities and dynamics of decision making in the boardroom." Now, 6000 of masternodes does not give a proof of you being taken seriously. I remember one guy complaining 1000 NO votes in once against his DAO. This is a proof that at least one guy had 1000 masternodes. Another one ex-team member saying he holds 700 masternodes. "A director occupies a position of trust in a company and must therefore avoid situations in which the director’s own interests conflict with those of the company. This is enshrined in the Companies Act 2014 (the “Act”) as the duty to avoid conflict unless the company releases the director from that duty. This briefing looks at some points to consider when faced with conflicts and how they can be either avoided or mitigated and managed. Directors’ Duties The director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest is linked to the duty not to make a personal profit from his or her position. It also applies to the duties to act in the interests of the company, to act honestly and responsibly, to act in accordance with the company’s constitution and for the director to exercise an independent judgement. Questions of Conflict Does the director have a financial, business or familial relationship with a party to the arrangement that would reasonably undermine the director’s impartiality to the company’s detriment?" I have to try to educate you since you are either wrong or mixing things up - for example: 1. You have been claiming that PAC Global CMO is mechanical engineer (although I have been telling you he is not that). Now, all of the sudden, you are claiming he is industrial engineering student. Please, go and look up the difference between the two. In any case, clearly your "research" yielded wrong results. 2. In the initial post you were commenting on PACnode being declared as a third party. When I responded to your comments, you switched subjects and instead of "third party" you are suddenly talking about "conflict of interest". Clearly, you are mixing the terms up: being a third party and being in conflict of interest is not opposite to one another. The term "third party" is about which entity is responsible for what (in a legal sense, towards customers etc.). For example, if PAC Global board would decide (btw. "The board has the power to overrule the CEO's decisions, but the chairman of the board does not have the power to overrule the board") on something, PACnode (and its board) cannot be held responsible for it and vice versa. They are third parties. As for the very same definition you picked out: "A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. " you mentioned following example: "For example, if you have to decide if the collateral for a masternode should be increased or NO, Don't you think that your stupid CEO will be influenced by the fact he has a company making money by masternodes?" This is irrelevant, since PACnode is not making profit for itself - the owners of PAC are making profit. In addition, there is no difference between a PACnode managed masternode and other PAC masternodes. In other words, every decision which PAC Global makes affects every masternode owner in the same way, regardless where their masternode is managed by PACnode or not. and another example: "How could you be sure that Drew will make the right choice for the best of the interest of masternodes holder or Pac company?" Same as above: your example/question affects all masternode owners in the same way and not only the minority of masternodes which are managed by PACnode and is, therefore, irrelevant. Any other examples? So, as to the first sentence of the above definition: How can serving interests of PACnode be working "against interests" of PAC Global or vice versa? As for the second sentence of the above definition: What duties (which can be adversely affected) are we talking about in our case? Before you answer, please note following: 1. PACnode and PAC Global have no political or law-making power or influence. 2. The two entities are not competitors. 3. The PAC Global project is an open source project - everything what is being done can (but does not have to) be used by everyone willing to do it. 4. The two entities, while one is essentially aiming to develop the PAC blockchain network as a technology and the other is helping PAC owners to make profit by managing their masternodes, are not profit-oriented companies/organizations themselves - they are aiming to work at 0 profit (income = expenses). In addition, PAC owners that use PACnode as a service can put PACnode out of business by simply withdrawing their PAC (at nearly 0 cost) from it. As PACnode is slowly growing, this seems not to be the case - nobody seems to be worried. Also, you have heard about a guy having 1000 PAC masternodes? Right, please stop using hearsay as arguments. More importantly: Could you, please, address someone without insulting them first? |
|
|
|
The exchange CryptoBridge has announced that they are closing their doors. (for more information please see http://crypto-bridge.org/). User verification is required (as defined by EU law) to withdraw from their exchange. Please take action as soon as possible in order to secure PAC or any other asset you might have there.
|
|
|
|
PACnode is not owned by PAC Global LLC or vice versa - from a legal point of view they are independent entities which share the CEO. "A CEO is elected by the board and its shareholders." (source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceo.asp). PACnode can be seen as a third party service provider - it does not render any service to the PAC Global LLC as an entity directly or indirectly, it is providing a service to the owners of PAC. "Third Party Service Provider means any consultant, agent, advisor, or independent contractor who renders services to the Company, a Subsidiary, or an Affiliate that (a) are not in connection with the offer and sale of the Company’s securities in a capital raising transaction, and (b) do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market for the Company’s securities." (source: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/third-party-service-provider) In any case, thank you for clearly going out on a limb to hurt this project - I am sure that owners of over 6000 active masternodes are all happy about it. I personally would not want anyone, who believes your claims, to get involved in the project - that would simply mean they either did not do their research or have little clue about legal aspects of business. |
|
|
|
A summary of the recent important news / events as described in PAC Global discord server is as follows: 1. The fork went well - the message from Drew Saunders (CEO of PAC Global LLC) from the PAC Global discord server is as follows: " The fork has gone well and the chain has continued to move forward without a hiccup! 700,000,000 PAC has been secured for PAC Global LLC. Here is the link showing the block the above occurred: http://explorer.pacglobal.io/block-height/362250 The first movement of the 700 million PAC will come across shortly as we move the PAC to a more secure wallet location with dual encryption. The last Superblock did not payout as expected, a result of a minor bug in the previous chain. That issue was resolved in this fork, however this unfortunately means we did not receive the 160 million PAC previously approved through to OCB voting process. So we will move 160 mil coins to the proper destinations needed to reimburse that 160 million coins that was never received. We will break down any further movements of these coins with as much detail as possible, including which amount is used for team incentive and major expenses like development and marketing expenditures. The Superblock will continue to be used, PAC Global LLC will request a "refill" of coins whenever needed especially when extra expenses are encountered. Our goal is to continue growing the PAC Global Network and bring new talent to the forefront to help along the way. Thank you all for your support, Drew Saunders CEO of PAC Global LLC " 2. As one nears the launch of a professionally designed website, there is a temporary site up replacing the former site that was created by Brad. Please note that this is not the final website design, they may be small inaccuracies. The website is a place holder until professional design is complete. 3. Before the fork, two small bugs that were reported in the previous desktop version of the wallet were corrected. While this is not a mandatory wallet update and does not affect masternodes, it is a recommended update. If you want to update your wallets or check if you have the most recent version, please visit https://www.pacglobal.io/wallets.html4. The PAC wallet on the p2pb2b.io exchange is now fully operational (next to Graviex and CryptoBridge PAC exchanges). 5. PAC has been listed on a relatively new exchange called Folgory with BTC/ETH/EUR/USDC pairs - please see also: https://twitter.com/paccoinofficial/status/1197883699880243200?s=21 6. #pac-tip-bot channel in the PAC Global discord channel is now reopen for use - @PAC Global Tip Bot has been updated and is now fully functional again. |
|
|
|
2. I doubt that Drew owns 1723 PAC masternodes. Even if he would have, well, then it would be his right to use them as he sees fit. Besides, 1723 PAC masternodes is still less than one third of all active PAC masternodes.
Pacnode is a third party for Pacglobal
Pacnode is own by.... the CEO
Pacnode control 2020 Masternodes...
CEO would resign or step down from all activities that had a conflict of interest. And this is clearly one.
Please see below what kind of influence PACnode has on the PAC Global network / project. In summary:
Pac global is a project:
- Lead by a painter/decorator as CEO, with a mechanical engineer as a CMO... a team not qualified for there respective field.
Liking to paint does not disqualify anyone for anything. Also, the PAC Global CMO is not a mechanical engineer. - a centralized blockchain (Team are able to freeze, or ban coins and wallets) so risk to loose everything if Drew decide it.
Drew has no magical switch to turn of wallets and/or addresses. The freeze is hard-coded in the wallets and then executed by the network built around these wallets. Those wallets were willingly installed by many people, who knew exactly what they are doing, since they were informed ahead of time what this update brings.. Those who did not like that idea could have simply chosen not to update their wallets. In essence, the same way of reaching consensus is used by BTC and by actually just about anything based on a blockchain technology. - doesn't respect their whitepaper. Team have minted / generated 0.7B new coins to themselve, while it is not in the whitepaper.
The 700 Million PAC are to be acquired for PAC Global LLC holdings. This pool of funds is for: A. Employee Incentive Program: • Recruit additional high-end developers • Incentivize existing employees through PAC Global rewards • These coins will be subject to a “lock up period” and not for immediate resale B. New high-profile exchange listings C. Promotional/marketing opportunities D. Strategic partnerships E. Emergency/insurance expenses F. Reimbursement for pre-approved operations/marketing expenses while effectively neutralising over 1000 Million of PAC at the same time (see the point above). - actual CEO own a "third party" service that give him control of 30% of all masternodes so have power to decide which DAO will pass.
The PACnode does maintain over 2000 PAC masternodes for its various customers, but over 1500 are cold wallets one, meaning that the votes are cast by the rightful owner of the coins and not by Drew. Hence, less than 10 percent of the PAC masternodes could be, in theory, affected by it, not 30 percent. Not to mention that there is internal voting system in the PACnode which makes sure that these single digit percent of masternodes vote according to wishes of their owners. In essence, there is simply no situation where there would be a real and relevant conflict of interest. - Team doesn't ask community about big decisions that literally change the core of the project (They did not asked us our opinion before turning pac global as private company nor to centralize the blockchain) so no point to create DAOs at all.
Every time there is an update, the community is informed what kind of changes this update will bring / brings. Everyone is simply asked to install the updated wallet, but the PAC Global team does not control those people or their computers - if the people do not agree, they do not have to do it. If majority would have a problem with an update, then the update would leave the team with a small or non-existant network. So, yes, the team does ask the community just about every issue, not only those who bring major changes. - Brad left the project with 60 Millions with no official explanation
How can the PAC Global team be blamed for that exactly? As far as I know, Brad got his coins through a DAO project proposal approved by the community (but I might be wrong with this particular point..) In any case, since one half of the information you provide is simply wrong and the other half is presented in a way to suit your needs, such effort fits the definition of spreading "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt" perfectly. Besides, the critical point is: the old visions / implementions of the Paccoin project have not performed as wished / desired. Therefore, new individuals (i.e. the PAC Global team) have decided to pick up what was left of it, and try to do their best to make it a new project with an actual progress being made. |
|
|
|
blahblah... you have three options - step out of the project or try to put up DAO proposal(s) which effectively repair the things going wrong.... blahblah
I'm wondering, did you have put up a DAO to give us chance to vote YES or NO to: - the steal... sorry... to make the community pac project your own private project (Company)? - the centralization... oupsss sorry... the 'freeze' of 1B coins? - the mint of 0.7B new coins? And btw... IF someone put up a DAO and Drew disagree with this DAO, how could we know he will not use his 1723 votes against the DAO. You morrons literaly give Pac project to the narcissistic DREW... Well, calling people (owning PAC and/or PAC masternodes) morons or any other names, says more about you than about them. A couple of points: 1. No, one does not have to put a DAO proposal to have any changes introduced, simply because anyone can put up a DAO proposal on any subject, if they/he/she felt the need to have a vote on that subject. You could have done it as well and let the masternode owners clearly state their opinion, but you did not. You still can (in order to try to reverse the changes made) and yet here we are, in a forum, "just talking" about the subject. 2. I doubt that Drew owns 1723 PAC masternodes. Even if he would have, well, then it would be his right to use them as he sees fit. Besides, 1723 PAC masternodes is still less than one third of all active PAC masternodes. Also, one should be reminded that cryptocurrencies without masternode technology (like BTC) do not have such a DAO option at their disposal. |
|
|
|
As posted in the PAC Global discord server by Drew Saunders, PAC Global CEO just over 12 hours ago: " PAC Global LLC is proud to release our Network Optimization Update! You can find Windows, MAC, and Linux builds at our Official Github link below. Special thanks to our lead developer Barry Styles for working around the clock to bring us the first ever PoS based blockchain with Deterministic Masternodes. This accomplishment makes PAC Global 100% unique and ahead of the space in reliability, security, and speed while also performing extremely economy friendly. PAC Global is ready for the future, and is ready for whatever usage our network brings! Please update as soon as possible both wallet and Masternode if you run one. The exact block height scheduled for the fork is (362250). https://github.com/PACGlobalOfficial/PAC/releases/tag/035d4df02 " I have following additional information to share: 1. The update is fairly easy to perform: the relevant four files found in the newest packages have to be used to replace existing files used on the desktop wallet side (and the VPS wallet if you have masternodes). No rebuilding index or anything else should be necessary, at least when upgrading from the last build (and not from older 0.12.x ones). 2. CryptoBridge and Graviex exchanges have updated their wallets already. The CryptoBridge has also reduced the number of confirmations needed to deposit PAC to 20, whereas the p2pb2b.io has reduced it to 10 (but is still in process of updating). At least one 3rd party masternode service (ez-mn.net) is already working on updates as well. I estimate we should reach fork block in roughly 6 days. As it is to be expected, the fork will reset the masternode payment cycle. 3. The automated masternode (for VPS) upgrade script is yet to become available - manual update is possible as described above, in the point 1. 4. For Ubuntu 18.04 LTS version (and some older ones), please use the legacy Linux version of the wallet. One needs the newest Ubuntu version for the standard Linux wallet version. If you need further help, please join the PAC Global discord server (invite https://discord.gg/Bx2HKfy) and make use of the different support channels available there. |
|
|
|
...
Also, as mentioned above: no, PAC is not centralised since it is a DAO/masternode blockchain based project. That means, among other things, that anyone can fork away and do their own thing with it.
lol. Take us a fools. Will you let us control of the exchanges? You fork so take your new blockchain and go start a new coins and don't ask exchanges to update to your chain. It is OUR blockchain so OUR exchanges. Try something else Cookiess... The blockchain is not "ours", not yours, his, mine, it is just there. That is the essence of cryptocurrencies - while the existing blockchains cannot be altered, deleted, claimed or anything else (until they are completely abandoned), their future is not written in stone and can be modified, if open sourced like PAC Global project is, by anyone - and here is the key part - being ready to invest effort/time/funds to do so. PAC Global team does not control any exchanges - they are 3rd party services. PAC Global team, like any other project, is paying the exchanges to upgrade their PAC wallets when the time comes. If you would offer to pay the exchanges to stay at the current protocol / move to another protocol of yours, they would (most likely that is, PAC Global team does not control them!) listen, like it already happened with Bitcoin Cash. I have not said that forking away is easy or for free - it is clear as a day that forking away means starting your own project with your own funding plan. With that said, the key is that you do not have to ask anyone for permission to do so; moreover, no person can prevent you from doing it. In any case, if you are convinced that PAC Global team is not doing things the right way, you have three options - step out of the project or try to put up DAO proposal(s) which effectively repair the things going wrong or take the lead and show you can do it better (= fork away). The latter obviously means you need to have a plan on how to fund it all, and most likely a critical mass of PAC / masternode owners to back you up. |
|
|
|
As for the over 1 billion PAC being "burned" with the same upgrade: "The 1 billion + coins being "burned" or "removed" from the network are coins that we discovered while doing intense investigation. Exchanges that refuse to update to PAC Global, exchanges that have been hacked, scammer activity addresses, 51% attack activity addresses, all of these have been compiled together and in the update release it effectively bans them and their coins from EVER interacting on the chain again. They cannot send coins, cannot make Masternodes, cannot vote on proposals or impact our markets in any way. Bad actors CAN be disciplined in crypto. This is not a world where criminals can get away with stealing." A number of other themes have been and are being discussed in the PAC Global discord server. For any inquiries please feel free to contact Drew at: DrewSaunders@pacglobal.ioFor support please contact: Helpdesk@pacglobal.ioAre you saying that you are about to take control of wallets and coins?  Are you fucking serious? Is Drew the dictator want also to take control and centralize the blockchain? Lot of red flags are rising day after day from Pac project. What are you taking about? If masternode owners do not want to go through this update, they can either stay on the current protocol or organise and fork away differently. If a majority of masternodes would decide against it (regardless of what exchanges would do), Drew and the PAC Global team would have no chance of having a working network of any size after this (or any other) fork. Hence, people decide, foremost the masternode owners decide what is "allowed" or not to be done with the PAC Global network, not Drew, the team, me or you. So, from previous discussions you seem not to want report scammers to the authorities and you do not agree with excluding scammers from the network... what do you propose to do then about them? You are just a manipulator saying "No authorities! No scam!" while you perfectly know it is hard to arrest scammers in the crypto because it is wild west. And your behavior convinced me you are involved personaly in this scam cookiess. People not being punished doesn't mean they are not scamming, otherwise the world will be 100% safety. Yes I report everything to authorities, their answer most of the time is "thanks for reporting, we will investigate". Even CMC. And Now you are playing the dictator's game, basically "You want safety! Let us take control of everything"... Security against freedom. That's what you are saying! The fact is "PAC IS CENTRALIZED NOW".I will not waste my time debating with you Cookiess, as I have noticed you are in bad faith. I prefer to continue my investigations. Some good news soon... Well, lol, anyone clearly not agreeing with you on this or other subjects is a scammer, am I understanding you correctly? Please be reminded that for a proper investigation you need to be unbiased, whereas you have already made your mind up when it comes to PAC. With such an approach, you will likely find "evidence" of misconduct no matter what the truth is. I still do not understand why you are against all available possibilities to fight scammers. The authorities will not budge much if someone steals you 100 or even 10000 USD, that is true - they will move though if you provide enough evidence that a large scale event with hundreds or thousands of people involved / affected and much higher amounts of money is taking / has taken place: you are claiming exactly that. In any case, you may do as you wish, I have never said you should stop going after what you think is right. Ideally, though, you should present the case when you have gathered all information and after you are done with your investigations, not indications and individual interpretations in the middle of it. These final results should be presented to the authorities and not only to the public. Also, as mentioned above: no, PAC is not centralised since it is a DAO/masternode blockchain based project. That means, among other things, that anyone can fork away and do their own thing with it. |
|
|
|
As for the over 1 billion PAC being "burned" with the same upgrade: "The 1 billion + coins being "burned" or "removed" from the network are coins that we discovered while doing intense investigation. Exchanges that refuse to update to PAC Global, exchanges that have been hacked, scammer activity addresses, 51% attack activity addresses, all of these have been compiled together and in the update release it effectively bans them and their coins from EVER interacting on the chain again. They cannot send coins, cannot make Masternodes, cannot vote on proposals or impact our markets in any way. Bad actors CAN be disciplined in crypto. This is not a world where criminals can get away with stealing." A number of other themes have been and are being discussed in the PAC Global discord server. For any inquiries please feel free to contact Drew at: DrewSaunders@pacglobal.ioFor support please contact: Helpdesk@pacglobal.ioAre you saying that you are about to take control of wallets and coins? Are you fucking serious? Is Drew the dictator want also to take control and centralize the blockchain? Lot of red flags are rising day after day from Pac project. What are you taking about? If masternode owners do not want to go through this update, they can either stay on the current protocol or organise and fork away differently. If a majority of masternodes would decide against it (regardless of what exchanges would do), Drew and the PAC Global team would have no chance of having a working network of any size after this (or any other) fork. Hence, people decide, foremost the masternode owners decide what is "allowed" or not to be done with the PAC Global network, not Drew, the team, me or you. So, from previous discussions you seem not to want report scammers to the authorities and you do not agree with excluding scammers from the network... what do you propose to do then about them? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
