 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
|
A more detailed log-scale chart also points to the same conclusion that the peak before any 27 month crypto winter would be at least $40k – $50k, with a possibility for $100+k: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/BzKoYDVE-BTC-Let-the-shorting-Begin/That chart also alerts me to another possibility, which is a several months correction from the current level or $40k – $50k level, and then the final blowoff peak at $40k – $50k or $100+k respectively. IOW, the start of the long crypto winter could be delayed into 2019 or 2020. In any case, I think it is best to HODL now. I doubt the current level is the start of a 27 month crypto winter. P.S. given the potential gain for BTC from the current level is ~3X (or maybe 5X at an extreme to $100+k), the altcoins are likely to moon soon and gain on BTC, because most of them have 10+ X gains potential before the next crypto winter. |
|
|
|
A more detailed log-scale chart also points to the same conclusion that the peak before any 27 month crypto winter would be at least $40k – $50k, with a possibility for $100+k: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/BzKoYDVE-BTC-Let-the-shorting-Begin/That chart also alerts me to another possibility, which is a several months correction from the current level or $40k – $50k level, and then the final blowoff peak at $40k – $50k or $100+k respectively. IOW, the start of the long crypto winter could be delayed into 2019 or 2020. In any case, I think it is best to HODL now. I doubt the current level is the start of a 27 month crypto winter. P.S. given the potential gain for BTC from the current level is ~3X (or maybe 5X at an extreme to $100+k), the altcoins are likely to moon soon and gain on BTC, because most of them have 10+ X gains potential before the next crypto winter.
Crypto winter if it ever comes could be due to any one of the following reasons: The 3rd one has the highest probability after we hit the $40k peak. But the bottom would be > $10k. The last (4th) one [the Tether/Bitfinex collapse] may occur during the 3rd one, and may also include: |
|
|
|
I don't care for having the last word.
Okay then you were attacking Roger Ver in your comments, but in the following video he articulates a very compelling and simple reason why BCH is superior: https://youtu.be/cJAAMtqXc5I?t=181It’s a fact which I have stated many times. LN payer can’t send to everyone who has a BTC address. First the recipient must open+maintain a channel (which doesn’t scale well and will essentially end up as fractional reserve Mt. Box hubs). BCH payer can send to anyone who has an address and it has MUCH lower fees right now. Pontificate about future scaling as much as you want (neither scale decentralized!) but here and now, Ver is factually correct. P.S. given the potential gain for BTC from the current level is ~3X (or maybe 5X at an extreme to $100+k), the altcoins are likely to moon soon and gain on BTC, because most of them have 10+ X gains potential before the next crypto winter.
As for the extreme volatility of BCH, it’s likely because of all the n00bs who dump it for BTC because they want to donate their BTC to SegWit’s “pay to anymore” (but they don’t realize this yet like most sheep they will fall over the cliff together because they’re only aware of what they’ve been told which is to stay focused on what the other sheep are doing). BCH spikes because the BTC mining difficulty resets too high (and won’t reset for at least 2 weeks or even longer as the hashrate leaves and block period slows down), then as BTC declines in price, it is more profit to mine BCH and this can lead to a spiral over a multi-week timeframe because the block periods on BTC can become much longer than 10 minutes if most of the hashrate moves over to BCH. They care just about bitcoin cash anyway...
That’s not analysis. That is sheep behavior.
Ya this is what I don't get about LN. It might be great for certain things, but doesn't seem that practical. Also, if you need to open a channel using BTC on chain and given that fees could be very high, then how would that even be remotely useful? You're not gonna perform a few micro transactions by first having to perform a $50 on chain transaction.
Users will signup at Mt. Box banks for a fractional reserve account. And imagine when all that SegWit shit is stolen and all the fractional reserve accounts go poof! Will teach that n00bs about the death of the fractional reserve banking system, so they can learn what cryptocurrency really is! Regarding everyone supporting Core, thus Core must win. The majority has to be wrong most of the time. The question is just when do they get pushed over the cliff. For Europe, that is coming very soon. For SegWit, maybe not until 2019 or so. Do you now understand why my project is still not too late?I know Ver says this over and over about how BCH has low fees, but how is that an argument? Almost every alt-coin out there has low fees because nobody is actually using them and so blocks aren't close to full. When 8 MB blocks are full it will be the same story again, no?
They’ve committed to being the scaling coin, so they don’t anticipate political problems with increasing the block size. Of course if true, that means it’s centralized, but so is every coin. Who cares about the future. Everything will change. Here and now, BCH has lower fees (and doesn’t have the one confirmation block period slowing down to MUCH higher than 10 minutes, irreparably for more than two weeks). It’s the only exact Satoshi protocol blockchain (except for the larger blocks) with major miner support. |
|
|
|
I’m impressed with Roger Ver’s answers to the illicit activity questions. Kudos. As for his point about futures, he’s correct that in a non-manipulated market then futures increase utility and decrease volatility, but given that Bitcoin is a controlled by an oligarchy and the power of governments to crash the price by for example launching a ban on exchanges of non-compliant ICO-issued tokens, could enable the insiders to profit on short and long manipulations of the price. Hopefully it deos. Because some people say futures will affect the price extremely negatively.
Not immediately negative. Need some months for large (leveraged) positions to accumulate before the following manipulations can begin: The 3rd one has the highest probability after we hit the $40k peak. But the bottom would be > $10k. The last (4th) one [the Tether/Bitfinex collapse] may occur during the 3rd one, and may also include:
do not forget that hedge funds in the billions could also short bitcoin with the click of a button.
They need someone to take the opposite side of the trade. So this can’t occur until the futures market gain adoption. |
|
|
|
altcoins are so funny. and i keep saying all of these alts are pump and dumps and they don't believe me. there are still so many people who think altcoins are the good for long term investment! i mean look at these two screen shots! - bitcoin rises, they fall
- bitcoin falls, they fall again this time harder
[…] Agreed over any long enough duration that is true for virtually all altcoins, but altcoins can appreciate very fast w.r.t. to BTC at some junctures and that is when one can increase their BTC if they are very astute about trading. When I said buy LTC at $6, some people thought that meant HODL it until $150, but we traded in and out several times including selling at $85, re-entering at $44, selling some around $60s, buying more in $50s, then selling some (not all) again $150 (at 0.01 BTC). (Some think and maybe correctly that they should just HODL because LTC at $7 billion mcap is still very undervalued w.r.t. BCH and ETH, but they have been decimated w.r.t. to BTC as LTC had declined from a 2017 peak of 0.022 to 0.005) For example, on the recent high some were selling BTC for LTC, and they doubled their BTC if they traded back. Trading alts has tax implications. See also. P.S. given the potential gain for BTC from the current level is ~3X (or maybe 5X at an extreme to $100+k), the altcoins are likely to moon soon and gain on BTC, because most of them have 10+ X gains potential before the next crypto winter.
I'm pretty confident that Bitcoin will remain dominant in the cryptocurrency space. But not all altcoins are pump-and-dumps. And if you think that money will only flow into Bitcoin, I think you're mistaken. For every 40 or 50 coins that are launched, there is probably 1 or 2 long term protocols/suites that will become groundbreaking. Most 10,000x gains are not pump-and-dumps.
There are a lot of use cases that Bitcoin won't or can't address -- privacy, decentralized exchange, decentralized governance. There are entirely new methods for consensus that can, in time, compete with Bitcoin. I wouldn't write them all off, even if I think Bitcoin will capture more value than all of them in the long run. The market is diversifying, and I'm happy to go with it.
Agreed and there are two facets to this: Btw, I think decentralized governance is a lie. Absolutely. I have always thought of alts as parasites that live on the back of Bitcoin.
Sorry but I must scold you for being egregiously myopic. They grow the ecosystem! Just think how many people got interested in speculating on BTC because they were interested in speculating on an altcoin. All the PR on altcoins contributes to the snowball of market mass for crypto in general. Come on man! Not everyone are only interested in HODLing a better gold. Some are interested in smart contracts, decentralized blogging, Crypto Kitties, etc.. |
|
|
|
Medium is 10X more popular. Reddit is 200X more. But Steem is gaining on them faster. The bounce rate, pageviews, and time on site (aka stickiness) of Steemit is better than Medium but worse than Reddit. Looks like we underestimated how big Steemit could get while having a dysfunctional economic model.
I suspect most users do not realize its a scam: I created account with them in last month, however making money from them was hard and now I am realizing from this thread they are scams. I also got suspected why they pay huge cash for such crappy posts on steemit and this thread made me everything to get understand.
It’s not surprising to me that a site where people can do something they do anyway, but have the chance of earning something, is growing. Medium actually sucks in many ways. Additionally it’s associated with Bitcoin and blockchains, so this is a new phenomenon sweeping the world right now and (eventually) everybody will prefer to be a on blockchain version of every site, including “Facechain”. Also the growth will tend to increase when the Steem price is higher, because blogging rewards will be higher. But how does this factor into the price of native tokens? […] but since you're not required to buy coins to read it or post on it, it would have 0 effect on the coin's market cap heh. They could put up advertising and require advertisers to buy and pay in Steem tokens, but that's obviously not decentralized (not that anyone running Steemit cares).
You need STEEM to power it up and vote for your sock puppets and other ways of extracting the debasement of the system to yourself at a proportionally favorable rate compared to those with less STEEM. A system which is extracting value and not generating value, eventually fails when the rate of influx of new participants slows. I doubt that will happen too soon unless some project effectively does everything better and siphons off the interest in Steem.
|
|
|
|
Medium is 10X more popular. Reddit is 200X more. But Steem is gaining on them faster. The bounce rate, pageviews, and time on site (aka stickiness) of Steemit is better than Medium but worse than Reddit. Looks like we underestimated how big Steemit could get while having a dysfunctional economic model.
I suspect most users do not realize its a scam: I created account with them in last month, however making money from them was hard and now I am realizing from this thread they are scams. I also got suspected why they pay huge cash for such crappy posts on steemit and this thread made me everything to get understand.
It’s not surprising to me that a site where people can do something they do anyway, but have the chance of earning something, is growing. Medium actually sucks in many ways. Additionally it’s associated with Bitcoin and blockchains, so this is a new phenomenon sweeping the world right now and (eventually) everybody will prefer to be a on blockchain version of every site, including “Facechain”. Also the growth will tend to increase when the Steem price is higher, because blogging rewards will be higher. But how does this factor into the price of native tokens? […] but since you're not required to buy coins to read it or post on it, it would have 0 effect on the coin's market cap heh. They could put up advertising and require advertisers to buy and pay in Steem tokens, but that's obviously not decentralized (not that anyone running Steemit cares).
You need STEEM to power it up and vote for your sock puppets and other ways of extracting the debasement of the system to yourself at a proportionally favorable rate compared to those with less STEEM. A system which is extracting value and not generating value, eventually fails when the rate of influx of new participants slows. I doubt that will happen too soon unless some project effectively does everything better and siphons off the interest in Steem.
|
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency either centralizes into complete control faster and more so than anything else, or you just have endless chain forks like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc. […] All roads lead to subsidizing your own enslavement. And this is why I prefer metals.
The endless forking means it can’t be entirely centralized. It doesn't mean it can't be centralized, it means it's either sentenced to die from diffusion or it becomes centralized by default. You still can’t grok that the losses due to the debasement of fungible money that fixate your entire brain, apparently conserves no brain cells for comprehending it has nothing to do with the knowledge age. You can’t seem to grok that there are knowledge age effects going on all the time within all that diffusion you detest. Because all you’re focused on is an industrial age model of stored capital being king. This is why metals are better
Not a damn thing productive I can do with gold. Nothing. Zilch. No knowledge creation is fostered by me having some gold in my basement. The only way consensus would be achieved in crypto is by force, the pointing a gun at you and saying you're required to use so and so chain, otherwise everything dies from diffusion (which is a good thing since the noble metals are better in all aspects anyway).
Hahaha. Continue to bet your stored, fungible capital on that outcome and you’re going to have a million times less relatively speaking than those who are in crypto. You’re already 10X behind since you sold crypto for gold back at $600. Are you going to go for sloppy seconds and thirds on your mistake  Note I do think gold will bottom $1000ish, and it could make a run while the next crypto winter is ongoing. So for a short time, gold might be outperforming, but over the next 10 years the crypto investors will see 100X more gains than the gold investors. That is unless bitcoin forever remains some type of small, niche, regulatory arbitrage product for a few people to buy drugs on an internet site.
Transaction scaling on Bitcoin, has nothing to do with the continued growth of Bitcoin. SUBJECT: Absolute best whole wheat cracker I ever tasted
Eating granola that looks like this. I'm guessing it tastes better and has more nutritional benefits than women's diet crackers. Unprocessed grain contains toxins that are difficult for the digestive system (the grain has natural pesticides). Also most granola has a lot sugar, honey, or fructose, which is very bad. Insulin spikes destroy the body. I’ve tried a lot of granolas and also a lot of different breads and crackers. If I say something is awesome, then it is. But my taste and preferences would not appeal to most people who don’t have the discipline to eat healthy. Yet normally the filipinas hate healthy foods, but they seem to like that unsweetened cracker. You‘re kinda on the right track: As for the universe having deterministic or non-deterministic properties, some will try and claim, no, it's not possible for the universe to be deterministic for so and so reason. In reality, it's not actually possible to know without residing on the top plane of the hierachy itself.
But neither bounded nor absolute hierarchies exist in a relativistic universe. Stop trying to model it in terms of 3D or concepts that apply to our perspective of the universe. Move to a dimensionless interpretation as I alluded to in my prior post. What you really mean is that in order to know the answer we would have to be the omniscient entity that is the God we contemplate. |
|
|
|
I see Dan is making a legal argument for the EOS token sale not being a security, so he is essentially arguing that because they did not use the pooled funds for developing the software (which he claims are revenue for a software sale, not an investment in the future value of tokens). The Howey test will look beyond such obfuscations of the economic reality. The economic reality is the investors are depending on Blockone to provide the profit expectation for the tokens. I suppose analogous to the arguments for the SAFT, they’re thinking that the pre-functional tokens are securities (although they claim they’re not and are revenue) and the functional tokens at the time when Blockone is not running the nodes are not securities because Blockone as the common enterprise will have ceased doing the significant efforts. Even if courts and regulators agree with that logic, the pre-functional tokens are clearly securities (as are the shares of a SAFT) and they have clearly been promoted to and sold to USA investors. Also the USA is not the only country with securities laws. And the funds invested were pooled with Blockone regardless whether they used the funds or used prior funds. One of the arguments for the SAFT is that because the pre-functional shares are treated as securities, then the public-at-large (i.e. the non-accredited investors) are protected from the sort of fraud and insufficient disclosure that securities law is designed to protect. So Blockone did not adhere to the protections that would make the SAFT concept worthy to society and regulators, and instead sold the pre-functional token (as an investment contract!) willy-nilly. Dan was asked why they made the pre-functional token tradeable which adds evidence that investors buy it to distribute it as underwriters, and Dan basically gave a nonsense response. This sort of hair-brained stuff from Dan is what boggles my mind. I presume he is thinking that if they have enough money they can afford attorneys and buy off regulators or perhaps even lead an overthrow of the powers that be? In that case, even a $billion is not enough. Dan’s response to the question about what assurances do buyers of the token have is very incriminating in my opinion. Basically he is admitting they have to obfuscate the economic reality to attempt to evade securities law. In the prior response he stated that they needed to create a distribution, so this implies there is an expectation that some group will launch the live network honoring that distribution, and then they mention they will use the $300 million to develop ecosystem infrastructure and apps, yet then they somehow disclaim that that will be connected with this spontaneous formation of a live network that honors the distribution of the formerly “useless token”. Dan tries to imply that the distribution is distinct from the Blockone common enterprise (which issued the distribution in a token sale) and that the common enterprise is just selling open source software token which anyone might or might launch into a live network, and thus implying Blockone would not be the issuer of the eventual live network tokens and also claiming they are not issuing a security for the pre-functional ERC-20 token. This is clearly a premeditated obfuscation of the economic reality. Buyers of the EOS ERC-20 tokens are clearly expecting the live network to honor their share and they are clearly basing their profit expectation on the efforts of Blockone to develop the software that will form the live network. The current speculative trading on EOS ERC-20 tokens on exchanges is clearly based around those expectations of the ongoing efforts Blockone must complete. What are their lawyers smoking? I want some of that shit. My understanding is that the securities law attorneys who advise for example Blockone, are paid to provide a legal OPINION. This means their culpability is limited as long as they provided a reasonable justification for their opinion. Yet the culpability for breaking the law will rest on the principals of Blockone, not on the attorney. The attorneys could be fined or in the worst case dis-barred, but the criminal and culpability for returning the $300 million rests on the principals of Blockone and possibility any affiliates and underwriters complicit in the scheme which might include some of you shills in this thread. Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal nor investing advice. … Anyone care to address these issues here on Bitcoin Forum?
No product, no promises. So only faith and a high market cap based on air (for now). And Dan Larimer who has launched two successful projects earlier (Steemit.com and Bitshares.com). People have faith in Dan. And the features of EOS.io may give ETH a run for its money. The question is: do you have faith?
And probable recycling fraud ongoing (also here and here) has been presented that perhaps the “useless” EOS token sale is being gamed in various ways., which the SEC has already indicated would be a priority for future enforcement action.EOS is an unregistered security that was sold to some USA and EU investors illegally and it will eventually be delisted like all the other ICOs including Ethereum.
Investors are risking legal and criminal culpability for illegal selling on unregistered exchanges.
backseat lawyer by the way Testnet today, and Mike Novogratz mentioned EOS on CNBC, which means he probably has a position in EOS. EOS ICO distribution is also more than half over.
Hmm. Another $billionaire involved as a promoter thus potentially culpable to SEC enforcement. Makes one wonder if the regulators are complicit (i.e. have been bought off)?
Create instead decentralized paradigms that avoid legal entanglement:
It is a myth that decentralized 'paradigms' make it possible to avoid legal entanglement.
I don't think it's a scam. These are all things that were stated or implied before the ICO.
It’s not strictly necessary for it to be fraudulent for it to be illegal under securities law. But I bet the SEC can find some fraud and misrepresentation of material facts any way. They’re quite expert at digging out that stuff and even offer huge $millions bounties to those who will provide inside information to them. Also given that they’re attempting to claim the token sale is not a security issuance, then they will also be subject to consumer protection laws as well. Those complicit in selling MLM bags to greater fools could I guess also possibly be culpable. I mean basically get involved with something shady and do not be surprised when you end up in some troublesome shit. And I hope nobody is spending their profits from all these token sales as clawbacks are potentially a threat. And then if you can’t pay back, you’re in deep shit. So if you’re living in some banana or former-USSR republic, then completely disregard my statements and carry on suckering those in the first world nations into these hot potatoes. You have got to be kidding me. EOS is not even close to being a security. It promises nothing in return and is an open source software that will be released. You sure wasted a lot of words and don't even understand what EOS is.
The securities law is based on the profit expectations of investors, not what EOS writes in their legal documents which do not reflect the economic reality of the situation. Do you see Blockone actively ensuring that the EOS tokens will not have any value? Did they sue the exchanges to prevent the tokens from being listed?Open source does not help them avert the securities regulations, because for one thing they pooled the funds raised and are expected by investors to use those funds to develop the open source. The investors expectations are proven by the comments in this thread. All the SEC has to do is capture this thread. Note I have archived this thread at archive.is to help the regulators. As far as US buyers using VPN to get around getting EOS tokens, 99% of other ICO's have allowed the same loophole. They gave the same warnings with even stronger language discouraging US buyers
Nevertheless, the US buyers side-stepped the controls and thus EOS (i.e. blockone) has likely violated the law. Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice. It will be epic if all those funds get frozen and clawed back. Let’s see which “partners in the silicon valley” take the risk of receiving black money and risk a 20 year felony prison sentence per the money laundering laws in the USA for accepting funding that was obtained via illegal activity. Any other ICO format for a PoS coin would be literally idiocy.
You could have at least done the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors. Then at least you’d have some heavyweight legal research behind you. But then of course you might not have received $300 million because you would need to know the identity of each person, do a background check, etc.. […] I read that EOS plans to show some auditing ostensibly to claim “proof” they were not buying token sales from themselves. But that can be subverted given that tokens were sold apparently without requiring identity checks. Thus it is easy to operate with ETH loans or other ETH the insiders have access to through sock puppets. I wonder when more people will realize that EOS is a scam.
I couldn't find anything that suggests that EOS is a scam. 1. Claiming they are not subject to US securities laws because they claim they did not sell to US persons, yet it is documented that US persons did purchase the token sale. They refused to do KYC to prevent US persons from participating. Ditto for Chinese, Koreans, UK, Canadians, and other countries which have strict securities laws and are cracking down. So they incorporate in the Caymans and presumably expect to hide behind layers of lawyers. Let’s see how that works out for them and those accomplices affiliates like @chryspano. 2. Running the ICO for a year so they can pump hype about being ahead of schedule, cause the price to jump way up so they can sell, then let the price crash back down so they buy their own ICO. Recycling their money over and over again to extract maximum rents from the ecosystem while ending up with most of the ICO tokens for themselves via numerous sockpuppets same as they did for Steem. Running their tokens through Bitfinex in Hong Kong with that Tether et al scam that Brock Pierce is involved with so presumably they can obscure the disposals of the funds to fiat so as to obscure how their extensive organized crime syndicate is buying their own ICO. Look into the conglomerate structure of the parent companies of Bitfinex and climb down that rabbit hole. Even Dan announced in a blog that they would do this admitting in writing that he is scamming. 3. Documented upthread that the ICO is designed to be algorithmically gamed (details linked upthread) so that this is unfair. Dan was warned about this before launch and chose to ignore it. 4. Terms of the token sale claim that the tokens are not be part of any future software distribution, and that there is no common enterprise because the funds raised are not being used to create such a software distribution, yet in videos and promotions they claim exactly the opposite that they are using the funds to develop what will be the software distribution. Clearly all the speculators here expect the tokens to be the tokens of the software distribution. 5. Lying about their technology. Ridiculing other experts (including PhDs of computer science from Tendermint, Vitalik, and myself) who write correctly about their technology. 6. Failing to admit that DPoS only functions properly if the stake (tokens) are controlled by an oligarchy of whales. 7. Lying about the past performance of the technology, even having their shills here declare me a liar when I point about that the Steem system has been DDoS attacked numerous times because the zero transaction fee nonsense does not fund the perimeter nodes of the system. Actually I had always thought that Dan was genuine but just a bit weird/myopic in terms of his design choices and political-economic philosophy. But the premeditated sneakyfastmine of Steem (wherein he wrote a blog in advance announcing they would do that) to grab 50+% of the money supply for an oligarchy of whales caused me to start to doubt whether he was innocuous. But then I realized he did not have much choice because DPoS does not function properly with chaos in voting (he was frustrated the Bitshares governance was not working correctly to approve funding for some of the things he wanted to be worked on) and must be controlled by a like-minded group of whales. And Steem was somewhat interesting because it was the first experiment for onboarding the masses. And the first with a front-end interface and use case outside of just a wallet. So I rolled with it and used the lessons learned (such as my blog mathematically figuring out that voting from minted tokens of the collective can never be fair and must aggregate to the whales) there to guide my project plans. But the $2 billion “useless token” sale and all this distortion of the material facts while ridiculing others in the industry is way over the top and has lowered my respect for Dan even further into the gutter. it seems the price will not rise high until the ico end
Ah I would not count on that. When BTC peaks, then there might be a lot of FOMO money spilling out into alts. And looking at major alts, there are not that many solid choices. So many speculators are perhaps going to look at ETH at $28 billion marketcap and EOS at $0.5B mcap, and somehow equate the two since EOS will have a first-mover advantage higher transaction volume capability (even though it is just vaporware and a lot of work to get to point that ERC-20 tokens are being issued on EOS someday). Betting against FOMO-fever is not wise. It will all probably come crashing down someday, but probably not in 2017. I think the prior decline in price before the recent hype about accelerated progress, was probably the down move for 2017. Alts are about to catch a bid after mid-November. Btw, that looks to be a good analysis. Looks very bullish short-term. |
|
|
|
Anyone care to address these issues here on Bitcoin Forum?
No product, no promises. So only faith and a high market cap based on air (for now). And Dan Larimer who has launched two successful projects earlier (Steemit.com and Bitshares.com). People have faith in Dan. And the features of EOS.io may give ETH a run for its money. The question is: do you have faith?
And probable recycling fraud ongoing (also here and here) has been presented that perhaps the “useless” EOS token sale is being gamed in various ways., which the SEC has already indicated would be a priority for future enforcement action.EOS is an unregistered security that was sold to some USA and EU investors illegally and it will eventually be delisted like all the other ICOs including Ethereum.
Investors are risking legal and criminal culpability for illegal selling on unregistered exchanges.
backseat lawyer by the way Testnet today, and Mike Novogratz mentioned EOS on CNBC, which means he probably has a position in EOS. EOS ICO distribution is also more than half over.
Hmm. Another $billionaire involved as a promoter thus potentially culpable to SEC enforcement. Makes one wonder if the regulators are complicit (i.e. have been bought off)?
Create instead decentralized paradigms that avoid legal entanglement:
It is a myth that decentralized 'paradigms' make it possible to avoid legal entanglement.
I don't think it's a scam. These are all things that were stated or implied before the ICO.
It’s not strictly necessary for it to be fraudulent for it to be illegal under securities law. But I bet the SEC can find some fraud and misrepresentation of material facts any way. They’re quite expert at digging out that stuff and even offer huge $millions bounties to those who will provide inside information to them. Also given that they’re attempting to claim the token sale is not a security issuance, then they will also be subject to consumer protection laws as well. Those complicit in selling MLM bags to greater fools could I guess also possibly be culpable. I mean basically get involved with something shady and do not be surprised when you end up in some troublesome shit. And I hope nobody is spending their profits from all these token sales as clawbacks are potentially a threat. And then if you can’t pay back, you’re in deep shit. So if you’re living in some banana or former-USSR republic, then completely disregard my statements and carry on suckering those in the first world nations into these hot potatoes. You have got to be kidding me. EOS is not even close to being a security. It promises nothing in return and is an open source software that will be released. You sure wasted a lot of words and don't even understand what EOS is.
The securities law is based on the profit expectations of investors, not what EOS writes in their legal documents which do not reflect the economic reality of the situation. Do you see Blockone actively ensuring that the EOS tokens will not have any value? Did they sue the exchanges to prevent the tokens from being listed?Open source does not help them avert the securities regulations, because for one thing they pooled the funds raised and are expected by investors to use those funds to develop the open source. The investors expectations are proven by the comments in this thread. All the SEC has to do is capture this thread. Note I have archived this thread at archive.is to help the regulators. As far as US buyers using VPN to get around getting EOS tokens, 99% of other ICO's have allowed the same loophole. They gave the same warnings with even stronger language discouraging US buyers
Nevertheless, the US buyers side-stepped the controls and thus EOS (i.e. blockone) has likely violated the law. Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice. It will be epic if all those funds get frozen and clawed back. Let’s see which “partners in the silicon valley” take the risk of receiving black money and risk a 20 year felony prison sentence per the money laundering laws in the USA for accepting funding that was obtained via illegal activity. Any other ICO format for a PoS coin would be literally idiocy.
You could have at least done the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors. Then at least you’d have some heavyweight legal research behind you. But then of course you might not have received $300 million because you would need to know the identity of each person, do a background check, etc.. […] I read that EOS plans to show some auditing ostensibly to claim “proof” they were not buying token sales from themselves. But that can be subverted given that tokens were sold apparently without requiring identity checks. Thus it is easy to operate with ETH loans or other ETH the insiders have access to through sock puppets. I wonder when more people will realize that EOS is a scam.
I couldn't find anything that suggests that EOS is a scam. 1. Claiming they are not subject to US securities laws because they claim they did not sell to US persons, yet it is documented that US persons did purchase the token sale. They refused to do KYC to prevent US persons from participating. Ditto for Chinese, Koreans, UK, Canadians, and other countries which have strict securities laws and are cracking down. So they incorporate in the Caymans and presumably expect to hide behind layers of lawyers. Let’s see how that works out for them and those accomplices affiliates like @chryspano. 2. Running the ICO for a year so they can pump hype about being ahead of schedule, cause the price to jump way up so they can sell, then let the price crash back down so they buy their own ICO. Recycling their money over and over again to extract maximum rents from the ecosystem while ending up with most of the ICO tokens for themselves via numerous sockpuppets same as they did for Steem. Running their tokens through Bitfinex in Hong Kong with that Tether et al scam that Brock Pierce is involved with so presumably they can obscure the disposals of the funds to fiat so as to obscure how their extensive organized crime syndicate is buying their own ICO. Look into the conglomerate structure of the parent companies of Bitfinex and climb down that rabbit hole. Even Dan announced in a blog that they would do this admitting in writing that he is scamming. 3. Documented upthread that the ICO is designed to be algorithmically gamed (details linked upthread) so that this is unfair. Dan was warned about this before launch and chose to ignore it. 4. Terms of the token sale claim that the tokens are not be part of any future software distribution, and that there is no common enterprise because the funds raised are not being used to create such a software distribution, yet in videos and promotions they claim exactly the opposite that they are using the funds to develop what will be the software distribution. Clearly all the speculators here expect the tokens to be the tokens of the software distribution. 5. Lying about their technology. Ridiculing other experts (including PhDs of computer science from Tendermint, Vitalik, and myself) who write correctly about their technology. 6. Failing to admit that DPoS only functions properly if the stake (tokens) are controlled by an oligarchy of whales. 7. Lying about the past performance of the technology, even having their shills here declare me a liar when I point about that the Steem system has been DDoS attacked numerous times because the zero transaction fee nonsense does not fund the perimeter nodes of the system. Actually I had always thought that Dan was genuine but just a bit weird/myopic in terms of his design choices and political-economic philosophy. But the premeditated sneakyfastmine of Steem (wherein he wrote a blog in advance announcing they would do that) to grab 50+% of the money supply for an oligarchy of whales caused me to start to doubt whether he was innocuous. But then I realized he did not have much choice because DPoS does not function properly with chaos in voting (he was frustrated the Bitshares governance was not working correctly to approve funding for some of the things he wanted to be worked on) and must be controlled by a like-minded group of whales. And Steem was somewhat interesting because it was the first experiment for onboarding the masses. And the first with a front-end interface and use case outside of just a wallet. So I rolled with it and used the lessons learned (such as my blog mathematically figuring out that voting from minted tokens of the collective can never be fair and must aggregate to the whales) there to guide my project plans. But the $2 billion “useless token” sale and all this distortion of the material facts while ridiculing others in the industry is way over the top and has lowered my respect for Dan even further into the gutter. it seems the price will not rise high until the ico end
Ah I would not count on that. When BTC peaks, then there might be a lot of FOMO money spilling out into alts. And looking at major alts, there are not that many solid choices. So many speculators are perhaps going to look at ETH at $28 billion marketcap and EOS at $0.5B mcap, and somehow equate the two since EOS will have a first-mover advantage higher transaction volume capability (even though it is just vaporware and a lot of work to get to point that ERC-20 tokens are being issued on EOS someday). Betting against FOMO-fever is not wise. It will all probably come crashing down someday, but probably not in 2017. I think the prior decline in price before the recent hype about accelerated progress, was probably the down move for 2017. Alts are about to catch a bid after mid-November. Btw, that looks to be a good analysis. Looks very bullish short-term. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency either centralizes into complete control faster and more so than anything else, or you just have endless chain forks like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc. […] All roads lead to subsidizing your own enslavement. And this is why I prefer metals.
The endless forking means it can’t be entirely centralized. The fungible value will always be sucked into the center (i.e. Zionists who control the reserve currency Bitcoin), but remember my (AnonyMint’s) seminal essay is that knowledge production can’t be extracted with fungible finance. I keep repeating this and it keeps flying right over your head. You may never grok it. Fungible money and the fixed capital investment industrial age is dying. If you don't want to live in an unwinnable casino gulag, metals wins again because shorting to cost of production just gives you a free money buying opportunity.
Only for metals which sit in your basement and are entirely useless. As soon as you need to actually spend them as money, then you will always be right back in the Zionists’ fungible money system.
SUBJECT: Absolute best whole wheat cracker I ever tasted
The Hi-fiber wheat ones have no sugar added and very thick with many crevices inside. Simply awesome with tuna:
https://i.imgur.com/idQNvkN.jpg
http://archive.is/https://www.lazada.com.ph/jacob39s-low-sodium-hi-fibre-cracker-750g-45037620.html
http://www.unitedbiscuits.com/our-brands/jacobs/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s
|
|
|
|
It’s not prudent to take profits on BTC on a peak before a crypto winter unless you pay 0% tax or unless you have some greater opportunity cost or short-term compelling need to spend the funds (e.g. Vitalik didn’t sell the BTC raised in Ethereum’s ICO so development funds decreased in value) or an investment that will rise during the crypto winter (e.g. LEAPs on the DOW or gold bullion), because you decrease the amount of BTC you will have by the tax rate % unless you’re able to repurchase the BTC at a price drop (from your selling price) lower than that said tax percentage. And presumably you’ll find some way to get into a lower CGT situation before you eventually take profits such as even donating it later to worthwhile nonprofit causes (which don’t pay tax on it). Crypto investors should seriously consider how to get themselves into a 0% tax situation. P.S. Note it might be possible to take out a low-interest loan backed by the crypto asset, and paying that interest until you later liquidate crypto at a lower tax rate, may be more favorable, but that is a complex arrangement. |
|
|
|
Four scenarios and their probabilities for me:
- No correction. (10-20%)
- Correction, but hype hasn't ended: 19.xxx -> >10.000 -> to tha moon (40K?). (20-30%)
- Deep correction/crash with panic and "people trapped inside the blockchain", followed by a real bear market: -> down to ~2.000-3.000 , stabilizing at about $5.000 (30-40%)
- Bitfinex/Tether conspiracy theory is true: -> down to $1000 or below. (10-20%)
The 2nd one has the highest probability right now. The 3rd one has the highest probability after we hit the $40k peak. But the bottom would be > $10k. The last (4th) one [the Tether/Bitfinex collapse] may occur during the 3rd one, and may also include: Trace Mayer Predicts Bitcoin Will Hit $27,395 USD By February 2018
OTOH, we're already way above the ~50% per annum average appreciation of Bitcoin and we are 5X higher than the prior peak in 2013/14. So we're already entering nosebleed terroritory, but perhaps we need to hit $10,000+ or some level ($50,000?) where my nose is bleeding profusely before we finally get the SegWit attack, the SEC crackdown on major ICOs such as EOS, and perhaps also the failure of TetherUSD, Bitfinex, and perhaps Poloniex also. |
|
|
|
I don't know what your argument is here. Failure to help the universe limp towards heat death is a human malfunction? I don't know what you're trying to say. If there was a benefit in doing what you claim, then wouldn't you, yourself climb into a rocket launched towards space and then set it to explode soon after reaching orbit to spread pieces of Anonymint around and infect as many random parts of the galaxy as possible? It seemed like you were trying to say there is some type of unified goal of all things to maximize entropy where none really exists. You're definitely not practicing what you preach here or you would have to impersonate a late stage sun and blow yourself up.
Failure in that context is just what it is, as so defined in my prior post. Fungible systems are long-tail fragile (but near-term antifragile 1) because they tend to centralized control. Period. Decentralized systems are near-term fragile (because they can lose focus/organization on some information) but long-term resilient and antifragile. I’m not inserting a moralistic (universal goal) argument. Nature is a mix of near-term progress via top-down organization (e.g. species selection) and long-term resilience via decentralized fitness (e.g. cultural transfer): 21 Credit @CoinCube with pointing that out years ago.2 Note how species selection is also decentralized w.r.t. all species while being top-down w.r.t. to members of a species. Conversely note that cultural transfer is long-term resilient w.r.t. to members of the species but doesn’t necessary address inter-species fitness. Thus the perspective on what is top-down or decentralized is also relativistic, i.e. fractal patterns within patterns which oscillate between local effects and entanglement at a distance. This is what I want to explore next for a TOE.P.S. Fitness requires a relativistic interpretation of reality: " ... an organism tuned to fitness might see small and large quantities of some resource as, say, red, to indicate low fitness, whereas they might see intermediate quantities as green, to indicate high fitness. Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth. It won't see any distinction between small and large — it only sees red — even though such a distinction exists in reality."
|
|
|
|
I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan.
Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is. Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man. The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan is that creature. We should also define failure in this context. Failure is an integral facet of the inexorable universal trend towards maximum entropy. Fungible systems tend towards top-down, economies-of-scale, thus must eventually be destroyed by creative destruction in order for maximum entropy to progress. Yet they are expedient and necessary along the way. They for example harbor stability for a while. |
|
|
|
If your blocks are huge, then your transactions are validated by some corporation.
Even if the blocks are small, an oligarchy is the only possible outcome of proof-of-work, both because of economies-of-scale of ASICs which can’t be avoided with any algorithm and because as transaction fees become the majority of the mining income then consensus does not converge (i.e. is incentives incompatible). So you either pay increasingly bigger fees for onchain transactions, or pay a tradeoff in a less-than-ideal transaction if you want to cater for the masses demands. Maybe this tradeoff cannot ever be avoided because it's some sort of physical limit? (like the speed of light or whatever). That is the trillion dollar question. If someone comes up with something that keeps your track record as safe as a strong PoW network without all the negatives then it would be a real bitcoin killer. What are the chances of this happening anytime soon?
I claim to have that design already (and my angels have read it). It’s described in the secret version of the linked document above (which I may have sent you a link to some months ago) which doesn’t have the second half of the document elided. I would say rather low.
I would say rather high because I’m privy to information you don’t know yet, except I will say I can’t be sure that my design will remain decentralized. And the security model is different. Yet what I hope is: As I explained upthread, I think the only social consensus should be to maintain immutability.
It’s true that I see even flaws in my own design which could potentially cause it to become centralized, but I’m working on the notion that people will be able to form groups of like-mindedness about protecting the invariants of the protocol. The key is for the community to be able to objectively distinguish malfeasance and for each individual to be able to independently and effectively route around it, i.e. castrating the powe of political influence.
The devil is in the details.
You contradict yourself regarding forming a democratic utopia when it is convenient to do so to support your arguments. In the above quote in a separate thread, you compose an argument for what I have been arguing all along ITT... leveraging Social Consensus to keep a protocol static. If you believe such Social Consensus can be obtained to keep a protocol the same (IE. BCH), then surely the same Social Consensus can be reached to change a protocol for the betterment of the protocol (IE. Bitcoin). You can not castrate political influence altogether I’m delighted you went scouring in another thread and brought this up. Because you’re advertising for me. Thanks. You correctly rebutted yourself. The key distinction is using social consensus to keep a protocol immutable, not for changing it. And to do that requires that each individual can act independently to defect from mutations. Also of course it requires that the protocol meet the needs of most users and not need changes.
Until then you have to live with what you have, and BTC is what we have. If this real bitcoin killer that defeats it on every department shows up, we would get rich as fuck since we would be the first to know about it (we would know at least in practice, since it doesn't work until it's in the wild, holding billions of a marketcap and not blowing up, but let's say it works in theory then on practice). Sounds too good to be true, so for the time being, you better hold some BTC, with it's cons and pros, it's what we have thus far. The other altcoin proponents have always some weaknesses that simply don't cut it and wouldn't justify mass exodus from BTC to them. Speculation is wild when some of these show up. Just see IOTA. You could have turned 1 BTC into 10 BTC the other day, during BTC's bull. It shows there's a demand for a "bitcoin killer", but like I said, in the long term it goes back to BTC since there isn't such thing yet.
IOTA is entirely centralized and requires a Coordinator they refuse to remove and let it run decentralized because they know their consensus technology is a (fabulous technobabble) lie. Use google with “site:bitcointalk.org Come-from-Beyond TPTB_need_war" and “site:bitcointalk.org Come-from-Beyond iamnotback" to find the banned technical discussions. Someone who invested in the ICO told me they refuse to release tokens to all and that is why the price is mooning (limited supply which is not accurately accounted for in the Coinmarketcap) and when they do finally release the tokens, then the price may crash. To bring your post back on topic to this thread, indeed we must enter another crypto winter eventually, because the technologies and reality doesn’t quite yet meet the speculative expectations. But I want to make it clear that no altcoin which scales volume transaction volume will have the same security model as proof-of-work. Therefore, BTC will never be replaced as the reserve currency. Yet do note that proof-of-work will ways be run by an oligarchy (which for example in the case of Bitcoin makes it superior to proof-of-stake), thus the security model is one of transparency of correctness but weakness against fragility. The proof-of-work security model is antifragile on the long-tail distribution; whereas, my design is long-term antifragile but near-term less deterministically transparently objective (aka Vitalik’s weak subjectivity but with some improvements wherein I employ statistical objectivity). For example, the point of my altcoin project is to scale into the knowledge age (i.e. not compete for the most liquid, fungible reserve currency unit-of-account). It’s not to actually kill Bitcoin, which would be a silly futile goal: Yes altcoins can already do transactions much cheaper than Bitcoin and that doesn’t matter. Bitcoin’s transaction volume demand will always continue to increase because BTC is the reserve currency of crypto and so everyone wants to bank their profits in their unit-of-account which is BTC.
Bitcoin’s transaction market share will drop precipitously, but its share of the economic pie of crypto will remain very significant and grow because of the reason I stated. BTC miners/whales do not care about transaction volume, they care about value of the transactions and thus the amount of fees that those whose transacts fit within 1MB block size can afford to pay. For example, when every BTC transaction is $10 million, then a $5000 fee per transaction will not be a problem.
I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. You’re wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything.
We’re moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back.
Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is. Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man. The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan is that creature. We should also define failure in this context. Failure is an integral facet of the inexorable universal trend towards maximum entropy. Fungible systems tend towards top-down, economies-of-scale, thus must eventually be destroyed by creative destruction in order for maximum entropy to progress. Yet they are expedient and necessary along the way. They for example harbor stability for a while. Cryptocurrency either centralizes into complete control faster and more so than anything else, or you just have endless chain forks like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc. […] All roads lead to subsidizing your own enslavement. And this is why I prefer metals.
The endless forking means it can’t be entirely centralized. The fungible value will always be sucked into the center (i.e. Zionists who control the reserve currency Bitcoin), but remember my (AnonyMint’s) seminal essay is that knowledge production can’t be extracted with fungible finance. I keep repeating this and it keeps flying right over your head. You may never grok it. Fungible money and the fixed capital investment industrial age is dying. If you don't want to live in an unwinnable casino gulag, metals wins again because shorting to cost of production just gives you a free money buying opportunity.
Only for metals which sit in your basement and are entirely useless. As soon as you need to actually spend them as money, then you will always be right back in the Zionists’ fungible money system. |
|
|
|
And @roach is nonsensical with his tinfoil hat precious metals fetish.
The jewish controlled US is not going to force the rest of the world to use a digital only slave currency instead of metals. You must have forgot Russia, China, Iran, and numerous other nations exist, and these nations are acquiring metals for a reason. Claiming metals will lose is the equivalent of claiming the jewish controlled US is going to start a nuclear war and somehow win it while not being destroyed itself. There are not enough stupid people who are rich for bitcoin to win when everyone will prefer taking metals in settlement over imaginary bitcoins in settlement for their real world wealth anyway. Or as I've stated 5000 times before, it's completely impossible for bitcoin to defeat metals as the base of Exter's pyramid. … You’re going to miss out on $1 million per BTC in 2026 with your silly tinfoil hat precious metals delusion.
You're promoting a cuckold movement: […] I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. You’re wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything. We’re moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back. Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is. Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man. The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan is that creature. We should also define failure in this context. Failure is an integral facet of the inexorable universal trend towards maximum entropy. Fungible systems tend towards top-down, economies-of-scale, thus must eventually be destroyed by creative destruction in order for maximum entropy to progress. Yet they are expedient and necessary along the way. They for example harbor stability for a while. |
|
|
|
You’re going to miss out on $1 million per BTC in 2026 with your silly tinfoil hat precious metals delusion.
You're promoting a cuckold movement: […] I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. You’re wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything. We’re moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back. |
|
|
|
Re: John McAfee Bets His Manhood that BTC will reach $1 mil by 2020McAfee is always bold and getting crazier than ever. He might be right but most probably it won't. If it won't happen he'll just say that people are crazy if they believe he will cut it. It was more like an expression that he risked a lot of amount in bitcoin.
He’s just promoting his altcoin, his projects, himself. He knows that Bitcoin is mostly young males would be fixated on losing their dicks. IOW, smart marketer. Do not take speculation advice from a marketer. Bitcoin is a cuckold movement. It's claimed to be decentralized yet it's entirely controlled by a couple companies like Bitmain and Blockstream - a corporation coin in other words. There's not many excuses people can make for Bitmain, but people are going to claim Blockstream is "decentralized" or some nonsense, or that it's a "benevolent dictatorship". I don't really care what you call it, it's still a technocracy and a technocracy is not decentralized. But how do the Jews fit into all of this? Not Jews. The Zionists. Which is another way of saying the banksters. Mossad did 9/11. The evidence presented by PhDs is overwhelming. The evidence is much more complete and professionally analysed now than it was a decade ago. They probably created Bitcoin as way to enslave the nation-states in a reserve currency they surreptitiously control, which can’t be resisted by the politics and laws of any nation. It’s creative destruction of the nation-states into the NWO. And @roach is nonsensical with his tinfoil hat precious metals fetish. |
|
|
|
I presume this officer was wearing a bullet proof vest. The odds of someone shooting him accurately in the head from that kneeling position with a handgun are about 0 at such a speed that the officer would not be able to react if he had waited to see a gun alight. Handguns are very inaccurate even at close range and in a stationary aiming position. The officer has an automatic rifle! Totally asymmetric risk situation. That the officer was unable to recognize that the suspect was flustered, probably drunk or just becoming so pumped with fight-or-flight adrenaline that he was becoming floppy and disoriented, speaks to the officer not having any social perception skills. The hallmark of seeing other humans only as objects. The suspect was crying not to be shot. Any human with any amount of empathy and perception could detect a very low odds of this suspect being threat, not even accounting for the aforementioned asymmetrical advantage of the officer. The suspect was quite effeminate in the mannerism especially evident by the physical positioning of when he threw his arms into the air. Even the way the suspected male and female causally walked to the hallway indicates they were not threatening. To murder innocents with impunity while being at a very low risk in a job that you signed up for knowing it is high risk, is the hallmark of a sociopath who doesn’t empathize with humans nor take responsibility for his actions. This is what happens when the police/SWAT are militarized and trained for the big T false flag lies, and recruiting misfits. I suspect these sociopath psychological profiles are being actively recruited and promoted by the wacko decadent society which is the USA. And in the video of the officer testifying on the witness stand, the government assigned attorney who is asking him questions is arguing that following protocol makes it not murder. If the government’s protocol advocates murder, then it is still murder. Just because the government has a protocol, doesn’t justify a license to murder. Yet another sign of the decadence of the USA. |
|
|
|
|
