While those are legitimate concerns, I reviewed the 1st page of the posts of randall_boss, Luis_Gray, and Merritt_Baldric, and if they are the same person, they are not making consecutive posts in the same thread (or even in the same threads at all), so I don't think multiposting is an issue currently. He may very well have a history of farming accounts, however if this is true, he would likely have banned accounts because he was shitposting. However these accounts are not shitposting, and I don't see why he would farm accounts with shit posts, get banned, then try again with fairly decent posts.

I can't support farmers who post what is effectively gibberish and other nonsense, however I have no issue with him as long as he is contributing constructively. I would leave him along unless and until he does something that is hurting someone (or there is evidence he is preparing to hurt someone). 

Politicians allow for a democratic republic, that is, the people elect representatives who in turn vote on various measures. Without politicians, we would have a direct democracy, which is very close to mob rule.

Many politicians are subject to pressure from special interest groups. Special interest groups (effectively) contribute to politicians campaigns on an ongoing basis, and politicians want this support to continue. Also, many politicians move on to be lobbyists after leaving office, and they want to stay in the good graces of those they want to eventually work for.  

It is a far stretch for the president to be controlled by a single group, however I would not be surprised if many lower level politicians are (nearly) controlled by a single person/group/organization ("third party"), however each third party likely controls very few politicians.

You cannot break the law (including obstruction of justice) by carrying out a duty (or a right) specifically named in the constitution. Trump has the explicit authority under the constitution to hire (upon the advice and consent of the senate) and fire any cabinet member he so chooses. You can review article II, section 2 of the constitution if you have any questions about this.

---

---

Although Sessions has been effective in carrying out much of Trump's agenda, he has allowed multiple politically motivated (against Trump) investigations/prosecutions to take place, and he has not overruled very clearly politically motivated decisions (such as not seriously investigating Clinton) of the Obama DOJ.

The likely reason he has not fired Sessions is because he apparently does not have sufficient votes to confirm a new AG before the election, according to reports. If trump cannot replace his AG, then Rosenstein would become acting AG, which would be worse than the current situation.

Senator McCain spent his entire professional career in service to his country one way or another. When he was a POW, according to reports by other POWs, he chose to get beaten by the Vietnamese over getting released and feeding their propaganda machine (the "rule" among POWs was FIFO).

McCain often tried to work across the isle, was very well respected among his peers, and I believe he always voted what he felt was right for the country (some disagree with his conclusions).

I don’t particularly want some big company telling me what I can and cannot read about or listen to.

I suspect if this was one of the many mainstream groups on the left who activity pursue violence and harassment, you would feel very different.

The investigation is finding a lot of criminal activity, although much of the found criminal activity was previously known to investigators and it was decided to not pursue charges, meaning the charges were political in nature. 

This should be chilling. News organizations have 1st amendment exemptions to campaign finance laws, they are able to endorse candidates and otherwise provide favorable/unfavorable coverage to candidates (which is very valuable) without having to report the value of such on campaign reporting forms. It is also very common for a news outlet to investigate a story (regarding a candidate), only to not report said story because it is not credible (remember that anything a news outlet publishes will affect it's reputation). I would also point out that major news outlets frequently refrain from reporting favorable information about the current state of the economy and the county, even though they spend money obtaining this information -- none of this is reported on any campaign finance disclosure form.

It is not entirely uncommon for defendants to plea guilty to a crime in exchange for some of the charges to be dropped. My understanding is that prosecutors were ready to charge Cohen with 20 counts of various crimes, and that the plea deal will prevent additional related charges from being brought.

The facts surrounding the bank fraud charges are likely illegal (the bringing of said charges are still political though), however the underlying facts around the campaign finance violations are almost certainly not illegal however. The test of if something is a campaign expense is to ask if someone would have incurred an expense if they were not running a campaign, and if they would have, it is not a campaign expense. For example, if you have a debate on Tuesday, you might get a massage on Monday to be relaxed for the debate, or get a haircut so you look sharp during the debate, however neither of these are campaign expenditures. Further, all campaign expenditures are paid out of the "campaign" so if one were to argue the campaign should have paid off Trump's former girlfriend for her silence, then the argument is that political donors (via the campaign) should be paying for this, which of course is hogwash. Even if one reason for the payment was to help his election chances, Trump would have made this payment if he was not running for office to protect his reputation and marriage, which makes this a personal expense.

In regards to Cohens tax fraud charges, it is more common for someone to get audited, and as a result of the audit, for the IRS to find shady business, charge the back taxes, and penalties, and to move on. My understanding is that the filing of an amended return (that results from an audit, although also otherwise) with correct information will prevent prosecutors from filing tax fraud charges.

In regards to all of the charges, I suspect that if Cohen had agreed to corporate to provide evidence against Trump, he likely would not have received any jail time, any fine, and the prosecutors likely would not have forced Cohen to file amended tax returns with corrected information (pay back taxes). See the deal that Gates got.

I think manafort should be pardoned. He should wait until the Mueller investigation is complete, or at least until Manafort is sentenced and it is clear he is unwilling (or much more likely, unable) to corporate.


Manafort owns a condo in Trump tower in NY, and has likely known Trump for some time before his candidacy. Manafort was previously investigated and the FBI declined to pursue charges.

I don't think there is anything Manafort can say that would be harmful to Trump, however he can obviously make things up. If Manafort does makes things up, he is risking Trump allowing him to spend the rest of his life in jail, essentially for no reason.

Except that US prisons do not force inmates to preform labor that have a net benefit to the state -- inmates across the US have a net cost to taxpayers, and for the most part, people are not tried/jailed for political reasons. The prison system also does not actively kill people, except those who are sentenced to death, and takes active steps to protect inmates from being killed by others.

Gulags on the other hand, were essentially forced labor that provided a benefit to the state, people were often there for political reasons, and many were actively killed by the state. Some people believe the majority of people in Gulags were killed.

That is one way to look at it.

Cobra is a specific person in the Bitcoin community who was around as of when satoshi left. However it is unknown who this person is, as the first time he appears is in 2014. My question is, who was this guy in 2009/10?

Given the very small number of people actively involved in the Bitcoin community at the time, I would say the chances of cobra being satoshi are at least 1%.

There is absolutely no way this kind of transaction will end in tears. /s

You want $6.7 million in paypal? lamo

Is your concern that he might make more money than others while contributing to conversations in the forum?

Feel free to respond to the scam accusation thread. There are multiple people who have concerns about the money they entrusted you to protect.

I am only saying you should be removed until the dispute is resolved (assuming there are no shenanigans going on). I am sure your response with actual information will be a sigh of relief for many people who invested in the project.

If anything, Cobra brings much needed balance to the forum, more of which is needed.

In April, I speculated that Cobra is either theymos or satoshi, and theymos promptly denied being cobra but did not address him potentially being satoshi.

It appears there is in excess of 900BTC missing/unaccounted for. The bitcoin held was moved out of the stated escrow address, and although the blockchain can reasonably confirm where it is now, none of your team has publicly confirmed the location of the bitcoin being held, nor that the funds are accessible, nor has addressed questions in regards to why the bitcoin was moved.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume something is amiss when no one has answered questions, addressed concerns or given any kind of accounting for the funds after multiple calls to do so, and well over a week has passed since a scam accusation has been opened.

LTC Low - 0.0177 High - 0.0216 Value - 138.194 - 168.643
DASH Low - 0.06548 High - 0.087383 Value - 125.459 - 167.48
DOGE Low - 90SAT High 103 SAT - Value - 21.219 - 24.28
WAVES
XRP Low - 0.00003496 High - 0.00005027 Value - 46.33 - 66.62
ETH Low - 0.0741 High - 0.085 Value 479.95 - 550.55
ETC - Low - 0.0034117 High 0.003994 Value - 14.04 - 16.43
Total: 895.79 - 994.00 BTC

---

---

Above is the low and high prices of the various alts within 7 days of the above stated dates the alts were transferred to an exchange.

A review of the blockchain reveals the BTC likely ended up in this address: 36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R from 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z originally. There are small amounts of bitcoin beyond what can be traced directly from the original 1590 BTC raised, however they are nowhere near any of the amounts any of the alts would reasonably have been sold for.

So I guess the question becomes, where exactly is the money raised from the altcoins? The deposits appear to be fairly well staggered, so if there was some problem with withdrawals, the deposits would logically have stopped. Further, there appears to be a withdrawal that can account for a portion of the bitcoin cash, although some of this money is also still missing.

None of the escrows have publicly confirmed any information, and have given what is essentially non-answers to questions regarding this situation.

I believe the underlying reason for the lack of transparency is the missing funds from the sale of altcoins. I can somewhat account for the difference between the 1590 in BTC raised and the current 1169 held in 36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R as payments to the founders, as the ICO terms said they would get a certain percentage after the ICO was over, although I would want more evidence and information before saying no bitcoin has been misappropriated.

You should post the dates of the transfers to an exchange and if you can find it, the /btc price so we can try to calculate the total amount of bitcoin and eventually the amount of missing money.

All information should be made public so anyone interested can review everything themselves.

Think of it this way, there is currently possibly 70 btc missing from the bch sale, and much more in dispute, possibly several hundred btc. What would you do if you were offered 10 btc to simply say everything is okay without doing any real due diligence, especially considering you likely won’t be asked to do something similar in the future? What if you were asked to say ‘after reviewing all the information provided you were not able to find anything wrong’ but were provided little information?

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.

There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.

There is a scam accusation that has been open for a week or so that has blazed’s name in the title that he has not responded to and the issue has been apparently going on for a while now.

He is free to respond now, but I don’t think it is appropriate to wait additional time for his response, especially considering the amount in dispute.