Please man. You are just wasting our time. You clearly have a bias because you aren't making any sense. I don't have time to repeat the same logic over and over. You are being redundant.

Your strawman analogy example does not create shares of a common enterprise which people can buy.


Disagree. The speculation can be in the ecosystem (new ventures), where it should probably be so it is decentralized and creating network effects and not dumping the speculation into the nascent open source Inverse Commons where it puts the entire fledgling ecosystem at risk. After the Inverse Commons (the coin) becomes mature then everyone can speculate as they do for Bitcoin. If some nascent adopters decided to hold their tokens for the long-term, well maybe they will buy a condo instead of pizza, but if most of them are thinking that way then we are not in the early days of Bitcoin where people were focused on users and developing the ecosystem.

This is precisely what I will do different than the other altcoins before me. The key is to build the platform for the ecosystem. And yet you wonder why I don't want to join those projects which have demonstrated to me they don't have a clue about marketing nor shipping software to 3 million users (inflation-adjusted) as I did.


Observe me over the next year.


He settled by paying back all the money and getting a plea bargain. Everything he did was illegal. And do it again, they SEC will come after you.


Good. I don't need to convince you. You are grown up. You've been duly warned.

Afaik no. To comply with the Jobs act afaik you must register and I believe there are requirements on investors such as 1 year hold periods. It may be another way to do a crypto ICO that is clearly legal, but it will come with some downsides in terms of hold period, filing reports, and admitting clear culpability for disclosure. But I need to study more on the details before I can say with 100% confidence.

So might be an improved option, but probably won't change my interpretation for those who are not using this new option.

If that promoter is able to create reasonable expectations of investment gains, then he could be considered the security for the investors expectations and thus yes it could be illegal if unregistered and sold to the general public, and that promoter could be culpable if the expectations were predominately due to his promotions and efforts.

I mean how much more simple can it be? The securities law is designed to protect naive investors with proper disclosure. Culpability is for those who attempt to circumvent that purpose of the law by any means.


You keep trying to wiggle away from central finding of the Howey test, by inserting irrelevant tangential circumstances. Please re-read my prior post which was a reply to kazuki49.

Those actions you cite could be considered some proof of targeting users, but that would need to be preponderance of what is going on and real testers, ecosystem developers, and users forming those who are purchasing tokens. If instead the community are clearly investors and speculators (which is so obviously clear for Monero and Aeon and most every other altcoin if not all), then the fact that the developers have a long-term focus to improve the code and spreading the issuance out over a longer period is irrelevant to the preponderance of the fact that investors are buying with reasonable expectations of gain.

The court will look at the reality, not some ideological arguments that attempt to obfuscate reality.

  
That is not logic because it a non-inclusive logic. For example, not contributing to an open source project doesn't automatically take something that was illegal, and make it legal. Mentioning either of those statements is irrelevant to what fulfills the Howey test.

Sorry you are constructing strawman after strawman hoping that your entire thesis of investing in altcoins won't come crashing down. Reality is hard to swallow.

Be very careful with arguing logic with an expert programmer. Logic is our bread and butter.

Please reread my post which summarizes what I think the key finding of the SEC vs. Howey Supreme Court decision clarified. It is only what the prospective investors think that matters. If they think the community is creating reasonable expectations of investment gains, then it doesn't need to be only the developers who are creating the implied investment contract. Perhaps with PoW distribution it might be more difficult to prove the developers are culpable if it is found that the coins are illegal, that is if the developers were not participating in the "promotion or efforts" that lead to the "reasonable expectation of profits or gains from thereof". But that doesn't absolve the community creating the implied investment contract and thus making the coins illegal and thus anyone participating with (especially those promoting) illegal coins therefor culpable. I argue if the developers continue with a community that is promoting to investors such that the coins are arguably illegal, then the developers need to quit else potentially be participating in an illegal common enterprise.

So many of your key community members here talking about investing. Sorry fail. Where are the users using it as a currency? Too many talk about HODLing, "only buyers no sellers", etc.. It is only my suggestion to talk only about use and never about investment at all, not even to disclose your holdings, plans, etc.. If your community is truly users then that should be possible. The fact that it isn't the normal mode of discussion should be instructive in any court proceeding.

Appears I can cross Iota off my list of competing technologies.

I think you do not understand the law.

Nothing you have quoted from the SEC guidance has disavowed nor vacated the law that is explained at the above link.

Btw, I don't think disclosing his holdings and plans helps against the law I cited. And I think it actually makes it worse as it is more representations to potential investors that americanpegasus is a whale who is buying and HODLing.

Due the quoted Prisoner's Dilemma that I outlined (for which I believe your response was inadequate for the following reason) in that no one has an incentive to be first to lengthen the tips, the game theory is going to devolve to everyone agreeing to blacklist double-spends without actually abandoning branches containing conflicting transactions where they have transactions.The Prisoner's Dilemma is only solved in favor of lengthening if double-spends won't cause a branch to be illegitimate. Thus the branches will diverge while they lengthen. Your preferred algorithm will not hold over time. CAP's theorem is guidance, and now you just need to model it or put it into the wild and observe.

You might try to formulating some fencing or "longest-path" algorithm, but you are just going to end up back at a block chain (giving up Partition tolerance) once you have solved the Consistency and Access issues.

Any way if I am wrong, then kindly be the first to disprove the CAP theorem. Good luck with that.

I have seen a statement up thread by one of you three about branches being able to remerge.

I think it is pretty clear from the white paper and general discussions that there was assumed to be some magic here without explaining that you must give up something when restoring the partition intolerance of a block chain.

So I just want you all to enumerate what you are giving up specifically. Seems like you are still working this out, so I am just giving you some food for your thought process.

Peer review. And I think readers need to read review and see your responses.

Okay good, you are doing what I had explained to do. Who was first to document this strategy in public myself or you or some other?

But unless you actually enforce the vestment amounts to a small amount per individual, then you might have a difficult time arguing in court that you were not marketing to investors, given where you've announced this coin and especially if you are allowing an individual pay $5000 for your software.

For example to deal with the double-spend attack stdset has been discussing, to maintain consistency and access you must do something to "fence off" partitions (branches) and give up P.

The block chain creates one partition which is the longest chain. Thus it can maintain C and A. You will have to give up one of C, A, or P. The promise of DAG was to not give up any of those.

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged (thus losing global consistency of value), same as what will happens to Bitcoin if it is forked (even by network partitioning).

This is a serious fundamental theorem that all of us designing consensus algorithms face.

If they did not register with the SEC, then I think their models are illegal, unregistered securities, but IANAL, so consult your own. You can read my complete analysis at the thread I linked to. The key point is marketing to investors.

My interpretation of USA securities law, it is very likely you are.

Every metric is a relative perspective. This one like all others in science have only relativistic truth. Given the very few degrees-of-freedom, one shouldn't expect it to hold sway over complex factors in personality. I think it was Einstein who said chose the question to fit the answer you desire.

Longest-chain. There can only be one. Reverting to a block chain, except that chain grows per TX and not per block. But afaics double-spend coherence and complex game theories thereof would require you to violate the CAP theorem.





Contrary to my initial upthread enthusiasm, I am leaning towards this DAG concept can not work because it appears to attempt to defeat the CAP (Brewer's) Theorem. Before I was thinking the multiple (multifurcating) branches are orthogonal, but it becomes clearer from the game theory issues quoted above, that there are complex dependencies. Analogous issues as the following appear to apply to DAG:

Advice accepted. So true. I am learning.

Yup. Astute. I lose too much time on these forums. Self-imposed shut down to foruming is approaching. Need to finish my analysis of Iota and eMunie first.

Incorrect assumption. I could see perhaps keeping some source code for the full nodes (obviously it doesn't make much sense to close the light client source code) closed for a very short period of time if that proves necessary to gain sufficient moment so the project will have enough users and not be siphoned off by copycats. But of course to get to open source and collaboration with other developers asap is a critical need and priority. I already wrote in the other Ion thread that I had tried in June and July to formulate working relationships with other developers to co-develop the coin (and smooth was one of the developers I courted), but the problems that arose around differences of opinion and strategy (and just "culture"), thus I realized I was losing more time searching for amenable and compatible developers than I would gain by simply coding and not wasting time (arguing as I am doing here and now). Also it is very difficult to get the funding aligned with co-developers. Smooth I think has the situation he wants with Aeon, so why interfere when all I have at the moment is vaporware. I didn't want to be responsible to another person who has already good opportunities. Even I asked Iota about collaboration but when it became clear there are 3 of them (mouths to feed) already and one is a marketer and one is only a mathematician, then I agreed to end that idea immediately. They are better off to continue to sell a pump to investors as appears they are planning to do (they can raise more $ that way and fund their Jinn hardware strategy or at least that is their stated justification). My strategy is not to pump up the crowd sale, and to aim for user adoption as the focus. From that, everything else follows in spades.

Dude you are hallucinating. My username history has nothing to do with coin names. I never held any coin but BTC in my entire life thus far. You are a liar and you are breaking the law by writing false statements attempting to destroy my reputation with lies.