The former is not the same as the latter. I have not sold anything about my own coin yet. Stop your lying. Selling my contracting services privately on some technical work I did is perfectly legal and normal activity for any software developer. And go make these posts in an appropriate thread. You are entirely disrespecting the topic of this thread. How many times have you been warned, then you reply you don't care about the topic of the thread. Are you trying to get banned from the forum.

Who has bought into anything I have done? You are lying. So the scammer is you apparently.

What is wrong with you man? Are you delusional and insane? You continue to accuse me of things I have never done. Please take your meds.

You clearly have mental problems. How many times have I explained to you that I am not yet at testnet and I am not accepting any sales on my token project before testnet. As for selling my Zero Knowledge Transactions design and offering to help other altcoins implement it, the sale has already taken place with a private party.   I no longer have cash flow issues.

It was entirely off-topic (noise) to this thread which is why I reported to the moderator and both your comments and mine replying to you were deleted. And I will report your off-topic post again. This thread is not about me nor my coin. You are posting your personalized slander of me in the wrong thread. Did you not even comprehend this thread is about analyzing the law for regulation of securities as it applies to crypto-tokens.

I agree with your logic. I didn't intended to imply otherwise. I inserted a parenthetical in the last paragraph of my prior post to clarify.

Also I didn't intend to imply that other forms of investment fraud wouldn't still apply to Bitcoin, such as insider trading, etc.. I was only writing specifically to whether crypto-coins are illegal securities or not securities at all.


Agreed. Note Ponzi schemes are not the only activity that cause shares of crypto-currency to fall under the securities law, as I explained about the implied investment contract.


You are reinforcing my point! If you are predominantly/prominently discussing with the community about speculating on the exchange value of the created tokens, and not exclusively (or at least predominantly) to users of the currency, then evidently you have not yet created a currency and have instead created a share in an investment and thus an implied investment contract.


You have shown nothing to contradict my interpretation, and you have shown no statements nor actions from the SEC that contradict my interpretation. In fact, I clearly highlighted in bold, red from your quote of the SEC and they specifically disavow the assumption that their regulatory powers are inhibited in the case of cryptocurrencies.


The law is clear enough. They allow you to willfully incriminate yourself in the meantime.

How much simpler can the SEC vs. Howey Supreme Court decision be? Promote to investors shares in any common enterprise (i.e. any collective) that are unregistered then go to jail. Enjoy.

Continuing to clarify my understanding of the law and case law I read briefly. Disclaimer is IANAL, so consult your own attorney.

In my reading and remember the disclaimer that IANAL, the existence of a "centralized issuer" (or assumption that "issuer" must directly receive the buyer's funds) does not appear to be the key finding of the 1946 SEC vs. Howey Supreme Court decision which clarified the meaning of "investment contract" from the original Securities Act of 1933.

It appears that the implicit "investment contract" (which is created when the shares are offered and/or issued) is created when the investor is able to form "reasonable expectations" of future profit or gain that depend on or are based on the promotion or efforts of the entity which is in the position to create this level of expectation. In other words, if there are shares issued (by any means) and there are individuals or legal entities who for what ever reason are interpreted by investors to be capable of creating a reasonable expectation of future gains or profits from the said shares, then those shares are now securities because in effect the investors's capital (and expectations thereof) are being secured by these "promotion or efforts". This is all of course w.r.t. to a "common enterprise" meaning for example in our case a cyptocurrency, but the decision specifically disavows that any particular circumstances would weaken the general rule, so the cryptocurrency's protocol and issuance between decentralized or centralized is irrelevant. What is relevant is whom do investors believe is in control and who was actually in control? Evidence that can be presented would include the ability to move prices in small markets with their pronouncements (a form of promotion), being a lead developer or in the lead developers' primary channel of public communication and making representations to potential investors in the coin.

In short, my interpretation is that if you want your cryptocoin to not be an illegal unregistered, investment security (due to an implied investment contract), then the developers and affiliates or close associates and key community members, should make no discussions at all about investment in the coin except to state that the coin is not for investors and losses should be expected. And to instead communicate with users and potential users of the coin. And if any money is raised from the community, make sure this clearly selling software to users where the tokens are required to use the software and protocol (or donations for development of the software with no tokens given in return) and that the project is for users of the software. Avoid any association with investing, except of course for free market activities that no one can control, e.g. that investors buy your tokens on a decentralized exchange. And all public communication should disclaim any investing purpose nor expectation of gains.

What is not clear to me is that if when the shares are created (i.e. issued) there is no implied investment contract and thus the shares do not fall under any regulation of the Securities Act, but later some outside party is able to create "promotions or efforts" that cause new buyers of those existings shares to have "reasonable expectations" of gain, do those pre-existing shares become securities. So far until I see case law otherwise or other convincing arguments, I assume the courts would rule that only the state at the time of issuance matters. But as in most things, it will probably depend on the specific circumstances. For example, if the developer is not able to squelch such outsider from creating such expectations amongst the investment community by for example threatening to do actions would could destroy the perceived control of the outsider (e.g. threatening to quit developing so the outsider's promotion is ignored and refuting the claims of the outside promoter), then perhaps it can be said the developer has been derilict in maintaining the perception that the software is not for investors. And note that the typical lockup period for shares that are unregistered, legal securities is 1 year, so after 1 year I think the developer wouldn't have to do anything assuming that the original issuance (and perhaps also the entire 1 year hence) was devoid of any implied investment contracts on those shares.

Again to make sense of this, refer to my reply to americanpegasus, wherein I explained that when shares are issued/created and they are securities (due to for example an implied investment contract), then all those shares transferred (by any means including mining) that did not comply with the exemptions to registration, are ostensibly ILLEGAL forever (but I have yet to verify this except the law doesn't seem to make sense otherwise). Any one who touches those (especially those promoting them to other investors) is apparently committing wire fraud and other crimes, but please check with an attorney to verify. Whereas, when shares are issued/created and there is no implied investment contract (only a relationship with users of the software in our crypto-token application as I suggest), then my interpretation is these are not securities and thus not illegal even if they are transferred in any quantity to users (of our software our case) who would otherwise be non-accredited and non-sophisticated investors if there did exist an implied investment contract.

Once the cryptocurrency has become bigger and uncontrollable by any group (and assuming the original issuance did not create illegal, unregistered securities) and no one believes any one can effect the price appreciably with any efforts or promotion, then investing discussions can be freely held without any risk of creating an implied investment contract as specified above. I do believe Bitcoin has reached this level. The altcoins not yet. And the way the altcoins are being managed, all of them so far are probably unregistered, ILLEGAL, investment securities.

Then you should understand trademark law and not make a silly statement that belies understanding of trademark law (and lack of even a google search to see how many entities use Sync). Had you not added the condescending "Inconvenient truths...", then I wouldn't have been irked and just assumed you were rushed. But when someone is condescending, they have an extra burden to write correct statements, especially now we learn this is your claimed area of expertise.


I appreciate that.

What I don't appreciate are Monero crowd who seem to think they have a monopoly on the future of altcoins. I prefer to give respect to each other and let everyone innovative, compete, and share where it is synergistic. If we can do that, I then have no reason to be irked.


It is difficult to discern that when people insert challenges to mutual respect, such as "inconvenient truths...". Of course no one is perfectly objective all the time, so it helps just to be respectful when making a suggestion. Notice how when I tried to give you a heads up on the risks of promoting crypto investment securities, I was very respectful, but you took a stab at me (though you appeared to make it a joke, yet at my expense, so let it go but did flag it as a potential sign of an ego problem). After you continued on, I was forced to become a bit more forceful, yet I was not trying to lose respect, while I was put in an undesirable position because you were refusing to take the time to understand what is covered in detail already (I don't like having to repeat myself too many times because of the cost of my time), so either I had to ignore or invest considerable more time to explain (than I wanted to invest in that on your behalf because I think I already explained it).
 

I have been all over that thread and even asking technical challenges they can't adequately answer and suggesting how to make their technology work correctly.


Again your condescending incorrect assumptions about me in general and my motivations in particular exhibit something about your "shoot from the hip" before doing adequate verification and research style that is becoming apparent in numerous examples.

I have explained numerous times that an existing block chain can not work with my design, and The Mythical Man Month when dealing with spontaneous iterative design creativity means it is much more likely to be more efficient to do it myself than be bogged down in a swamp of communications which is the case with any group effort.

It is also about retaining my creative flexibility. It is also about not throwing pearls at swine, meaning don't prematurely destroy value that can be used to fund and drive more creativity.

My job now is to teach you all a lesson about which stage open source excels and which it doesn't.

Really the issue is your ego (as evident by the joke you made at my expense which is linked above), not mine. I have explained this up thread by quoting Eric Raymond's essay "Ego is for little people", yet as usual I am incited to repeat myself. I am just going to have to learn to ignore those "little people" who have the ego problem Eric explained. Sorry that is not an egotistical statement. Suggest you read his essay.

Edit: note it isn't really a big deal. We can just let slide off our backs. I can respect you. I really don't prefer to cultivate acrimony and disharmonious ambiance (drags on my preferred cheerful, optimistic, passionate outlook).

I have a new idea for the smallest unit (which may become the most widely used unit given the potential microtransactions focus), where English speakers could use 'zen' and Chinese/Japanese could use 'chan' (ch'an). Or any person could use either. The thinking behind this is that massive convergence between the youthful westerners and the Asians coming over the next 2 decades, as Armstrong's models clearly say that Asia (Singapore and Shanghai) will the financial capital of the world by 2032 (replacing respectively London and New York). The prediction is the west will collapse economically and socially, and the wealth will be in Asia. We can see this trend in motion with Europe's migrancy crisis (and a sovereign debt volcano that is soon to blow taking down major European banks). And Asia starting to lead the pop culture with for example the Korean sensation PSY and his one-hit wonder Gangnam style which swept across the USA.


I think Asian culture is coming more into vogue/fad and a "new" curiosity for westerners (and anyone not Asian, including Latin Americans, Africans, and Middle Easterners). China practically took over Peru in the past decade as I am confident OROBTC will attest. Thus instead of rehashing old terms, we could be on the forefront. However, Zen has been overused amongst internet startups, so really the 'chan' (ch'an) is the innovative term. There are 1.3 billion Chinese and they are the growing more wealthy (the future). Also Asian like something humorous and silly/cute (see the Gangnam video linked above and get some insight into Asia humor and love of cute colors such as pinks and yellows). Heck maybe we should use 'gangnams' for the smallest unit (although have to be careful not to offend the Japanese or Chinese/Koreans who apparently do not like each other, yet clearly one should prioritize the Chinese over the Japanese).

Zen
noun
1.
Chinese Ch'an. Buddhism. a Mahayana movement, introduced into China in the 6th century a.d. and into Japan in the 12th century, that emphasizes enlightenment for the student by the most direct possible means, accepting formal studies and observances only when they form part of such means.

zen = enlightenment = (in Chinese) ch'an

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_honorifics

Chan (ちゃん ?) is a diminutive suffix; it expresses that the speaker finds a person endearing. In general, chan is used for babies, young children, grandparents and teenagers. It may also be used towards cute animals, lovers, close friends, any youthful woman, or between friends.

http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/titles.html

Chan (ちゃん) is a form of san used to refer to children and female family members, close friends and lovers. The change from san to chan is typical of a kind of "baby talk" in Japanese where "sh" sounds are turned into "ch" sounds, such as chitchai for chiisai, "small".

Chan is also used for adults who are considered to be kawaii (cute or loveable). For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger gained the nickname Shuwa-chan (シュワちゃん).

Chan is sometimes applied to male children if the name does not fit with the kun suffix. For example, a boy called Tetsuya may be nicknamed Tetchan rather than Tekkun for reasons more to do with phonetics than anything else.

Although it is usually said that honorifics are not applied to oneself, some women refer to themselves in the third person using chan.

I also registered BlocSync.net and BlocSync.space so that there is always an option against any trademark infringement allegation. If we start off using Sync under the justifiable belief that no entity can trademark Sync for broad use cases that did not comprise their use case, and if somehow that assumption ends up not being true under some wild twist of injustice, then we can change the name to BlocSync. And in that case, users will likely continue to refer to it as Sync, Syncoin, or Sync money.

P.S. note I edited my prior reply to americanpegasus to more accurately convey (the bolded text) the point I was actually thinking but didn't articulate well previously.

What is wrong with synthetics or synonyms? Are you phonetically saying "sins"? I am proposing that most people will use the smaller unit such as 'swaps' or 'zings' (because more "friendly", "fun" word) and the large coin until will only be used where people want to say 'syncoins'. Or if they are going to abbreviate it they would says 'syncs' because that is the name of the project Sync, not Syn.

Maybe I am preferring 'swaps' or 'zings' instead of 'vibes' for the smallest unit. Normally a payment is a swap of something for something. And 'zings' seems to rhyme with things thus fungible, and is more creative, fun and energetic way of stating a fungible notion.


Note misspellings of 'xings' wouldn't be major catastrophe for the smallest unit, as it would be for the project name. That 'zing' doesn't strongly nor moderately have #7 may be more of a positive in terms of granting more fungibility in terms of its use as the smallest unit.

Agreed it could convey that sort of association for some.


Didn't I write that up thread and also offer to donate the name to smooth (contingent on us finalizing a decision not to use it with my recent posts leaning very strongly to not using it)?

Why do you assume that if I wanted to pursue Ion that I couldn't compete and render Aeon to the lesser known coin (the hubris in your attitude irks me, typical of investors who think that they've been able to pool enough capital to defeat creativity and serendipity). But as I told smooth in a private message, I can't in good conscience continue with Ion because it is possible (quite likely in fact) that the idea for it was planted into my subconscious when I heard of Aeon. That still doesn't mean I am not entitled to the discovery of the shorter and more apt name, but I am not a sleazy person who has to get ahead by violating my ethics. I know I am creative and if I feel my creativity was not involved (instead a subconscious idea from someone else), then due to my desire for my creativity to be original as possible, I will prefer to donate Ion to its rightful owner.

What irks me is that after I made the offer to donate in the Aeon thread, you come over here and attack me on the name being too close. Have you no couth?


Inconvenient truth...

An automobile operating system can't normally claim trademark infringement from a crypto-currency, especially when the term being trademarked is a general common word from the English language and is already used by several software products on the internet:

http://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement


Btw, that is Ford Sync, not just Sync. It comes from Ford and is for vehicle media screens. There is no mistaking that with Sync.money nor syncoin.net, or perhaps we will name it "Sync network" or "Sync block chain" (domain name sync.run is already registered and could try to obtain sync.network or sync.net).

There are also BitTorrent Sync, Google Sync, Google Apps Sync, Firefox Sync, Sync | Secure Cloud Storage. Even that Sync cloud storage is not likely to be confused with a block chain network, because it is unlikely our decentralized block chain 2.0 would provide a bulk data storage functionality (and certainly not a centralized one as is that Sync cloud storage). BitTorrent Sync appears to be decentralized file transfer, but again this is BitTorrent Sync, not just Sync and file syncing isn't a competitive category to a block chain. Also with this many competitors on the use of the name Sync, it appears clear that no one can claim broad infringement categories. It appears the term Sync has been pretty much relegated to the public domain. If Ford was going to sue for infringement then these other uses of Sync would not likely exist and be establishing a precedent that weakens any claim Ford would have had.

Any more FUD from Monero/Aeon folk today?

In my opinion, you have some egregious errors in your analysis, presumably because you are moving too fast trying to digest a few google searches and haven't taken the time to read carefully the other thread in the Bitcoin Discussion forum that is linked from this thread?

 

In your first quote, that is not the SEC's opinion, but rather a letter to the SEC. You misunderstood the SEC's guidance in second quote you provided.


See the SEC vs Howey Supreme Court decision (which I covered in detail in the other thread in the Bitcoin Discussion forum that is linked from this thread); if you create an implicit investment contract where investors have reasonable expectations of future gains secured by your (collectively the insider group's) efforts and promotions, then you have caused the cryptocurrency be a security which is secured by you all. The implication on you if you are not the "issuer" (and the SEC has more leeway as to definition of "issuer" than you are thinking due to your misunderstanding of the SEC guidance you quoted), then you can't sell the restricted coins for 1 year. However, what you are failing to grasp is that Rule 144 only applies to restricted, unregistered securities, i.e. those sold to accredited investors or one of the other exemptions from registration. If any of the unregistered securities (the coins) were sold to non-accredited investors (and did not qualify for any other exemption from registration) and thus are in an illegal state, then afaik purchasing and reselling these implicates you in many forms of fraud, such as wire fraud. Rule 144 applies to restricted securities that were sold only under the allowed exemptions and not securities that were sold without an exemption and thus are entirely illegal. If you perpetuate that crime (even you were not the issuer) especially with your willful promotion and efforts securing the gullible investors' expectations and the investors lose money, you are possibly in for a whole lot of hurt in the future. IANAL, I suggested you consult with an attorney. This is no matter that you can be certain from 15 minutes of googling.


Afaik, the SEC has not issued any such guidance. You misread what you quoted below. The SEC vs. Howey Supreme Court decision and case law hence specifically disavow any schemes employed to obfuscate the actual implied investment contract.


Haha, afaics you totally miss the point. This person is complaining to the SEC and making the argument that cryptocurrency will be used to circumvent securities regulation. He is essentially challenging the SEC that if they don't go after cryptocurrency then the SEC will be irrelevant because instead of complying with Rule 144 and 145 as not admended the way he is requesting, he argues people will just use cryptocurrency to try to circumvent the requirements entirely by arguing the cryptocurrencies are not securities. But all he is doing is inciting the SEC to crack down on cryptocurrency at some point in the future. The SEC is likely using this as an exhibit of their need to crack down in the future.

Also don't be confused by the underlined sentence. It is does not say an issuer is only one who sells coins directly to buyers. If you think it says that then you have serious english comprehension failure and also failure of the context of the SEC vs. Howey Supreme Court decision and subsequent case law.


And you need to read that document more slowly and carefully.


You have serious reading comprehension failure if you don't see that the above says nothing to support your incorrect summary.


And afaics you don't have a clue. And this is the last time I am going to suggest to you that you be get serious and study this properly.

Please I don't have enough free time go through all your sloppy research again if you do it again. Please if you want to rebut, at least properly read both threads and really immerse yourself in the issue properly.


Oh my. The law doesn't work that way son. Ignorance of the law is not a valid form of criminal defense. The SEC warning against Ponzi does nothing to absolve your culpability under the law for being involved in promoting, offering, and selling illegal, unregistered securities.
  

And if they listen to you, they are in for potentially a world of future hurt.


No it does not. Going for low hanging fruit doesn't mean they aren't biding their time before they destroy the crypto-currency wildwest. They are probably letting it run for now because the Winklevoss twins haven't cashed out yet and also because the phenomenon is not big enough yet. After the next super bubble and then the global crash of the USA into the economic abyss after 2017.9 is when the witch hunts are likely to come flying from every direction.


I don't think Bitcoin is a security, plus Coinbase has backing from the global elite and is thus likely shielded from the SEC. Poloniex is a poignant example because they trade so many different kinds of altcoins. But I think they can argue that they have complied with every legal guideline they've been made aware of and they are not promoting any altcoins (rather than just offering a service for trading that is indifferent as to which coin is better than the other). Those who are both promoting and securing the securities with their efforts, while also reselling ILLEGAL, unregistered securities are potentially much more culpable. Poloniex can get a slap on the wrist later perhaps or just be liable at the corporate level and not personal incrimination of the principles. Whereas, you as an individual and as a promoter...falling directly under the SEC vs. Howey Supreme Court decision...
  

You think...are you sure you have thought?

Let's see. They can sell out all 250 million shares at say a fair value of $250,000 initial market cap, $250,000 cash, and 0% for themselves. Or they can set prices at $0.1 per share, sell only 0.1% of the shares so they get the $25,000 cash, $2.5 million market cap and 99.9% for themselves. Then as the price drops to a tenth to $0.01 those investors who didn't buy in the ICO come rushing in to buy the dip, and they still get their $250,000 cash and retain 90% for themselves.

Hopefully you understand now why the market cap of Dash is entirely meaningless.

*Note I am not asserting what I think the initial valuation of Iota should be. I have no idea. $1 million? Will depend on many things that are learned between now and launch, etc.. And I have no interest in expressing any opinion on the valuation.


That would include those who can't do arithmetic.  

I wasn't aware he quit. The less I am aware of, the more I must be programming and not foruming. So I hope to become more unaware. Ah so good that VNL fanboiz will hopefully not try to get revenge on me now for my prior critical peer review on Conner's white paper.


Linked in up thread post:




Perhaps you should speak with an attorney. You appear to make irrelevant assumptions that appear to me to be invalid based on my limited reading the USA securities law. Consider to review the thread I linked to (and to the main thread it links to over in the Bitcoin Discussion forum). Maybe I am just being a loud-mouthed fool, but perhaps take some time to understand what I think I am reading in the law. Again I don't write that to be putting any one down. The law doesn't seem to say what you are apparently thinking it does about what you think is quasi-legal.


Again I think the classification of Bitcoin as a commodity or what ever (from a tax standpoint) has nothing to do with the fact that these are shares from the perspective of securities law and if they are promoted to investors then they become securities backed by the expectations created by the promoter. Please go read the law.


For taxes. That is a different aspect of the law. Securities Act looks at crypto as shares depending on several factors.

We can probably argue that Bitcoin is already a phenomenon that can't be backed by a promoter selling Bitcoin shares, thus Bitcoin is probably not a security in the eyes of USA securities law. But the smaller altcoins are much more precariously close if not already securities.


Let's see what you think after reading the law on securities.


Of registered securities, or of prices of things where they can't possibly drive the price and give reasonable expectations that their promotions and representations are a form backing for the future expectations of those investors reading. I didn't state so eloquently. Better to read the law that I quoted in the linked thread.

Afaik, you have a very important role in XMR and Aeon, so your representations could perhaps be construed by investors to be a force of actual future events and thus future gains. Afaics, this totally changes the way you are viewed under Securities Act and the SEC vs. Howey decision.
  

Sobering. Thanks.

Feeling a bit overbearing replying to every post. I should allow others to talk, but you wrote something I really want to respond to.


In all my past projects, I really struggled (thrashed around) with the name same as what we've gone through in this thread, but once I settled on a name and become firm then it stuck. I can tell if I am firm by whether I find serious faults or start to feel a bit proud of the name. I prefer having a solid name when taking on a major effort (something about my creative/perfectionist personality can't put the naming to rest and it will continue eating at me until I feel satisfied).

I initially (and a bit too haphazardly given the groggy state of mind and rushing at some of the times) liked each of the prior names for a strong set of attributes (e.g. ion so terse, so geeky, so apt to micropays, so zappy) but then doubts started to creep in (ion is still a good coin name just doesn't fit the full scope of what I am contemplating). Clickz fell apart for me after initial enthusiasm because it just isn't fungible (pay me 'clicks' at the toll booth) and because none of those names were going to allow to go challenge the block chain 2.0 market as well as the micropay market. By combining "Sync" as project with "syncoin / smaller unit", I can get both the more professional name for the project, and fungible coin name when needed, and still play with the smallest unit to get a "fun" name that people can use in social networking, e.g. 'vibes', 'zings', 'oomphs', 'pluses', 'options', 'tradables', 'swaps', 'merits', or 'credits'.


So if we move away from having a social (mass market, technophobe) friendly small unit, then we can use a hitech smaller unit. But if must go hitech, I'd prefer it have at least some meaning for a technophobe, such as 'virtuals', 'mist', 'pulses', 'photons', or 'flashes'.


My mother reminded me that was an outhouse back in the day.


I like it or Mask, but also there was already Cloak. But I don't want to aim only for anonymity features because I want to build the system that I'd like to use for my future ventures on the internet in general. I still want the best anonymity in crypto though. For those coins that are currently focused on perfecting anonymity first (e.g. Monero, Boolberry), I was/am willing to help where I was needed (perhaps even ongoing on spot-time basis) and would be reasonably rewarded without having to go "all in" to their projects. I very much resist arrangements where I can't retain a lot of creative flexibility.

Seems I inadvertently did that to the BBR price just recently (others informed me, I wasn't even watching the price and I still haven't looked at the price). And no I did not buy any BBR. I am not at all into making money by front running unconfirmed rumors to add a certain feature to another coin. If ever I worked on another coin and wanted to buy that coin, I would buy after any publicity. I am not even interested in speculation, so I don't want insider trading culpability for something that isn't even my cup of tea. I want to write software and profit on its sale and long-term value creation. I have no desire in trading. I am a geek at heart.


But I presume at least the former probably have purchased protection from the SEC at the highest levels, and also my analysis is that Bitcoin is not an investment security because at this point there is no particular promoter or developer or any one in control of either the protocol or the investor's expectations. It has already graduated to a decentralized economic (not just protocol) phenomenon. Whereas, even Monero looks precariously close to skirting the risks of being an investment security. I don't know for sure, but I would be careful on these "pink sheet altcoins".


I suggest you review the thread I did on investment securities. I don't think UNREGISTERED disclosure protects you from creating an implicit investment contract with prospective investors for an UNREGISTERED investment security.

You are just being informed now, so perhaps that is a defense if you alter patterns now if you feel you need to based on new information. IANAL so I don't know really.


I am not aware of that. Can you point me to some details or elaborate? What sort of harrassment? This concerns me significantly and was one of the reasons I originally wanted to be anonymous, but I had put my real name on my post when I first joined this forum in 2013, so there was no way to get my anonymity back. And I doubt any way for me to create a coin without someone realizing it is the same writing style as Anonymint. Probably I'll never have to worry about that, as the odds of creating another Bitcoin are not so great (and if you do, you likely have more resources than Hal had to protect yourself).

P.S. I wasn't trying to killjoy the thread. Please don't everyone go silent, I feel guilty.

I own that name (or maybe it is only Prvt which someone pointed out could be pervert lol, but I think I registered both and I started an Android app iPrivy in 2014 but stopped coding it). I should offer to one of the anonymous coins, such as BBR.

Please vote.

I think Sync is going to grow on you all over time. The block chain should always be in sync and not only every 10 minutes such as in Bitcoin. The programmable block chain should always be in sync without needing every mining node to verify every script (that was the key scaling design flaws of Ethereum).

Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

The downside is a 51% attack could revert the coinbases, but again the DAG is the objective truth, so I assume the minority block chain can ignore the 51% attack. Would need to think this out a bit. DAGs are voting on which chain of the block chain is valid. Any way if the attacker has 51% PoW, he can attack the DAG also.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.