Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.
There is no about that in the whitepaper. There is no a formal proof that coin generation is impossible, intensive search for a coin generation technique was done to have 2% annual inflation (because it's a near-optimal number) and none of the ideas let to keep the security of the system at an acceptable level. This is a well-known problem of proof asymmetry, it's hard to prove that unicorns don't exist while it's trivial to prove the opposite if you have such a unicorn. If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please. You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS. I shouldn't be giving away ideas for free, but any way you all have shared a lot for free and you'd eventually figure this out. |
|
|
|
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy. Now you know why Ethereum's sale was so large yet they ran out of money so fast. They were buying their own coins recycling the same money over and over. And suckering investors into thinking they needed to rush before the priced moved higher on the next pre-timed price increment. |
|
|
|
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.
That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC) For paying that may be true (the earlier attempts at "per person" distribution were mostly free). But then that raises other legal, institutional, and logistical costs and obstacles, as you have previously reported with respect to your social media experiments. Agreed it could. Paypal often withholds funds, especially if there is a sudden surge of payment volume. Selling via BTC is much easier. But it is possible to verify an account with Paypal (or Amazon payments) without taking payment via Paypal (or only take a small payment), then take the rest from that person via BTC. So then you don't care what Paypal does. |
|
|
|
As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors) It is not at all clear there are "end users" for something like this for years to come. It will take a significant period of time to build a market with supporting devices, services, and a large enough population of users, all interacting with each other using the token as a tool to accomplish something else. So I doubt that anyone buying it now could be viewed as anything but a speculator (including long term investor). That might be different for some other kind of token such as one backing assets in a game or even maybe decentralized storage. Something with actual ready-to-go uses. But that seems a bit off topic on this thread. Developers are an example of early adopter users who need access to a real world system in order to build out the ecosystem. Yes the number of users and people who want to play/experiment with such a system is small at the start. That is why if you sell to end users and not speculative investors, don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100). |
|
|
|
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.
That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC) |
|
|
|
As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.
If the maximum amount that can be purchased by name & fiat account is small, then you'd need to have many, many people involved in your Sybil attack, which would put you at much greater risk of being caught. Thus I think it radically lowers the risk of cheating. Versus a promise (not to buy your own coins) which unverifiable. But I am not telling you what to do. I am just stating the options that are available. You are choosing one of the options I stated, which is to admit you could buy as many of your own coins as you want to, but promising not to do so. It is not my role to judge that option. Your investors must judge that. At least you've been honest about which option you are planning to choose. |
|
|
|
We know that mining can't be used here because CfB has stated that it undermines the security model.
Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind. If the idea is bootstrapping the distribution and not raising money, then spin off from an existing coin, preferably a widely used one. Multiple coins are even okay but make sure the weighting bears some sane relationship with fair market value (does not have to be exact).
But then I am responsible for how those shares were promoted as investment securities and I don't want to run afoul of the law against selling or offering for sale to the general public unregistered investment securities. If the idea is raising money while unambiguously complying with all the (perhaps mutually contradictory) laws in the world while at the same time using a structure that achieves a widespread distribution in practice, and is verifiably resistant to cheating, well good luck. I don't know how to do that either.
The only way I can see to do this is either make no promises as to the number of coins you as the seller will end up holding, or do unique buyer verification. As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors) with a cap on the size of the sale and user verification (by name and payment account is sufficient), so that it is not a significant amount to be worthwhile for investment and profusely disclaim any expection of future gains. Selling software internationally has not been illegal. Selling shares to investors is very illegal if they are not registered with the SEC in the USA. Any investors who want large size would have to buy in on the open market later. Typically prices sag after an ICO, but maybe with this strategy where no one can buy in large quantity at the ICO, would have a more positive effect, but again no one knows and expectations of gain can be profusely disclaimed. Why not give the little guy (the actual users) a chance to get in and maximally spread the distribution? That creates a wider base of support. Mining is dominated by professionals and a small cross-section of the actual users of crypto. |
|
|
|
I agree that it would be nicer to do something else than an ico.
CFB, I see you did not come up with a better idea. In the recent past, if im not mistaken, you were looking at a way to distribution to unique user. Why not pay a third party to do this verification process?
No a better idea. It's impossible to prove that we don't buy our own coins, if we kept some coins as premine we still could buy extra coins, so we put ourselves into the most unprofitable position to lessen advantage of our position to the max degree. Sorry I don't follow this logic. Can you unpack that and make it more clear? I don't see any way around what I wrote. |
|
|
|
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.
This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well. The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending. The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them. That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned. But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid. Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that? Yes. As mentioned somewhere above on this page (or maybe on the previous one), the (default) referencing algorithm works in such a way that it prefers tips with bigger height. So, if you're too lazy and reference some very old tx's, you take the risk that your tx won't be referenced by others. But that default doesn't seem to be the correct game theory? This is Prisoner's Dilemma game. Afaics, lower incentive to go first on including a new tip. Just noticed yesterday this research on cases where the pessimistic Nash equilibrium is claimed not to hold (but on quick glance I ponder if they have overly simplistic assumptions in their models). Obviously if everyone defects to making their own branches (maximally broaden the tree), then no one's tips get lengthened and thus the entire system doesn't function. But is the optimum strategy the default that you assume? |
|
|
|
NWO is actually in the process of losing this war. (Excellent article.) Lately, their false flags are exposed immediately and the number of people or even countries that believes them is less and less. The new thing is also how Putin is destroying the American weapons in the ISIL hands, effectively fighting a victorious defensive proxy war against NWO imperialism, and what's best: NWO cannot even propagate their own version of it without being laughed at!  People in countries, supposedly in NWO hands, can openly rejoice of NWO being on the receiving side in the battle. Truly, liberation is near  Except that Putin is the NWO. |
|
|
|
0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.
ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT I have no problem understanding this concern, given the space that we're in (crypto is the wild wild wild west after all), but your assumption here is blatantly wrong. We chose 0% premine because that is what is the absolute most fair to every party involved. We are basing our entire start-up around IoT, which we've been working on in stealth for a year, as explained in OP this is what prompted us to develop IOTA. It is a necessary ingredient for the vision of IoT that our start-up is focused on. On top of this all of us will invest our personal funds into IOTA, so no we have a ton of incentive to make IOTA a success. how is a 0% premine any more fair than you raising BTC and repaying yourself for the coins you "purchased"? either way you are receiving BTC and you are using BTC to buy said coins. they're free coins for you... It is more fair because it means it's entirely up for grabs to anyone. There is no coins arbitrarily set aside for the developers... This is still a form of premine. You can convert all of you ICO funding to coins in any scenario while paying those funds to yourself. Since you can pay yourself numerous times, and recycle the funds to pay yourself again, there is no limit to the number of coins you can buy from yourself. Even if you require all funds to be presented up front, that doesn't prevent you from taking out a loan which you can pay back fully because you buy the coins from yourself. Even if you limit the supply of coins and force all offers to be tendered at once and randomly choose in a publicly verifiable process, you can still stack the bids to be sure you get the % of coins you want. If you instead have a market driven price for the ICO and a fixed supply of coins, then you can bid on your own coins driving the price higher and generating more funds while obtaining some of the coins cheaper than others who have paid you to buy your coins cheaper. The only way around this would be to verify the identify of every purchaser and make this information public (or audited by a trusted entity), which I doubt most purchasers would agree to. The only solution I see for this dilemma is to identify each purchaser, but do it in a convenient and non-intrusive way. That is why I have been thinking to only sell up to say $500 to each user (no investors! so as to avoid creating an illegal unregistered investment security so you all don't all end up in jail in the future) and allowing these purchases only by credit card (or verified bank account funding via Paypal to avoid chargebacks) with an auditing process that insures each name on the card is unique. I suppose you are clever enough you can pay people to let you use their credit cards (or steal them), but this is a crime and probably easy to track down (especially during any SEC investigation), so it is very risky and one would assume legit developers won't risk crime (heck they are talented, and can earn a lot of money taking programming jobs outside of crypto). The only other way is some mining distribution, but wastes resources that could be better used to fund development. Or you can just tell everyone honestly that all they know is how many coins they have and the total supply of coins, but they can't know how many coins you have unless all the buyers get together and tally their purchases. This a serious dilemma. I have thought about it a lot. Has anyone else devised a better solution? |
|
|
|
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.
This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well. The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending. The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them. That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned. But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid. Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that? |
|
|
|
I did review the thread; nowhere did I see how a cryptocurrency (a network of bankers that will accept and use a token) can be considered a "common enterprise" because a cryptocurrency is essentialy a resource (bank). The promoters do not operate a business; no one can expect anything of them.
Yes, the courts could classify your crypto as a security, but take a look at the TOS page on banx.io regarding BANX shares and you will see that these crypto-shares are really just 'donations to a for-profit company'. As far as other cryptos go, it is quite a stretch to say that they represent interest in a company, business, or enterprise.
I don't think you understand the key essence of the thread. The Howey decision clarifies the "investment contract" clause of the Securities Act, that promoting a reasonable expectation of gains where the investors have any reason to base their decisions to purchase on those pronouncements has converted what they are promoting into an "investment security", because of the implicit "investment contract" created by those pronouncements and the resultant "reasonable expectations" of investors. My interpretation is that you are overemphasizing the "common enterprise" because Howey decision and court decisions hence have stated all special cases will still apply to the economic reality that the Securities Act's (stated) purpose is to protect unsophisticated (unaccredited) investors from losses due to faulty disclosure. Just because the shares are coordinated in a decentralized protocol, doesn't mean the promoters have not created an implied investment contract with the buyers. The "common enterprise" is the mutual participation in the decentralized system of shares. Participation as a user does not in my view cause the shares to be "investment securities", as any game token wouldn't be an investment security if the tokens are not promoted to investors (and especially if there are disclaimers from the "controlling or influential entities" stating no investment gains should be expected at all and that the tokens are intended for users only). Rather it is the promotion of the shares to investors that does. And IMO it is much more likely to be prosecuted when those doing the promoting are "controlling or influential entities" in that "common enterprise", i.e. the developer(s) who can introduce new features and whose reputation drives investor confidence and ditto influential community members or foundation, especially those endorsed by the lead developer(s). |
|
|
|
I did review the thread; nowhere did I see how a cryptocurrency (a network of bankers that will accept and use a token) can be considered a "common enterprise" because a cryptocurrency is essentialy a resource (bank). The promoters do not operate a business; no one can expect anything of them.
Yes, the courts could classify your crypto as a security, but take a look at the TOS page on banx.io regarding BANX shares and you will see that these crypto-shares are really just 'donations to a for-profit company'. As far as other cryptos go, it is quite a stretch to say that they represent interest in a company, business, or enterprise.
I don't think you understand the key essence of the thread. The Howey decision clarifies the "investment contract" clause of the Securities Act, that promoting a reasonable expectation of gains where the investors have any reason to base their decisions to purchase on those pronouncements has converted what they are promoting into an "investment security", because of the implicit "investment contract" created by those pronouncements and the resultant "reasonable expectations" of investors. My interpretation is that you are overemphasizing the "common enterprise" because Howey decision and court decisions hence have stated all special cases will still apply to the economic reality that the Securities Act's (stated) purpose is to protect unsophisticated (unaccredited) investors from losses due to faulty disclosure. Just because the shares are coordinated in a decentralized protocol, doesn't mean the promoters have not created an implied investment contract with the buyers. The "common enterprise" is the mutual participation in the decentralized system of shares. Participation as a user does not in my view cause the shares to be "investment securities", as any game token wouldn't be an investment security if the tokens are not promoted to investors (and especially if there are disclaimers from the "controlling or influential entities" stating no investment gains should be expected at all and that the tokens are intended for users only). Rather it is the promotion of the shares to investors that does. And IMO it is much more likely to be prosecuted when those doing the promoting are "controlling or influential entities" in that "common enterprise", i.e. the developer(s) who can introduce new features and whose reputation drives investor confidence and ditto influential community members or foundation, especially those endorsed by the lead developer(s). |
|
|
|
Should Dash as direct competitor of Bitcoin still keep a presence on this Bitcointalk forum?
Yes, all publicity is good publicity
No, its counterproductive and will limit Dash in the end
Please don't leave the entire forum will collapse. If Dash leaves the Altcoin discussion forum, there won't be hardly any threads remaining  There are 6 Dash threads in the first page of this Altcoin discussion forum. And you are creating another one to ask if you should create less  Clearly the correct answer is "all publicity is good publicity"  |
|
|
|
Ugh.. I assume you're talking to me. (You have quoted funnyman21)
Corrected the quote. (computer page swap thrashing issue with 100+ tabs open, had to reboot) Actually I was making a statement of fact. It is nigh impossible to get hold of Aeon OTC. (Believe me I've tried). AmericanPegasus requested he was on the look out for a bulk purchase. The best method is currently waiting and accumulating via Bittrex. I don't know how else I could have phrased it.
Apparently no one knows for sure how the securities law is going to be interpreted and applied in the future. I can't command anyone what they should be doing. My current thinking is do not discuss investment issues at all. Instead discuss features, ecosystem development, and all the things users and developers would talk about when there is no investment involved. You can refer to the post I linked to where I explained my (IANAL) reading of the USA securities law. (I won't burden this thread further about my personal health issue. Thank you for the info.) |
|
|
|
The logo for 'ion' would be an orbiting ion for the 'o' and a lightning bolt come from left, bottom, behind, and through the 'n' to the upper, right. The 'i' could optionally have the same treatment as for 'clickZ'.
...
If we don't use ion (ion.cash domain), I will offer to donate this smooth (appreciation for all his interaction and help in the past) if he wishes to use it instead of Aeon. Or to another serious coin. It is a good name especially for a technology (technophile) focused coin.
Good luck finding sellers! There's currently a bit of a shortage and everyone wants in.  Bittrex is probably still your best option. I do want to warn you that by pumping the expectation of gains (your firm statement there are only buyers and no sellers) thus creating an implied investment contract under the law as I interpret it, I do believe you are converting this coin into an unregistered investment security. Please consider if this is what you want. Consult your own attorney because IANAL. This is because you speak ostensibly as an insider member of the community with strong connections to the lead developer and representing yourself as knowledgeable about virtually all the people who own any Aeon shares. I don't say this to put you down. Rather I am just trying to help you, same as you recently tried to help me on my health issue. Btw, coconut is very anti-fugal. I am drinking coconut milk every day. I seem to do much better since I discovered the guy who presses the milk out of the coconut meat because the meat includes too much fiber bulk (I believe the milk is the concentrated oils with the capyrlic acid). I am nearly 10 days into putting this milk in my meals every day. Seems I feel a lot worse when I don't have it. So maybe there is something to your theory. I think it is possible I have both bacterial and fungal (and maybe even viral too) infections. My immune system appears to be overloaded. I had dermatitis on my face which is an inflammatory reaction. Pain in in the gut area indicates maybe a candida overgrowth. |
|
|
|
Naming the coin Time might imply ephemeral money that expires, but time can be captured in a more positive name... After letting it all sink in, I've decided to go a different direction on the naming. I've been trying to capture in the name several concepts in descending order of importance: | 1. | Group agreement and coherence, i.e. consensus which is the entire point. | | 2. | Community synergy, group or network effects as the backing of value and purpose. | | 3. | Instantaneous. | | 4. | Technophile technological appeal. | | 5. | Intangible value. | | 6. | Permission-less, autonomous control. | | 7. | Value that is not too abstract to appreciate. Preferably not alien to technophobes. | | 8. | Fungible value. | | 9. | Locomotion store-of-value. |
And one trait I do not want in a name: | ↯ | Similar phonetic misspellings. |
Each of the proposed name ideas captured some of those concepts, but no one name captured all of them. Here they are tabulated by score ranking with ↯ breaking ties and contributing a significant negative score. | sync | +1, 2, 3, +4 (8 for syncoin) | ≈5 | | vibe | 1, +2, +5, 7 | ≈8 | | clickz | +3, 5, 6, +7, 9, ↯ | ≈2 | | ion | 3, +4, 5, +9 | ≈6 for i-on | | zing | +3, +5, 8, +9, ↯ | ≈2, ≈7 | | virtual | 4, 5 | ≈8 | | metarial | 5, ↯ | ≈4, ≈8 |
+ means very strong and direct association to the concept. ≈ means a weak or indirect association to the concept. In the table above, 'clickz' although strong in the most attributes, is entirely lacking the most important point of coherent consensus [1] and the association to group synergy [2] (i.e. the alternative "get along well" definition of 'click' and the indirect association of clicking to social interaction in cyberspace) is weak (i.e. not likely emphasized and recognized by most). Also although 'clicks' is a cybergood that is well appreciated, and is fungible in the sense that a click can be applied to a myriad of things, it is not a universal good and thus pigeon-holes the applicability. It is an efficient/expedient means of relating for example microtransactions but at the cost of losing generality. Also it conflates the goods with the unit, e.g. "1.23 clicks" doesn't mean you get 1.23 opportunities to click a mouse. Examples of generality lost are block chain features such as BlocSign, digital assets, virtual contracts, and goods & services that have nothing to do with clicking such as making a phone call or paying a toll booth. Also 'clickz' has no strong appeal to futurists and technophiles. We justify as the optimum way to convey microtransactions, but is it really? If you are in a videochat, then you ask the person to send you some 'clickz' before you give English lessons. Seems that 'clickz' is not really general enough to be money. Facepalm me. Since it is very difficult to find one name that hits all the desired attributes, I thought it may be better to have a separate names for the consensus network and the fungible value. It seems to be that 'sync' is the ideal name for the consensus network with block chain scaling, high TX/s, and block chain 2.0 features. Although it was used before, that Sync project appears to be dead or dying (even the coin domain syncclub.net links to some page in chinese), their domains never had just 'sync' nor 'syncoin' nor 'synccoin', and their use was for a colored coin (not their own block chain) and backed assets, thus I don't think they can claim trademark over the use as a block chain and no centralized backing. Thus I am adding a new proposed name: sync For the name of the fungible items, we can choose between: ions syncs syncoins vibes virtuals I am leaning towards individual choice to use either 'syncs' or 'syncoins' for the largest unit, and then we need to choose the smallest unit. My preference for the smallest unit is either 'vibes' or 'virtuals'. Although 'virtuals' is more abstract and generalized, I think 'vibes' will make more sense to more people in a social networking setting. For a purely technical audience, 'ions' is great but the project name 'sync' already satiates the technophile demographic, so shouldn't we select a smallest unit that caters to the masses? Also 'vibes' is sort of wave-like or ambiance which is apt for the minute, particle-like quality of the smallest unit. If you are in a videochat, then you ask the person to send you some 'vibes' or 'syncoins' before you give English lessons, because 'ions' doesn't seem to have any natural (innate) meaning in that context. If the smallest unit is a millionth of the largest unit and 1 billion large units are created, then in the extreme scenario of widespread adoption if the market cap is $1 trillion with an exchange price of $1000, then each smallest unit is priced at a thousandth of a dollar (a tenth of a penny or cent). In the less extreme scenario that corresponds to some mass adoption if the market cap is $1 billion with an exchange price of $1, then each smallest unit is priced at a millionth of a dollar. Disclaimer: these are not projections nor expectations of future value, rather scenarios that if reached would have the stated relationships. In both of those scenarios the user can decide whether to quote the price in the largest or smallest units. Large units would always be expressed with a floating point number (number will a decimal portion) unless they are whole number multiples, and smallest units would be expressed with whole numbers and with 'k' appended to the number if the quantity has only zeros for the last three digits. So for example, one could alternatively quote a price as "1.23 sync(oin)s" or "1230k vibes". A micropayment could be quoted for example "0.000123 sync(oin)s" or "123 vibes". We could allow values to be expressed in tenths, hundreds, or thousands of the smallest unit, to add more range without burdening the normal price quotation usage with extra digits. I am visualizing a logo for 'sync' where the right side of the 'n' and the left side of the 'c' are interlocking gears. Or especially if using allcaps, then the 'C' has clock hands drawn inside of it. The logo for 'vibe' will be a background of wavy lines (e.g. in black) with the word 'vibe' etched out as same color as the background (e.g. in white). The logo for 'ion' would be an orbiting ion for the 'o' and a lightning bolt come from left, bottom, behind, and through the 'n' to the upper, right. The 'i' could optionally have the same treatment as for 'clickZ'. For 'clickZ' I thought of making the dot on the 'i' have the "clicked" lines as I showed in the prior post at the finger point  . The 'Z' would have the fast blurring trails effect I showed for the Downloadfast logo  but in the transposed direction. For 'virtual' the letters would take the places of the nodes shown on the network  . If we don't use ion (ion.cash domain), I will offer to donate this smooth (appreciation for all his interaction and help in the past) if he wishes to use it instead of Aeon. Or to another serious coin. It is a good name especially for a technology (technophile) focused coin. Edit: I don't feel particularly great in my conscience in discovering that the name I like a lot 'sync' (which has been in mind for the past few days) was used before in another crypto project. However, generally speaking a trademark only applies globally if their venture had global reach and/or has the financial power to enforce their trademark. But this name was used for a project that hasn't gained any significant adoption, thus has nearly 0 reach nearly a year after launch. And the former project was apparently not even a block chain and only a colored coin on the Bitcoin block chain with some hokey idea of selling domain assets to back the colored coins. It appears to be failed concept (backed colored coin assets on a decentralized Bitcoin block chain), very minuscule reach, and not even precisely in the same category. What a shame to waste on a hokey concept, a great name for a block chain synchronicity innovation. Also since it appears to me to be an unregulated investment security, then I believe it is illegal, void, and thus vacated. Edit#2: I am leaning at the moment very emphatically towards project name Sync (block chain revolution) with social media microunit of 'vibes', probably regardless what the votes say, unless I have a change of thinking. I have to let these names sit with me for some time to be sure I have thought through potential pitfalls. |
|
|
|
Fascist governments are not historically associated with mass starvation.
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorI am not convinced the NWO is going to be as powerful as you guys might imagine and consume the entire globe in totalitarianism with billions dead.
Agreed The confluence of a Little Ice Age and significant pandemic along with regional wars with severe economic decline could kill a billion or two perhaps. Yeah it'll be horrific if you're dumb enough to stay within it's boundaries.
Most of the world is not sucking on their governments titties, this seems to be unique for the west, so I see no reason for certain areas to get sucked into this mess.
The west will just be left behind, and rapidly lose it's influence on global politics as Asia emerges.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
I believe it is not the preponderance of features that you are actually frustrated with, but rather the complexity of discerning which projects are worthwhile, what features actually do (and do they even do what they purport to do), which features are desirable or needed, and where this is all going in terms of adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
