I registered some domains today for a new name:

Cybit

Cybit.space
Cybit.me
Cybit.news
Cybit.info
Cyberbit.space
Cyberbit.me
Cyberbit.news
Cyber.fyi

Alternative name is:

Cyber

Any comments are welcome. I will run a poll on it some other time, assuming it is well received.

Although Ion was short, techie, and perhaps connotative of a micropayment ion exchange, I felt it wasn't really specific enough to money, networked information, new paradigms in cyberspace, etc. Also it was a bit too close to Aeon and I didn't want to feel I was ripping off their name.

I wanted a name that could both represent a fast zapped micropayment, and also referring to digital assets and programmable block chains in general. That would also work as a unit as well as a name, e.g. "send 5 cybits". I definitely wanted a brandable name, e.g. no permutations of "___Coin". I was a bit jealous of the new Iota (which was a name we had thought of in 2014 and not used). Although nubits is a permutation of "__Bits", I believe "Cyber+bits" is a more powerful connotation. Cybits seems to roll off the tongue much better than Bitcoin. Cyber.gold was available but my gf made a comment that cyber as complete two syllables connotates for her as the negatives of "cybersex" and "cyberchat". Whereas obscuring the full "cyber" in "cybits" lost the negative association for her. Cyber.gold, just seemed to confusing. How does a gold chain get into the the cyber realm? I asked her which term she would most let to utter when asking for a friend to send some over FB so she could fun a game. Cybits was her choice over both Cyber.gold and netgold. Also Bitcoin was a bit ambiguous in that it could mean "bit of a coin", instead of "bit of information coin". The "Cyber bit" doesn't seem to have that potential misinterpretation.

cy·ber
adjective
of, relating to, or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.
"the cyber age"
synonyms:   electronic, digital, wired, virtual, web, Internet, Net, online
"our relationship was more cyber than face-to-face"


bit
noun
a unit of information expressed as either a 0 or 1 in binary notation.

bit
noun

1
:  a unit of computer information equivalent to the result of a choice between two alternatives (as yes or no, on or off)
2
:  the physical representation of a bit by an electrical pulse, a magnetized spot, or a hole whose presence or absence indicates data

---

I was also inspired by the portion of the video linked from the following quoted post.

Hello Evan! It has been more than a year since we exchanged words.

Aren't you a bit amazed that I can deduce and describe much of your design details without ever being informed of them?  

Last time we interacted, the masternode concept was borne. I wonder what might be hatched during this interaction.


So long-term bloat is not an issue by essentially employing the conceptual equivalent of checkpoints. But there is a serious issue with large blocks which Bitcoin is having intense struggle over, as it forces centralization of mining whether you use IBLT or whatever, because otherwise the propagation delay of large blocks leads to high orphan rates and exacerbates attacks vectors such as selfish mining. Since Dash doesn't have any where near Bitcoin's volume, this is unlikely to be real world issue for Dash any time soon. But if we were applying your design to a very high volume coin, then we'd have a problem with this design. I won't rehash all the details about the block size debate. There are ample other threads and news sites to explain about that in detail. Any way, sounds like you don't have to solve that issue before January. You can focus on your other core priorities I suppose, since this issue isn't one Dash needs to address until volume increases very significantly. And if volume if ever increases that much Dash will have a much larger market cap and more reason to invest again in further development.


Yeah it is clear to me how you were creating a unifying design.


Well this means masternodes can plan well in advance if for complex game theory. I haven't tried to work out all possible game theories. But any way as I stated up thread, it is unlikely the masternodes have an incentive to conspire to that degree because for one reason they are paid very well apparently. So although this design doesn't appear to be applicable to a coin that despises the concept of the 50% per annum ROI masternode, it may be (somewhat paradoxically to the chagrin of haters) be effectively "secure" in Dash.


Okay then essentially the same argument again which is that for as long as we can assume masternodes are so well paid that they don't have incentive to explore ways to conspire, then pseudo-randomness can appear to be equivalent to randomness.

I was citing the Supreme Court case of SEC vs. Howe. Even I see Nagle doesn't quite understand (or articulate) the generative essence of that case. And you were so far off in the thread, I just smiled.

Your appeals to authority are for b-listers who get their nose bent out-of-joint:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404


I'll get back to your unspecific strawmen in due time. You are may or may not have a point, yet avoid making a specific point and toss around vagaries instead. Make your case with specifics. I did.

If you find that I am annoyed, then yes because I expect you to cite for me specific case law and give examples and show that you know what the fuck you are talking about, and not just spout off appeals to authority, insults, and vague intersections of general concepts. So far, I've seen you commit logic errors in this thread, and on quick glance maybe more in that thread with Nagle.

You can very well be trained in many concepts and be able to spout off babble, but can you elucidate convincingly.


Sigh. Demonstrating how one is not involved in an "investment security" per the Howe test precedent is not an affirmative loophole defense. It is a defense against the alleged crime. The prosecution must prove the defendant has met the test under the Securities Act and subsequent clarifying case law of what an "investment security" entails.

And you are totally off in left-field again (as you were in the thread with Nagle) in that Regulation S safe harbor is not the defense I was citing. I was citing the defense that no investment security was ever created per the Howe test which defines what constitutes an investment security.


You cite that as a precedent but it is entirely inconsistent with the genre of scenario I was describing in this thread.

http://networkmarketinglaw.com/securities-law/v-bowdoin-dc-cir-march-18-2011/


First of all, the defendant was managing a common enterprise using the advertiser's funds and make representations to them. I already pointed out in my scenario up thread, that there would never be any operating common enterprise where funds were received and investors were waiting on returns from the common enterprise being managed by the developer.

Your cited case law is inapplicable and I refer back to SEC vs. Howe until you can find another case which overturns it w.r.t. to my scenario.

Otherwise please take your amateurish snobbish crap and very low powers of logic and discernment else where, because you are wasting my precious and scarce time.

ORO, I found some cheap gold US coins for ya:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Alibaba-American-eagle-liberty-lady-one_60118272487.html?spm=a2700.7765678.1998649852.10.ktnt9Z

I explained in detail in private messages why I can be pretty sure that is what he means and documented upthread that Evan is implementing CoinShuffle and will indeed remove the ability of the masternode to spy on the anonymity. We need to be honest here. I am trying to be objective in spite of having some conflict of interest due to developing also a block scaling solution.


Already provided it.

My development efforts are irrelevant to the argument that LN and side-chains will wreck havoc on Bitcoin. (I edited my prior post)

P.S. when I need you to have faith, then I will need to convince you. I don't need you to yet. Nothing is coded.

CLTV = CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is an opcode need to implement Lightning Networks on Bitcoin.

Hope you read my assessment of Lightning Networks. This will destroy (wreck havoc on) Bitcoin. I hope they implement it faster.

Please do give Gmaxwell more free reign so he can destroy Bitcoin with side-chains and other hair-brained ideas.

This is related to whether Bitcoin is classified as an investment security. As well as any other crypto-coin.

Do you not care if Bitcoin is legal or not?

Why would you assume this thread is not related to Bitcoin? I specifically mentioned Bitcoin upthread. Maybe because you didn't read the thread and just aren't interested? Or is it because there is a preponderance of discussion about how to crowdfund a coin to try to avoid classification as investment security? Note that has not been the only mode discussed nor is it the only choice in the poll, nor is this thread closed to discussions of the other choices in the poll, one of which applies to Bitcoin.

Also would Blockstream side-chains denominated in BTC and two-way pegged to the Bitcoin block chain, not apply to Bitcoin? Would how side-chains are structured so as to not be illegal unregistered investment securities not be relevant to BTC?

Sorry those are securities as defined under the law:

---

Well almost anything one can do in life could make one culpable to multiple jeopardy  when considering the vagaries of a multiple of legal systems and common laws. My point was to address the reasonably well defined securities regulatory law where it is so encoded. I considered the USA and EU (not each EU country) for starters.

It seems to me that if what you've done is reasonably in line with the very strict USA securities law, you've done good disclosure (i.e. enumerated risks, what you provide and don't provide, etc), and you've done a fair deal and not egregiously harmed any one, then the risks are about the same as committing 3 felonies a day just by breathing.

Now you are grasping at straws.

I talk to people all the time in private messages (and public forum discussions) and gauge interest level. It is completely detached from potentially anonymous buyers of a crowdfund. Polling the market is not a conspiracy.


Well of course you consider anything to weaken a competitor of Monero to be something worth spreading FUD about.

If people aren't dumb, I am sure they can figure it out that developer who has put his life for 3 years into something isn't going to just disappear and let his baby just die. And surely if the product is any good, there will be other devs offering to work on it and receiving donations.

The entire argument for open source is that the community takes over what is worthwhile to the community.

I am simply amazed after all your dogma to me about the glory of open source and nothing can beat Monero because open source always wins then when I talk about using open source to sustain a product after release, you think the users of crypto-currency aren't going to trust in open source. Thus you are saying it isn't open source that is keeping Monero strong but rather some promised control by some key persons such as fluffypony. But did fluffypony ever promise anything?

All posts of course are appreciated, but please do not expect me to just wither when a point appears to have holes in it.


You have a circular illogic. There can't be any security if it didn't meet the Howe test, thus the promotion of said product was not a management of a common enterprise nor the promotion of the sale of a security.

I hope you can see that can't have a promotion of a security, if it never is a security.


Securities law doesn't apply. Nothing met the Howe test so there were no securities involved.


Well yes I guess if you can prove there was a conspiracy to hide that the buyers of the crowdfund were acting in conspiracy with the developer to continue to expect his managerial control and entreprenurial performance while obfuscating it, but then according to the Howe test you also need to prove the money transferred was used in the common enterprise and not just for the personal use of the developer it was transferred to. You could try to prove that the money was a conspiracy for an advance on his salary for future efforts. But the market value of the asset he sold at crowdfund must be taken into account. Since the crowdfund is a market price, I doubt you can make the argument it was for future salary, since the crowdfund contract will expressly state it is not for that.

In civil law you only need to prove the preponderance of the evidence and not beyond any reasonable doubt. But at least that removes the criminal liability.

Actually there is a crowdfunding platform that has refunding at any time before the milestone is funded.

You pretty much know if you have commitments to funding. You talk to people. You gauge market sentiment and the competitive landscape.

I specifically wrote refutations to #2 and #3 up thread.

---

Mostly finished means you don't need to hard fork the protocol, because it is very difficult to coordinate hard forks from optional code patches done by volunteers who are not in control in the eyes of the users.

If it crashes, I think the users will most likely accept any patch by anyone that makes it run again. The developer is not the only person who can fix open source. I find it very amusing that you argue with me for over a year (and intensely for a couple of days recently in private) about how great Monero is because of volunteerism and open source, and now when your point-of-view favors my argument you suddenly argue that open source is impotent and only the one dev can fix or improve anything. Makes it seem all the more suspicious that you are not sincere and have an agenda. Maybe you just don't like to ever lose any public debate.


Othe was the one that wrote (in another thread) that hard forks are forced every 6 months. I was basing on his statement. Then you told me recently in private that users could opt out by editing the source code. Now you tell me the clients will continue on working if there is no hard fork. I can only go based on what you Monero folks tell me. I don't hang out in Monero threads.

A crowdfund can be configured to allow every potentially interested buyer to remove his offer to buy at any time. The terms of a crowdfund are configurable. You could have it set that sale does not take place until the product is ready for sale, and it can also be that every buyer must reconfirm their interest to buy before their purchase proceeds. You might also choose only to start the crowdfund when the product is ready for sale and each commitment is queued until it reaches your threshold, then the money is taken and product is delivered. If threshold is not reached, you could declare the crowdfund a fail and no money changes hands.

So in that case it can be considered a poll and no money has been entered into any consideration, thus your Wikipedia link is inapplicable. But it is good you made these points, because a crowdfund done another way might not be excepted from your point.

From an investment contract point-of-view, when the money is committed (without recourse to revert is probably also important factor) is what matters. Expression of interest to buy is not a monetary instrument. It is a poll.

Note that getting people to buy a crowdfund, will likely involve closing the source code until after the sale. Otherwise others might be emboldened to offer to fork your code and do a free release. You need some momentum going in, so likely you'd want to have something in the protocol where the open source is automatically revealed after a set period of time. Will need to think more about this.

I think the latest exchange between smooth and I there really made it more clear. Try to read again near the end of the thread. We got more directly to the point. Yeah legalese can make a reader dizzy. I think we homed in well on the key two sentences of the Howey test.

Just PM me details on what you need & what you are paying. I am very busy as core developer on my own coin, but I might be able to advise depending on what you need, how much, and whether I have any conflict of interest.

I inherited this ability from my very gifted attorney father I think.

The sentence requires the money to be used in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits to be derived primarily from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. The money from the crowdfunding is not used in any common enterprise. The pre-crowdfund development work is a sole enterprise of the developer until the time it is sold (think about who owns what, the devs owns his work and the investors own their money, until the exchange takes place). The developer takes the money and the money is never used in the common enterprise. The Howe Test requires the invested money to be managed in a common enterprise and the investors to expect profits from the management of those funds invested in the common enterprise.

You are entirely misreading it because ostensibly you did not pay attention to how the word 'used' interacts with the fact that in a crowdfund, the seller is not in a common enterprise (with the buyers of the crowdsale) until he sells and per the Howe test the funds must then be used in that common enterprise formed. But if the developer leaves any managerial role at the point-of-sale and takes the funds raised with him, then he is not subject to the Howe test as specifically worded.


The developer can pledge to be available for ongoing work for donations as desired by any investors that wish to donate to him. He would not violate the Howe test.

I believe also now reading the Howe test more carefully, that Monero may not be culpable, because Monero is not using the money that was invested in the common enterprise. And Bitcoin may fall into the same category. But just to be safe, if it were my coin I would remove things from the protocol that force users to rely on the managerial control of the core devs, such as that forced hard fork every 6 months.

Note Bitshares, Ethereum, and Dash all appear to be very culpable. Exchanges trading those coins should consult with their attorneys about criminal and civil liability for trading unregistered securities.


A developer can make a proposal to do some work. Users can vote by making donations on that specification and other proposals if there are any from any others contractors that wish to do some work. Not all the users have to agree. If the contractor has enough donations to meet his desired remuneration, then he proceeds. The users later decide whether to adopt that work in the common enterprise which only they manage.

A developer can also volunteer work, as he might be a holder of the coin too who wants to exert some of his control over his investment.

You are correctly pointing out that making a coin that is not yet mostly finished doesn't fit well this model. And the market really needs finished coins, not coins still being experimented on. Sell a new coin if you want to radically change the features.

I would endeavor to produce a coin where the major features were set and done.

And the things that need to change are orthogonal to the protocol which no longer needs to change. Separation-of-concerns is a very important design principle for computer science and programming.

That isn't the only use case of fast confirming transactions, regardless whether microTX or normal values.


So off-chain mixing of TX inputs and outputs. But algorithms for that which work without any trust such as CoinShuffle are slow. And off chain mixing is not autonomous, violates the end-to-end principle, has a simultaneity requirement waiting for other users to join your mix.

(I have suggested a novel use of CoinShuffle for hiding IP addresses where it is a useful addition to on-chain mixing, but that is irrelevant to my point here)

Every design has some weakness, so don't fret. I am just trying to determine what the parameters are.


Comparable to a 6 confirmation probability against double-spend in Bitcoin?

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

smooth, law is based on words. We must read words with comprehension, not just ignoring parts of the sentences we do not like.

The red bolded phrases are the salient part of the test I am referring to. To be an investment security requires an ongoing "common enterprise" where the buyer "reasonably expects profits" due to the ongoing "entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others" in that enterprise. When the developer sells some software and tokens encoded in a genesis block of the protocol of that software, there is no common enterprise. The users take that and decide whether to make it a common enterprise. For example, they could throw away the genesis block if they wanted to and were able to organize themselves to do so.

It can be argued thus that Bitcoin is an investment security. The core developers exert a lot of managerial control in the common enterprise that the users do not. They've even formed a Blockstream corporation around their operation.

Do you have other means to obtain equivalent untraceability or do you feel anonymity isn't important for these transactions?

Do you have any rough idea of the confirmation delay?

Well if you sell a product that meets the specifications you provided to the users, and you have no control over what happens after that, then no one claim you had control and the users didn't. They had the disclosure of what they buying. They had the control whether to buy. They had the only control that anyone had over the tokens after the crowdfund ICO. As long as the lead dev exerts no position of increased control as compared to any other users after delivering the product as specified, then he has had no control.

In other words, the lead dev must cease to have any control once the sale is completed and the users have to decide what to do with what they purchased.

The coin would obviously need to be in testnet for a while to hammer out of all the bugs.

If the users voted on their own volition to hire a dev to make some change to the protocol via decentralized donations, that dev didn't have managerial control. Rather the users did. The other users can veto it by not adopting the new protocol changes.