Four, right?

As of now, I see five of your coins listed at Cryptsy. There's a couple more that I am unsure of (just second-hand IRC info, so I can't verify if they are indeed yours).
The five though, it's yours. Would you like me to PM you the coin names?
I don't intend to drag the coins' names out in the open without cause, because you've never been a pump & dumper, so I have no reason to FUD over them, without cause.

Bobster, come on, spill it. I'm very curious.
Promise I won't tell. Scout's honor!



Spoetnik, Wolong is a pimply boy who rode on the coattails of the Dogecoin Olympic bobsled promo and claimed credit for the resulting price spike.
After proclaiming himself as some sort of a crypto savant, he released a badly-written trading ebook (it's only several pages - enovellette?) that some developers here, shockingly, took as gospel.
I remember the Uro dev reverently talking about the ebook in one of his hangouts. The phrase "weak hands" that is used by many wannabe-traders originated from that ebook.

Wolong was courted by several devs thereafter, but he joined forces with the UNO dev (not Uro) to release Panda after being promised a lucrative cut, including custody of a huge stash of premine and IPO proceeds. After telling everyone to hold, Wolong preceded to sell off the entire stash and crash the market to a few satoshis. He then accused everyone and everything including the kitchen sink of starting the sell off and rode of with a couple hundred BTCs in his pocket. I still don't know though if the UNO dev was part of the scam, or just another victim. Last I heard, a couple of Panda investors actually managed to track Wolong down via hardwarezone.com.sg and received a settlement. Can't confirm it though.

Despite this, people are still clamoring to work with Wolong. Hi-5 coin, anyone?

Re Fontas: He also works with Wolong. He and Molly suffered huge losses in the Panda scam, but I think Wolong covered his losses at least.


iGotSpots was diagnosed with crypto-finger, a dangerous condition caused mainly by releasing too many coins into the crypto wildlands of Cryptsy.
Doctors have pleaded for him to stop releasing new coins.
But like a crack addict, iGotSpots can't help it; he haz to release a newz coinz every so often.

I don't want to get involved in this, since I know practically nothing about Edgar Soares or ARCHcoin.
However, I do want to point out that domain speculation is a very lucrative business.
I once made a high four figure profit on a five-letter *.com domain that I acquired for $1.99 (GoDaddy coupon).
Visit DnForum.com or Namepros.com to get an idea of the level of trading involved.

Iconic Expert is a P&D strategist with a strong group behind him. He made a few whales really fat.
He was behind some of the most incredible price jumps on the scene, most notably Black Coin - although, that relationship ended in flames in the wake of the supposed Wall Street event.
AFAIK, he was last seen working with MsCollec and his Chinese coins.
I am told he is using a new alt here now, but I can't tell if that's him.

Now, Spoetnik, I want to focus this discussion on BobSurpluss.
I've heard numerous stories of the man - some good, most bad.
The good ones make him sound like an influential, badass crypto cowboy that knows the ins and outs of every facet of the crypto scene.
The bad ones make him sound like a scam artist extraordinaire.
I am, however, most intrigued by two aspects of his legend.

(i) Is he behind Coin Source?
(ii) Does he manage a crypto team in a boiler room in downtown New York that churns out coins at regular intervals?

If anyone has first hand knowledge of this, I am all ears. PMs are welcomed too.

ps: Oh, and I'm voting for you for sentimental reasons, Spoetnik.

1. What do you mean by "to confirm legitimacy of an altcoin"? What level of due diligence will you be performing? Will it be limited to the technical side, or will your efforts encompass the entire spectrum from developers to commercial claims. What are the fees? Is it a community service?

2. Does everyone need to hold meeting/s with you prior to publicly stating that their coin has 'potential'?

3. What will be the focus of your investigation, if you don't mind me asking?

4. This thread is, unfortunately, not moderated.

5. Will you share a little bit more about yourself, Mr. Williams, especially your prior experience in cryptocurrency?

Dude, you can read a blockchain and perform auditing and reverse tracking of addresses!
You should totally open up a competing PR firm and approach CANN!

Este, if this system is ever implemented here, I will leave the forum.
It will trigger a circle-jerk of gargantuan proportions as people race to accumulate Bitmarks.
Notwithstanding that, the implementation of such a system would signal the tacit endorsement of Bitmark by the forum's admins - it's not going to happen.

OP, I cracked the case wide open for you. Our intrepid agent, Maxwell Smart, barely escaped with his life to get this damning piece of document out - missed it by that much!



 

I don't mean to be disrespectful, the prize being offered here is hilariously insulting. At today's prices, 20,000 WSTL = 0.00678300 BTC = $2.6.

I've already countered this with my Japanese/Egyptian example earlier on
Remember Fedwire=domestic.
Consider, the seller and buyer's banks can choose not to use Fedwire and use other clearing houses to conduct their trade.

I have been very patient with you Roadtrain. If you don't see that, it's not my problem.
You're not an honest debater, because you keep sniping off my comments to avoid responding to them.
You are presenting a frankly ridiculous claim.

1. You keep trying to hide behind the word 'figure'. Did you not write that foreign companies trading with U.S. companies need to have bank account in the U.S.? That statement in itself ends the argument. If all the dollars are locked away in the U.S., how the heck are companies outside the U.S. getting paid?

2. You didn't read the links. You didn't even know about Fedwire before I brought it up.

3. No, you were operating under the impression that the Federal Reserve operated some kind of a "payment system" before you learned about Fedwire. Read your own words. It was necessary to explain to you that they are not the same.

4. Liquidity swaps mean currencies are traded outside of their home countries. It's all there. There is nothing vague about it.

5. No, you didn't know that. You said the Fedwire is "fundamentally different" because it uses RTGS.

6. Simple. You claim the Feds have access to all the dollars in the country. It doesn't. Private wealth, i.e., dollars held in banks are not under it's control.

7. My links contradict your weird assertion repeatedly, over and over again.

8. I've established it repeatedly, even in this post. But you lack the grace to admit that you were wrong and you continue to spout inanities in an attempt to prove some ridiculous notion.

9. So you concede that the dollars do leave the country then? The fact that they came back is a given. Trade doesn't flow in one direction.

You won't comment on the rest because you can't answer it without conceding that dollars do leave the country.

You were wrong. Move on. Everyone makes mistake sometimes.

Self-professed libertarians, riddle me this!

Prototypical libertarian, John Locke, wrote this line in Second Treatise of Civil Government (Chapter 2):

"Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his Station wilfully; so by the like reason when his own Preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of Mankind, and may not unless it be to do Justice on an Offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the Preservation of the Life, the Liberty, Health, Limb or Goods of another."

Less than three centuries later, Ayn Rand wrote this in The Virtue of Selfishness (Chapter 1, The Objectivist Ethics):

"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose."

Over three centuries after Locke's death, Ron Paul emerged to become the public face of paleolibertarianism. I would bet a satoshi or two (I'm cavalier that way), most of the self-professed libertarians in this thread were converted to the cause by Paul. However, despite Paul's latter day apparent support of voluntary altruism, his past tells a different story. In his own words,

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."

I won't even bring up his newsletters, his off the cuff comments or his remarks to his homosexual aide.

Instead, I'll finish this riddle with this question: Has libertarianism undergone a 180 degree turn in the past 330 years, or is this merely the case of a personality cult?
Because my friends, this battlecry of individualism is, to be frank, fucking scary to listen/read.

Oh, and watch this before responding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=632CHpeHYZE

Poignant. Heartbreaking. Beautiful.

1. Please stop cherry picking my quotes. Kindly respond to my posts in its entirety.
2. Please read the links I've provided. Please don't ignore them and then ask for an explanation. I honestly can't believe we're still on this subject. I hope you're not just arguing for pride.
3. The Federal Reserve and the Fedwire are not the same. One is a central bank, and the other is a payment system facilitating fund transfers between reciprocal domestic agents. Useful reading to differentiate between central banks and clearing houses: http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/events/2014/annual_over_the_counter_derivatives_symposium/tucker_clearinghouses_new_central_banks_tucker_2014.pdf
4. Fedwire works alongside other clearing houses, especially for international transfers. However, the Federal Reserve has it's own liquidity swaps program with several central banks. Guess what they're swapping? http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_liquidityswaps.htm
5. Fedwire's RTGS system is not unique - nearly all first world central banks performs RTGS - as well as those in the majority of developing coutries.
6. Central banks, banks, financial institutions, and private corporations are different entities. Central banks, like the Federal Reserve, DO NOT have access to private wealth - even in Communist nations.
7. Your own link above does not contradict what I said.

8. Let's do a quick recap:
I originally said the U.S. Federal government might implement currency controls as one of the options to circumvent a dollar debt crisis with China.
You say dollars do not leave the Feds and the U.S.. You say foreign companies trading with U.S companies must have local bank accounts.
We've already established that both of these assertions are incorrect.

9. A concise summary on the subject: What happens to the US dollars used to buy imports?

Let me end this by presenting a few more questions for you to ponder on.
• Why do you think the Chilean and Malaysian governments implemented currency controls if it has no effect on their currency outflow?
• Why do commercial banks in U.S. are required by federal law to seek coverage of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?
• Why do you think some people hide their dollars - electronically - in bank accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas, if it's still in the U.S?
• Why is money laundering an issue if the Feds has control of all of the dollars?
• Why do the Federal government blacklist banks or bank accounts of terrorist organizations if the Feds have control of these funds?

You're okay accepting a clearly plagiarized submission - a trademarked one at that?

If I do so, Shorena, I would have to invest a huge amount of time to read a large bulk of the posts in the forum daily - not to mention constantly bumping the thread to keep it visible. I believe mods, who patrol their assigned sections, would be more suited for such a task. They could also pin such a thread.

Edit: I initially read your nick as Sharona, and I was my humming The Knack's My Sharona as I typed the above.

I've already expressed my views here, here, here, here,here and here, Beliathon, so I don't feel like revisiting the subject.
Labels invariably escalate into personality conflicts, pitting protagonists and their supporters into warring camps at the expense of the issues.
Non-empirical metrics like the one you linked, meanwhile, use leading questions to pigeonhole us into convenient labels.
So no, I absolutely don't believe in labels.

Edit:
Just checked - the POlitical Compass is prepared by this guy - a BBC journalist with theatrical aspirations, and financed by this lady. The site also placed Mitt Romney and Bibi Netanyahu in the same quadrant (!). Obama and Manmohan Singh also shares the same quadrant. That aside, I simply can't accept their evaluation of Romney.

The FAQ states that
"How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We rely on reports, parliamentary voting records, manifestos … and actions that speak much louder than words."
Romney only transformed into a right wing conservative fundamentalist in 2012. Prior to that, especially during his term as Gov. of Massachusetts, he was a liberal in all but name. He pushed through the first state-level socialized healthcare system in the country. As Governor, he was pro-choice, pro-LGBT (he even gave an executive order for state agencies to recognize same sex marriages), he favored progressive taxation (and initially, even opposed the Bush tax cuts), he believed in the threat of climate change, he included farming subsidies in his state budget - I could go on. And yet, based on 2012 campaign rhetoric,the site pegged him to be a hawkish right-winger in the mold of Bibi. 

You have a problem with my shell suit, fella? Well do you?
Quick, someone hold me.

2. NAP is one aspect of libertarianism. I was speaking on the absolute parameters of both labels as a whole. Besides, NAP is not necessarily as clear a delineator as you might imagine.
3. To each his own then - though pigmentation is a biological classification. Entirely different from political, or, psychological labels, or Cosmo labels (Are you a Carrie, Samantha, Miranda or Charlotte?).

Well, at least I now know you hate labels. That's something I suppose. This exchange has gone on for far too long, I think. I'll exit here.