If the old coin will be worthless or nearly so, then negative feedback and instability issues remain. In the case of burn, as you indicated in your previous message, the money supply of the old coin is shrinking at the same time the network value is shrinking. Thus old coin price P=T/M where T is the value of the old network and M is the money supply of the old network. As people migrate (burn) you have T and M both approaching zero (but not necessarily at the same or even a constant rate) and P is not well formed and highly unstable as M shrinks. (Even cypherdoc understood this!) By contrast, in the case of a spin-off that obsoletes the old network, you simply have P=T/M where T approaches zero and M is fixed, so this expression is well formed, and P is simply a clear measure of value where the market will naturally absorb speculative fluctuations between old and new, allowing stability and transparency. How does an equation with two variables become not well formed? And what is the mathematical definition "well formed" in this context? I only know of well-formed as it applies to syntactical errors in a grammar. If M ever reaches 0, then P doesn't exist because there are no coins on ask. I fail to see how two variables changing affects the user's interpretation in some catastrophically different way. The user is tracking the percentage of burned coins and the market price, and forming a decision thereof. How is this qualitatively horrific as compared to tracking the price only? We can reframe your equation to make my point more clear. T = PM. If we hold M constant as you suggest, then the coin network value is still changing via P. If we allow M to vary the coin network value is changing. Whether users sell their coins or burn them, an exodus is going to have the same effect on T. The only difference is whether all the effect must be expressed in P or if it can be expressed in both P and M (and more so in M because of arbitrage on price due to burning). Citing cypherdoc isn't going to make your argument compelling to me.  And I don't like the idea of doubling the money supply every time you upgrade
This is an illusion. Prior to the spin-off (in fact prior to it even being conceived!) the future coins are embedded the old coins. But after the spin off it is not. You can even imagine a analogy of an metal coin being physically cut in two. Each of old (post) and new represent "half" of old (pre), and you can't make an equivalence between old (post spin-off) for old (pre spin-off), since it is physically a smaller asset. So there is no doubling of money supply, only a reconfiguration, as with taking one ounce gold coins and splitting them each into two half-ounce coins. A stock split is not an increase in the money supply if the price goes down on both coins equally and all users hold their same distributions on both coins. But since you argue one of the networks may be more valuable to some users, then those who don't act to protect themselves could see a disproportionate decrease in their total wealth. And the protection strategy is not any less complex than burning. They must still decide when to trade one coin for the other. You are making the error of equating a gross aggregate such as M, with the distribution of the holdings of M. Many economists make this false assumption. It is a doubling of the money supply in the sense that unless the new coin expands the demand then the demand is split between two networks of total supply that is doubled. If the users had to do nothing to retain equivalent value, then we could say it is a stock split. But due to the units not being fungible, it is not a stock split and rather a complex game theory of debasement that the users have to expend effort on. Forcing users to expend effort is debasement of their value. With a burn, the supply remains constant. That doesn't reduce the complexity of the decision, but at least it doesn't give the public perception that the coin supply is growing like crazy. And most importantly it impacts more information, because rather than the lazy action of just HODLing both, users make their move to be in one coin or the other and not straddling the fence. Given a complex decision that has no clear answer, users tend to do nothing. Thus they would likely not sell either coin. However given the decision of losing their chance to convert to the new coin, they will likely do some research and decide whether the new coin has good features that everyone wants and if yes then convert. So the burning is more informational about what matters, which is user appraisal of value of the upgrade. because people will continue to spend and use their old version coins, so I think we will find they will retain value and ecosystem. It seems antithetical to a meritocracy to create such doublings of the money supply on the whim of every dev that wants to offer an upgrade. To the contrary. It is that people may continue to use the old coin without creating an instability that would in turn both (at different times) encourage and discourage switching that makes this more of a (stable) meritocracy than burning. People simply choose how they value the old and new networks. If the value stays with the old, then the developer has not done a very good job of making "upgrades" that other people actually perceive as such! No one will chose not to avail of their ownership of coins in both fucks. Very little market information is impart by giving away for free what is not free. Some might sell their coins in one of the forks trying to drive it away, but the rational game theory is to hold the coins in both networks for appreciation. There is no pressure on either coin's value. Which ever coin grows network value and appreciates faster, is likely to the be one sold first (based on the rational investor selling some on each rake...remember rpietila's teaching about rake). Another way to see this is to consider that a two-way peg is also a meritocracy in the sense there is no asymmetry that might serve to influence users to structurally prefer one side of the peg or the other. But since you are not proposing a two-way peg then it is clear there must be an asymmetry.
I want users to impart their preference. I don't want to obscure it. Allowing people to decide when to make their move, is somewhat balanced because they will wait to see what others do, which penalizes the new coin (which is why I suggested offering a slight incentive for coming over early), because they can't come back with a peg (only by exchange value). The only rational system seems to be the one where investors have to make a choice and express their choice. Investors express their choice in the spin-off model in the value they decide to attach to each of the new assets (as above, the original version of the "old" coin simply ceases to exist). If you do not allow this (because you want to force users to choose) then you are introducing an irreversible choice which has a value that is non-linear, complex and very likely unstable. Holding M constant doesn't make the equation linear. That equation doesn't exist in a vacuum. The inputs to price P are non-linear. For one thing the wealth effect is non-linear. Investors don't think in terms of complex valuations of non-linear systems. It really boils down to do you want them to hold both coins selling the one that appreciates faster (your model) or do you want them to impart their preference sooner (my model). If you delay (or remove entirely!) imparting that information, you retard the development of the ecosystem. As I said, the difference is analogous to kicking-the-can a.k.a. not marking-to-market. Otherwise there is no choice, they just avail of all the 10 upgrades at once and endure the lingering uncertainty as it takes a longer to determine which fork has the market support (since voting by burning was not enabled). Can you actually prove this takes longer? I don't think so. I actually kind of suspect the opposite (but can't prove that either). Yes based on human psychology. People avoid complex decisions. K.I.S.S. The rationally easiest thing to do in your model is HODL both and sell the one that either appreciates the most or is losing value precipitously. Since most are HODLing both, then information propagation is much delayed and skewed by the manic choice of responding to sell only at extremes. The alternative is just create a new coin for the upgrade and let anyone trade for it on the decentralized exchange, but then the developers will need to dump these old version coins into the market This does not retain value for the old coin, thus you lose confidence. Why should I buy your new coin when you just destroyed the value of your old one? Exactly. That was my point too. It creates discord in the community. With the spin-off model, value and confidence are retained for existing investors. It is simply an upgrade with no reset of distribution (again assuming it is actually an upgrade!).
You aren't factoring the psychological choice you've put on the user to make. I argue that the default mode in your model is apathy and then action on manic extremes. I argue that my model encourages research and proaction. I prefer the latter as being a more informed, proactive community. However it does seem there should be some time penalty on delaying to burn. Now I think you are recognizing that the burn model can actually discourage upgrading and you are trying to "fix" that by creating a time penalty. But, again, you are trying to force an outcome instead of letting people freely choose the "upgrade". If people resist burning that tells you something about your so-called upgrade. You don't need to corral them by creating a time penalty. I set incentives to encourage informational proaction earlier instead of apathy and kicking-the-can to non-informational, manic, mass stampedes. You want to encourage the users to do nothing. No research. Kick the can. Delay. Wait for price manias to force their hand. It is okay that we disagree on this point for now, but I'm reasonably confident that if you think about this some more you will eventually recognize that the embedded option is the source of instability, and that indeed you are attempting to use the instability to force, or at least encourage, investors to upgrade, thus behaving in a way other than meritocracy.
Why do socialists always prefer a little short-term stability at the cost of manic, mass stampedes later. Do not give away for free what is not free. Do not pretend fungibility for that which is not fungible. Hard forks are stressful. There is no way to get around that. Thus upgrades will likely need to be very compelling. And they should be. Otherwise don't bother. Many other things to work on in software. As much as possible try to design the block chain to accommodate extension and change without a change to protocol. |
|
|
|
This thread is about to require some popcorn.
Pop it fast, the suspense is almost over I think. I doubt there will be any sincere public apologies coming from gmaxwell and othe. Betting on reputations doesn't always work out, especially when they've doggedly disrespected the accomplishments of another person because they were done 15 years ago and they weren't math (well actually I programmed some math and physics in my development role for Art-O-Matic and for Corel Painter, but that wasn't cryptography). |
|
|
|
Grownups donīt brag that they broke something without waiting for an answer multiple times.
How about just being mutually respectful?
I donīt play political games, i simply dislike you and your attidude.
Obviously which I can always detect when someone doesn't like me. And apparently you didn't read: I will await his reply. It is possible I am missing something, but it sure seems straightforward to my eyes that he hasn't linked the Ij to Im where 0 < j < m.
Btw, I am sure it is broken, unless I am missing something very much non-obvious to me. It appears he hasn't thought through the implications of the fact that you can't reference the outputs and the inputs in separate LWW signatures unless you link them externally, but then you've linked them publicly so there is no point in having a ring. He seems to think that he has linked them somehow anonymously in the MG sig and we are trying to explain to each other our views on that, so we can determine which one of us is correct. But I already pretty confident which of us is correct. I think you fail to respect that I feel I already have a fully written solution and not adding sections as we discuss. He was very much not ready to publish this and has apparently not combed back over the logic after writing the full paper. I have the advantage of having tried various designs and thrown them away because I broke them. Now again I may be missing some key point about the MG sigs, so I am still trying to determine what this magic might be that I don't see yet. |
|
|
|
I am smug for posting a reddit link?
Oh boy, grow up.
For the :p when taken together with your attitude displayed up thread and the nature of the link on your signature as I quoted. And now you play more such political ego games. How about just being mutually respectful? That is what I wish grownups would do. The "oh boy" is more of trying to paint my logical reply as if I am thin skinned. Don't worry I can handle the shit slinging. I was just pointing out that we could be nice instead. |
|
|
|
You are so smug. Hold on. |
|
|
|
The possibility remains that people would prefer the old coin, since the only actual transition process is that the value of the old coin declines and the new coin increases (other than that, people are free to continue to use the old one if they prefer), but in a situation where ongoing development is occurring, presumably people would strongly prefer the new-and-improved version (or if not, is it really improved?)
It is complex though. The coin supply of the old coin is decreasing, so some might view it as gaining value, yet if mining declines too much some might view it as becoming more in danger of failing to function. To lower risks in burning, merge mining both the old and new is how I would code the upgrade which also facilitates the redesign of the block chain consensus I alluded to. No, in a spin-off system the coin supply in the old system is not decreasing. People keep both their new and old coins, but as an obsolete system with a clearly-superior replacement, the old coin should become worthless or at least nearly worthless. This removes both the negative feedback that discourages upgrading and also the instability of burning being an irreversible (and potentially in the case of catastrophic failure, perishable) process. I wrote "burn" so burning to the new coin, meaning the old coin is burned. If spin-off was proposed to perform as you say, then it is not the same as what I was thinking and writing about. If the old coin will be worthless or nearly so, then negative feedback and instability issues remain. And I don't like the idea of doubling the money supply every time you upgrade, because people will continue to spend and use their old version coins, so I think we will find they will retain value and ecosystem. It seems antithetical to a meritocracy to create such doublings of the money supply on the whim of every dev that wants to offer an upgrade. We could have 10 upgrades going on simultaneously. The only rational system seems to be the one where investors have to make a choice and express their choice. Otherwise there is no choice, they just avail of all the 10 upgrades at once and endure the lingering uncertainty as it takes a longer to determine which fork has the market support (since voting by burning was not enabled). The altenative is just create a new coin for the upgrade and let anyone trade for it on the decentralized exchange, but then the developers will need to dump these old version coins into the market thus accelerating its price decline, thus creating a stampede into the new coin, which seems it will raise apprehension towards upgrades and fragment the social contract. Whereas, by burning the old coins, the money supply of the old coins drops to compensate for its loss of participants, so that scarcity increases. This should moderate the price drop on the old version, since after all it can be burned to a new version coin at any time. However it does seem there should be some time penalty on delaying to burn. So maybe it is better to give slightly more in conversion for those who burn earlier and slightly less to those that burn later. Something to think about. You can't really enforce merge mining in a decentralized system. You are thinking in terms of being the developer "in charge" of what code people run and how to manage an upgrade process, instead of a developer who releases an upgrade people might choose to adopt because it is better.
Incorrect if you consider the possible designs that might be different than what we have now. I wrote that if the old coin has a protocol, then respecting that protocol is fundamental to consensus. So if you define the protocol (with a correct game theory) such that miners are enforced to merge mine any registered burn to targets that meet certain minimum requirements such as minimum % of burn to avoid DoS attack on the feature (administered decentralized), then what I wrote works decentralized. When I say I have some other magic up my sleeve, it seems people do not believe me. That is fine. There will be a time to reveal all. I'm not even saying this is a good way to do development, but if you really want a fully decentralized system where you are not controlling anything, that's how you have to approach it.
Yup fully decentralized but don't conflate that with not being able to design protocols that self-organize the future. So there are no issues of potentially missing out or preferring to wait, both of which potentially give rise to instability. It just happens without any active participation being needed and old coin owners can pick up their new coins at their convenience.
The concept that not having to vote in the market and being able to play all options at no cost, is the epitome of instability, because it is obfuscation. Transparency is required for stable markets. Delaying the market adjustments only exacerbates the lack of fitness because of the obfuscation. As I am sure you would notice too, that is analogously what is happening now with the kick-the-can politics and financial gimicks (QE and no mark-to-market). To state something I am sure you are aware of, the lack of fitness is in the misallocation that debt causes by distorting the signals of where the true market value is, and ditto not knowing which financial institutions are really bankrupt and when they will default. |
|
|
|
But Risto I am not sure if you have totally made the transition to decentralized. You still write of audited depositories in your CK.
CK is young and needs to "borrow legitimacy" from a project 6 months older: Monero. In practice, we designed it such that XMR is the link to the a-bit-less-virtual-world. Audited depositories are needed to ensure that all CK money exists in the blockchain and can be withdrawn if required. It is a kind-of two-way peg. Only about 5-10% by value of assets owned by characters are money, but I still feel it is important to have the money link there. If we wanted to pay out all XMR and issue ingame fiat instead (like every other game is doing), I believe we would do as well as every other game. But the intention is to do better. I don't in detail the protocols of your system. I would just think if at all possible it is best to have the protocols run decentralized, so there is no controlling entity at all. I am not stating you shouldn't leverage an existing crypto currency rather than rolling your own. Maybe Monero doesn't have the block chain scripting features you need in order to decentralize your protocol? In any case, I am probably not the person to talk to about this but rather your users, devs, and Monero devs I suppose. My only point was to emphasize that I prefer decentralized protocols where there isn't any controlling entity at all, if at all possible. I assume many others have the same preference, since its seems to be one of the fundamental tenets of decentralized currency. |
|
|
|
Then Bitcoin came and opened our eyes...(and it opened your eyes before mine Risto, which is one reason why you are a millionaire and I am not)
If it makes you feel any better... Oh I don't feel bad about that. I honestly feel joy for rpietila and I feel joy for myself for all the opportunities I have in front of me. I've been a millionaire (inflation-adjusted) in 2001 and I've been so poor (in 1990s) that I couldn't afford to buy meat. I just want to make sure I still have enough funds so I can continue enjoying the excitement and wonder of creating and maybe getting back to wealthy again if that is what is meant for me. Actually creating and enjoying life (and not being sick!) is the most important priority for me. Money is just a means to that end and some things I want to do money can't buy (e.g. the knowledge to create). I've felt more joy for Risto when he started being open minded to investing in high risk altcoins and he stopped being surety for newbie investors. That period was difficult for me and I was thinking today that I let a lot of frustration fly at Monero because I perceived it as being too closed off and too limited by a few rich guys who copied Cryptonote and mined it out themselves. I felt it was not open to competition and thus I felt stifled by the concept. In any case, I like the idea of burning to upgrades, because anyone can compete to provide the upgraded fork. The free market is more in control. If is way for me to participate and compete for my creative value in the free market, then I am happy. And I realize some of my assumptions early on about Monero may have been entirely wrong or exaggerated. I didn't write that to open a hornet's nest but simply to explain what was going on in my head at the time. Edit: I also realize it isn't my place to dictate to any one what they do. Any way, I was just writing about what I felt at the time, not that being a valid justification to criticize any one publicly. The best way to make a statement is to compete with actions and not unkind words. Sometimes easier said than done. As Risto said, we've all been learning. When I first came to these forums in 2013, I posted Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch. My attitude was that crypto currency was the coming 666 or NWO system. So coming in I had an attitude that I would be up against entrenched interests who would be in support of the Great Harlot or World Government (religious or non-religious interpretation). This is why I inherently didn't trust Gmaxwell for example and I questioned everything even those things I didn't understand well yet, such as ECC. Later as I observed Gmaxwell create CT and fight against mining centralization, my view towards him became much more open and favorable. This has been a process for me, just as it has been for all of you. Also I had some very turbulent stuff going on in my life during this period of 2012 - 2015 which complicated the task of keeping a level-headed, well researched, well rested, open mind. We do what we can do. We are just human. |
|
|
|
3) I never said the banksters will surrender without a fight, but they will have a hard time finding people to fight against others' imagination soon.
The decentralized systems with no "controlling entity" will have this quality. But a regulated/unregistered company running a coin doesn't have this quality and thus is culpable under man's law serfdom. Daniel 2:44 say the righteous unassailable kingdom will "break apart" meaning it will be decentralized. So you are making a lethal weapon of financial self-defence, which the system cannot destroy, and therefore you (the system and the people) will learn to respect the mutual differences?
Well I just proposed the exact same!
Isn't it so elegant to discover that the best arrangement for the free market (i.e. no futures contracts which is the Proverb I learned from Hommel, "Do not be surety for another person" and I refined more as per below) in making each development autonomous from the succeeding ones (and let the market decide to burn their coins to the next improved fork) is also the one that is legal. The point is do not promise the future, because the further away the future, the less control one truly has. Better to sell what you have now, then in the future sell what you have then. Gives the markets more degrees-of-freedom. This is why Ethereum's lockup of shares for so long was so evil... Jason Hommel's theological research should be linked to in the above context. |
|
|
|
We at least I tried: the depository...
I and many others also tried, but Risto was the one who actually made it work somewhat even if I am remember getting the Post Office of Finland to have some of his silver units (or was that physical silver dimes) available for purchase. Then Bitcoin came and opened our eyes...(and it opened your eyes before mine Risto, which is one reason why you are a millionaire and I am not) But Risto I am not sure if you have totally made the transition to decentralized. You still write of audited depositories in your CK. |
|
|
|
If there are series of upgrades and you are late, you could burn from one to the next to the next, so there isn't any hindrance there. You can only do this if the old coins even functions, isn't weakened and attacked, etc.. Actually you could have it in the protocol of the old coin that any coin it can be burned to (perhaps has to be registered in the old coin's block chain) can burn the coin for the old coin. But this requires a different sort of block chain consensus algorithm that doesn't assume it has all the data at every mining node all the time. This is close to describing my radical design for a block chain. And if the old coin disrespects its own protocol, then one assumes the market will highly devalue it as dysfunctional. That in turn will be reflected in the market as a sort of black swan risk that is extremely difficult to reason about or handle, leading to things being generally unstable. That is one reason why I find spin-off claims to be preferable. Once the claim date is passed, the claims are frozen, the state of the old coin no longer matters, and claims are not perishable.
But this has another risk which is the expiration on the demonstration of relative interest in the new coin, although that can also be signaled ongoing by relative market prices. Timing risks include a bug found in the new coin or some FUD campaign that needs time to be discredited that needs to be fixed first and people delay burning. Yet I agree that while the period of burning is open, it complicates calculations of future value because the future coin supply is variable. It seems the best balance is probably some multi-month period, perhaps even up to a year. Other risks during that longer period? The possibility remains that people would prefer the old coin, since the only actual transition process is that the value of the old coin declines and the new coin increases (other than that, people are free to continue to use the old one if they prefer), but in a situation where ongoing development is occurring, presumably people would strongly prefer the new-and-improved version (or if not, is it really improved?)
It is complex though. The coin supply of the old coin is decreasing, so some might view it as gaining value, yet if mining declines too much some might view it as becoming more in danger of failing to function. To lower risks in burning, merge mining both the old and new is how I would code the upgrade which also facilitates the redesign of the block chain consensus I alluded to. Claims can be made against a new coin with another ICO, but the added dilution adds to the risk that the market will reject it. Such is the nature of true decentralization. You can't simply corral people to the new coin if you don't deliver enough value. (This may also weaken confidence if there isn't a strong social contract, since people have no idea how much they will be diluted in future versions, nor how many times.)
I agree the additional unpredictable dilution causes discord in the social contract and confusion. Risk is a countervailing force to adoption. |
|
|
|
We can consider (Town-emitted) CK assets to be "community burn" then.
For instance there is now a decree that Town will (effectively create) and sell VOD item for 0.14 XMR in unlimited quantity. The item is expected to be around for a long time. Anyone can "burn" their XMR to convert it to VOD at a fixed rate but not back. If VOD is perceived to have better characteristics than XMR, it will be desirable. (It can be consumed to gain health, on the other hand it is not as liquid.) Gains from selling VOD will be divided to the game shareholders.
Please define terms "Town", "VOD", and "burning XMR". I am thinking burning XMR can only happen on the XMR block chain. Does XMR have this feature? |
|
|
|
I haven't had time to re-read the thread about Peter R's spin-off idea to see if the following was already discussed (or perhaps similar discussion about Blockstream's side-chains), but even if you have a capability to burn from one coin to the new coin (e.g. an upgrade fork) the new coin needs to add some coin supply in order to sell something in its crowdfunding unless it only accepts the burnable coin as funding. Burning to the new (e.g. upgraded) coin will: - Dilute the new coin supply.
- Dilute or increase the owner of the coin's share of coin supply depending on the relative size of the coin supplies at the time.
- Increase the share of the coin supply for all remaining owners of the coin being burned.
- Affect the relative market price of the coins in complex ways, including expectations of burn.
Seems the most straightforward crowdfunded upgrade would be commitments to sell the coin being upgraded. As participants commit to the upgrade to meet the crowdfund threshold, they know the minimum coin supply of the new upgrade (assuming the funded dev(s) intended to burn the coins to the new coin) and any dilution beyond that is a vote of confidence in the upgrade which is perhaps viewed as counter-balancing to the additional dilution. If there are series of upgrades and you are late, you could burn from one to the next to the next, so there isn't any hindrance there. All these factors will be reflected in the complex expectations that form the relative market prices. I might want to assume someone will burn when the market price is less than 1 for the burnable coin (denominated in the new coin), and they will trade instead for the new coin if the market price is greater than 1. So at the start one would expect mostly burning, because the new coin supply is much lower than the money supply of the burnable coin (and demand for the new coin should be higher if it is clearly better). When the relative market price is close to unity, there is no incentive to burn nor trade for the purpose of burning. But expectations will change due to various market factors over time, thus unity relative market price will not likely be a stable homeostasis. And moreover, why would any one assume that unity is the natural equilibrium? Some may have the expectation that the long-term value is going to be something other than unity so their decisions to whether to trade or burn may be so altered, i.e. not everyone jumps on a short-term valuation option because it might not be sustained and then everyone has a stop-loss provision in place. This complexity of interaction between market price and burning impact on Blockstream's side chains (bidirectional burning) is either simplified or further complicated by the assumption you in theory can always burn your coins back to the chain where you want unity value to be respected. If that two-way transfer can be guaranteed, then it is a simplification. But each coin is a decentralized system subject to for example 51% attacks, takeover by centralization of mining, or even defection of 51% of the mining due to for example a stampede from one coin to the other due to some bug or even suspicion of hidden inflation in the for example the value hiding algorithm of the anonymity. This is the relativity of the universe, i.e. there can be no absolute point of reference such as BTC. Thus my former enthusiasm for side-chains has waned somewhat now that I can see that unity pegging can't be assured due to different market expectations (which was something smooth and one other user told in me cypherdoc's thread but I emphasized the arbitrage effect of being able to two-way transfer). I still believe the two-way arbitrage would provide a unity peg if it is unassailable, but I realize it is not likely to be assumed unassailable by the market. For example, side-chains have technical hurdles revolving around orphaned reorganizations and the lack of native support for the protocol in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
3) I never said the banksters will surrender without a fight, but they will have a hard time finding people to fight against others' imagination soon.
The decentralized systems with no "controlling entity" will have this quality. But a regulated/unregistered company running a coin doesn't have this quality and thus is culpable under man's law serfdom. Daniel 2:44 says the righteous unassailable kingdom will "break apart" meaning it will be decentralized. |
|
|
|
Selling unregistered securities internationally appears to be asking to put oneself in multiple-jeopardy because you become culpable to numerous jurisdictions and court interpretations. My reading of USA law is that if CK coins were obtained at any time by USA citizens or residents as investment securities from some controlling entity, then plausibly the SEC (if it has the cooperation of the other nations) can prosecute the controlling entity and take actions to shut down the coin, such as declare running the protocol to trade the illegally produced securities an illegal act.
Maybe find a way to prevent US citizens from accessing the coin? It's just 5% of the earth population, as we see it's Asia that influences cryptoindustry, not USA. This interpretation does not address the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the securities laws, which will continue to reach all Internet activities that satisfy the relevant jurisdictional tests. Even in the absence of sales in the United States, we will take appropriate enforcement action whenever we believe that fraudulent or manipulative Internet activities have originated in the United States or placed U.S. investors at risk. Further, we are not addressing the circumstances under which a U.S. court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. person with respect to that persons offshore Internet offer. It appears that securities regulation in the EU is limited to shares in companies (and certain bonds), but if you are selling coins which you used to fund development activities and you are controlling the coin ongoing, one might argue this is equivalent to a company operating an exchange which trades the shares it issued. In other words, you didn't register your company but it is still operating as a company. Thus I do think offering ICOs in Europe are potentially culpable especially as EU totalitarianism proceeds with the sovereign debt collapse the push to federalize the governance and taxing power to Brussels as a "solution" to the ("incorrigible nations") debt crisis, i.e. the member nation debts need to be consolidated thus fiscal policy and thus law needs to be consolidated (the Euro was the Trojan horse to full integration of sovereignty). Does anyone think this interpretation of potential risk is ludicrous and if so then why? Perhaps a securities case will be brought as part of a class action lawsuit, such as if Ethereum investors become disgruntled. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=ilj#page=9http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0298:EN:HTMLCouncil Directive 89/298/EEC of 17 April 1989 Section 1, Article 2: 2(e) 'transferable securities' shall mean shares in companies and other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, debt securities having a maturity of at least one year and other transferable securities equivalent to debt securities, and any other transferable security giving the right to acquire any such transferable securities by subscription or exchange; Even in the Philippines (Asia) you can't even take an exemption from registration without applying to the Commission and paying a fee: http://www.sec.gov.ph/laws/src%208799-chapter_iii.html10.3. Any person applying for an exemption under this Section, shall file with the Commission a notice identifying the exemption relied upon on such form and at such time as the Commission by rule may prescribe and with such notice shall pay to the Commission a fee equivalent to one-tenth (1/10) of one percent (1%) of the maximum aggregate price or issued value of the securities. |
|
|
|
P.S. my health is not going well. I am pretty much giving on trying any therapies (because nothing works and I've tried "everything") until and if ever I can afford the best research specialists doing diagnostics on me. So don't expect too much from me. But I am still trying. I did run 9 kilometers in the past 2 days but today was a total Chronic Fatigue day bed ridden.
That was kinda stupid. If you're suffering from any type of chronic fatigue you definitely don't want to be doing anaerobic exercise - you'll be burning precious amounts of protein and the physiological response will leave you exhausted for days. Plus, all the while you're ill, your anaerobic threshold is likely to be much lower than the standard model. So while daily exercise is critical, anything over ~110bpm is a no-no, at least for the first six weeks. Then you can start to build it up. Anonymint is most likely suffering from some kind of fungal mycotoxicosis. Or in layman's terms: mold poisoning.
It's curable with a bile acid sequestrant such as cholestyramine in conjunction with high-dose omega 3 and an amylose-free diet.
He'd first need to rule out Lyme Disease though. Blood tests would confirm.
I will look into this and which diagnostic tests or diagnostic therapies can be tried. If this turns out to be the case, we can discuss a thank you remuneration privately. Here is the post I made today about my health. Apologies to steer the thread on my personal issue. Will be doing the math on Shen's paper shortly (was catching up on sleep). ...I am terribly sleepless (36 hours awake).... So lets be cruel to be kind. Get some fucking sleep. Ross, J.J. (1965). Neurological findings after prolonged sleep deprivation. Archives of Neurology, 12(4), 399-403. You're no bloody good to crypto if you're dead because you keep yourself awake, because you feel the need to make a point, win a point or win over some funding. You'd be more effective, in this regard, after getting some zzz's. Trip the power switch. Absolutely. I relapsed probably because of that marathon session. See the link I posted above. |
|
|
|
|
Remember what ever power you ascribe to the government by enacted law or by omission from law (e.g. Constitutional boundaries), can and will eventually be used against you.
I urge that personal health remain personal liberty even for convicted criminals.
|
|
|
|
So if your coin is inside CK, it is shielded from everything they want. A different world.
My reading of USA law is that if CK coins were obtained at any time by USA citizens or residents as investment securities from some controlling entity, then plausibly the SEC (if it has the cooperation of the other nations) can prosecute the controlling entity and take actions to shut down the coin, such as declare running the protocol to trade the illegally produced securities an illegal act. One of my alternative theories is that Bitcoin was planted by the DEEP STATE to impel the nations of the world to join together to fight the lawlessness and deregulation that Bitcoin enables. The only way I see to avoid the coins being classified as an investment security is to sell a product (the coins, source code, and initial autonomously running network) as a contract job and do not retain any control after that sale. I haven't studied how you are distributing the CK coins in all cases, so I can't comment on whether I believe CK coins are tainted illegal or not under USA securities law. Also I would rather not make any such legal comment about any altcoin. Usual disclaimers apply that I am not an attorney nor a legal adviser. Every reader should consult their own. |
|
|
|
Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.
Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg). I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning). Wasn't Peter R who first proposed something like that years ago. I am nearly certain but I forgot the name he gave to the concept. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
