@Korbman:

You won't see any of that, regardless of Havelock holding it in escrow or not.


The issuer has been incommunicado since


Havelock's last response (note date):


Best of luck 2 U.

Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the Lord...

Worked once...

FTFY

@Benny:


Units prior to last public offering:  74,490
Units @ Last PO:                       50,000
Current units outstanding:          124,490

Questions re. the 49,355 unsold units (currently at the bottom of the asks):

  1.  Who owns them?
  2.  Are these units¹ currently drawing dividends?
  3.  What do these units¹ represent?

---

1.
 -- https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=HASH
*I don't know what "The shares offered here are as a faction of the Havelock Fund and not direct member holdings of Coin Services LLC." means either, so I just posted the pic.

^

I guess I'm not being clear (and don't worry attacking me, my best friends are all serious pricks.  But fun.).  The reason I repeated JorgeStolfi's points is one of his posts made me realise that I wasn't seeing all aspect of the election problem, or rather that other people were seeing it differently from me.  I was looking at it as a techy, "Is it possible to create a foolproof, incorruptible and practical voting system based on the blockchain."  JorgeStolfi pointed out that the technical aspect was not the gist of it.  From his perspective, the technical side was not even the relevant part.  According to him (or, rather, how I understood him), the most important aspect of a voting system was not its accuracy or even resistance to tampering, but *how acceptable and irrefutable it is to the losing party*.

I haven't thought about it that way, but, after reading his posts, I was able to see it in a totally new light.  It hit me that the problem I was trying to solve wasn't even necessarily the correct one.  One of those "aha" moments.

I'm a sucker for stuff like that.  I may not agree with his notion that it's a case of rigging a turbojet to pop popcorn, but I like "getting" how other people see stuff.
I'm not being too clear, but hopefully you get my drift.  It's like spending endless time working out the minutia of a car's suspension geometry, and finding out that the only thing people care about has nothing to do with handling--they just want it in powder blue.

*And I get that this reads like some peaking acidhead's ramblings about his latest revelation.

He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed.  I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process.

1.  Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election.  Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works.  It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given.
What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections?  

2.  People do not trust technology--they don't understand it.  They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs).  This may be absurd, but that's how it is.  There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads.

3.  Recounts.  There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying.  But it makes people feel better.  Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable.  Go figure, but that's how it is.

Did you shit in the woods?
(If so--bearish)

Don't you mean an extra 9 shares?  The highest bid is .0022, so each share must be augmented with a minimum of 9 more shares to bring it up to I*cough*PO price.
Check ur math.

Let's try to formalise this a bit.
It would be absurd to dismiss "...the power of individuals acting freely in their self-interest to effect significant change..."
There were historical occurrences of just that, so a denial of potential efficacy of such acts is provably false. <==We agree and are hopefully done here.


You're right, he never used the phrase, that's why I prefixed what I typed with "seem to be."  Things snowballed from there.  
If his claim was indeed "...that local control is frequently more responsive and effective than centralized control at some higher level," then, again, it is a trivial claim which could be empirically and historically validated with a single occurrence, making it provably true, and making anyone disagreeing with it provably wrong.
I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that he was making a non-trivial claim.

You're thinking of "Social Darwinism."

Re "definition":  A definition may be as terse or expansive as it needs to be within a given context (dictionary definition, encyclopedic definition, working definition, etc., etc.).
"Going by definition" mean "appealing to the definition," not "here's the exhaustive definition," which I clearly did not attempt.
Pedantry isn't clever, funny or sexy, creekbore.  Cut it out

@CoinsForTech:

A shade over 1% (one percent) of the shares sold.

The price [understandably] tanked as soon as trading has started, with current highest bid being 50/50    @ ฿0.00220000 (exactly one tenths the Havelock IPO price).

The unsold shares were put up for sale, and can be seen at the bottom of the asks, here:


There wasn't much dumping, simply because there were never any bids.  The highest non-trivial (over 0.11BTC) current bid is


  ~Happy Investing!


P.S: If it's not obvious, offerings like this create DISASTROUS PR for Bitcoin, and are [at least partially] responsible for the floundering exchange rate.
Case in point:  The same people who black-mouthed and raged against me for calling out Active Mining are now posting this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462370.msg8564894#msg8564894 <==don't click if you anger easily

Throughout millennia, man fought his fellow man.  But in the year of Our Lord two thousand and fourteen, before Ab passed onto Elul, Philosopher King aminorex The Inciteful (or Insightful, the texts are unclear and spelling is hard) hath revealed a great truth onto Man:  All of this time. it was Teh Man who turned brother against brother, made Man spill the blood of Man!
Spoke aminorex thusly:

"Yo!  Only governments can start wars.  So no governments--no wars!   Get rid of Teh Man, and bask in peace everlasting!"

   "Awesome!" the people cheered, "How?"

"Well..." spoke aminorex, "Bitcoin!"

  ""

"Look...  I got a Bitcoin bank in Cyprus.  All I WE need is a few coins, and then more Revolution and PROFIT than you could shake a stick at!  U dig science?  Then lemme drop some on U: (v_total - v_govt) / n_humans and v_govt / n_govt.  Fight The Power!
U in or what?!"

  "We totally_dig, under_stand, and we in!!1!  Where 2 send mony4revolution while we get rich?!"


...And there was much rejoicing, hot grils [who were, like, totally watching the whole time] got all in2it and every1 lived happily ever after.

    ~The End~

Curious aside:  The Wright Company was a money-losing proposition for the brothers.  Though it kind-a sort-a lived on in part through various mergers, no one ever lost sleep about not investing in the Wright Company when he had a chance.
Take from that what you will

I'm still not being clear enough, it seems you're addressing my edit:

Going with your evolution analogy:
Evolution is not a progression from "worse" to "better"--"better" (or "wonderful," to use your language) is a post-factum value judgement imposed by us, the survivors.  It produced what it has produced, and the "wonder" existence holds it holds only for us, the product.  Nothing suggests that if the end result of biological evolution was undifferentiated slime, that slime would be any less "wonderful" to bits of that slime (if "wonder" was even a thing for those slime bits, but you get my drift).

Evolution simply produces what it produces.  Going by its definition, "survival of the fittest," everything extant is the fittest.
Again, by definition.
Not "the best," not "the best of all possible worlds," but simply "that which exists."

Another tangent:  You can no more encourage, deride or discourage enlightened self-interest than you could encourage, deride, or encourage evolution.  TL;DR: I ain't.  Is this a bit clearer?

*This is getting pretty far away from watching Teh Wall, but there's not much happening there [that I can understand or work with].  Hope we're not annoying the purists.

It brought us the government of 150, 1,500, and 1.5 years ago--every government, at every point in time.  Before arguing, please follow the link provided in my previous post, and familiarize yourself with the definition of enlightened self-interest, before commenting further.

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.
It is not called "evolution."
I have neither praised nor denigrated it.  

Edit (On the off-chance that you meant something along the lines of "we must not try to impede enlightened self-interest, but rely on it):  That's self-contradictory.  If enlightened self-interest is valid as a concept, there could be no talk of "allowing it to guide us" or "subjugating it."  It either works or it doesn't.  We can no more "allow it to do its thing" than allow gravity to do its thing.

The very enlightened self-interest which you [seem to] champion brought us government as we know it today.  Simply because nothing else could have (unless you believe in something external and separate from mankind, like God, Satan, or Princess Twilight Sparkle).  A truism, but worth repeating.

No one sets out to build a skyscraper thinking "I'll build shitloads of stairs, hallways, lobbies, fire exits, elevators, escalators, doors, security stations, fire suppression apparatus, HVAC, etc., etc."  But without those things, buildings bigger than a shack are useless.  That's why all the mentioned stuff is made--not because some architect had a fetish for wasting space, time and money.  And saying that your shotgun shack does just fine without an elevator, hallways, or stairways is not an argument to their uselessness.  It's also not an argument for getting rid of skyscrapers and replacing them with shotgun shacks "because then you don't need to build elevators."  


Huh?  

Edit: It gets better...

The tragedy of man is not the pettiness of his dreams, but how laughably short he falls from making them a reality. --???