 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Wouldnt that be a waste of everybodies time?
Especially for the bodies. |
|
|
|
except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.
The hypocrisy of claiming Monero is not a coordinated entity from one side of your mouth, then defending your tribe "us" out of the other side of your mouth. You may even believe that the two sides of your mouth are two people, so that they are not inconsistent. You succeeded in hoodwinking AnonyMint and destroying his reputation by convincing him that he would be on the successful side by speaking out against ICOs, premines, etc.. So that the former reputation that AnonyMint had became unusable when it was time to use it. You've laid so much waste in your wake. And potentially destroyed the one person who could have actually fixed crypto for all of us. I hope you are proud of your result. But I wouldn't be too smug. AnonyMint is one clever mofo. I am sure he will no longer use words. In fact, I know his next plan. And he will turn the definition of mining inside-out and upside-down. And you will bow at his feet. Keep your television tuned. The fireworks haven't yet begun. |
|
|
|
I am thinking it would a crying shame to marry a serious project with a Rube Goldberg circus. Is that what you had in mind?
Yes, *precisely* As lead clown, you precisely know: The DAO is (ikely) going to contract Slock.it to build what it is calling the Universal Sharing Network. This is basically a set of APIs that will allow any devices to interact with contracts on the blockchain to make transactions. This has the potential to be the backbone infrastructure of the IoT. The DAO will get a small percentage of every transaction that takes place on the USN.
Sock.it will then go on to build smart locks completely separately and profit off the sale of those. Transactions that those smart locks are involved in will use the USN and therefore generate small amounts of recurring revenue.
Anyone and everyone will then pile on creating devices and apps that interact with the USN, generating more revenue for the DAO.
At the heart of all this is the Ethereum Computer device that will also be designed by Slock.it and made open source so anyone can manufacture. This is a device that is similar in nature to the Bitcoin Computer that 21 Inc makes.
Actually, most of 21 Inc's use cases are similar to what the DAO + Slock is trying to do here. The main difference is that Ethereum can do these largely with on-chain contracts while 21 Inc is writing apps sitting beside the blockchain and interacting with it.
User: Stark Date Registered: May 24, 2013 First Post: February 2016 Would you agree to a debate with AnonyMint on live chat video so he can demonstrate that you use words you don't understand? Please tell us what they need to actually maintain a concensus Nash equilibrium?
How can a consensus algorithm validate any datum which is formed external to the relativity of the block chain? It can't.
Honestly, a lot of these customer facing DApps need the massive Mist browser update coming in Metropolis to be meaningful.
User: Stark Date Registered: May 24, 2013 First Post: February 2016 Please enlighten us with your vast knowledge of what they need to actually maintain a concensus Nash equilibrium? |
|
|
|
Honestly, a lot of these customer facing DApps need the massive Mist browser update coming in Metropolis to be meaningful.
User: Stark Date Registered: May 24, 2013 First Post: February 2016 Please enlighten us with your vast knowledge of what they need to actually maintain a concensus Nash equilibrium? |
|
|
|
|
Always enjoy seeing non-lawyers twist their logic to obscure their criminality from themselves. There is proverb, it is nearly impossible to teach a man whose livelihood depends on not learning.
But it is better to not refute them, so they may continue to reap what they sow.
Well I think it is time to stop playing word games don't you. Better to play with real things such as knives, guns, functioning software, and other less ambiguous means of defining conquest.
|
|
|
|
The DAO is (ikely) going to contract Slock.it to build what it is calling the Universal Sharing Network. This is basically a set of APIs that will allow any devices to interact with contracts on the blockchain to make transactions. This has the potential to be the backbone infrastructure of the IoT. The DAO will get a small percentage of every transaction that takes place on the USN.
Sock.it will then go on to build smart locks completely separately and profit off the sale of those. Transactions that those smart locks are involved in will use the USN and therefore generate small amounts of recurring revenue.
Anyone and everyone will then pile on creating devices and apps that interact with the USN, generating more revenue for the DAO.
At the heart of all this is the Ethereum Computer device that will also be designed by Slock.it and made open source so anyone can manufacture. This is a device that is similar in nature to the Bitcoin Computer that 21 Inc makes.
Actually, most of 21 Inc's use cases are similar to what the DAO + Slock is trying to do here. The main difference is that Ethereum can do these largely with on-chain contracts while 21 Inc is writing apps sitting beside the blockchain and interacting with it.
User: Stark Date Registered: May 24, 2013 First Post: February 2016 Would you agree to a debate with AnonyMint on live chat video so he can demonstrate that you use words you don't understand? Please tell us what they need to actually maintain a concensus Nash equilibrium?
How can a consensus algorithm validate any datum which is formed external to the relativity of the block chain? It can't.
|
|
|
|
Any proof of your affiliation with TPTB?
Is this thread too long to read? Can you expressly define "superior anonyminty" ? Anonymint has claimed anonyminty is an impossibility and a degree of privacy is what we can expect, all things considered.
Don't fret, because as the angel investor of the banned AnonyMint, I am in possession of a copy of his unpublished Zero Knowledge Transactions research.  |
|
|
|
Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?
I said I would give you the last word, yet you ask me a question. Because Monero more clearly fits that Howey test than the proposal AnonyMint made. So the greater likelihood is that AnonyMint's proposal is legal than is Monero. "Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.
My relationship with Monero and the legal analysis of Monero is not relevant to your claim here of there being a "legal bypass", especially if you claim that Monero is also not legal. Surely you must see the futility of that line of argument. If not then I guess TPTB has associated with someone who can't think very clearly. I shouldn't point out that I just caught you in a failure of logic, because then you might conclude I must be TPTB. Smooth stay tuned. The fireworks are only just beginning. You won't want to miss it. I will sign off. |
|
|
|
Let us start with the basics: Who is the issuer of the alleged security?
The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations. Your FinCEN guidance is entirely out-of-band of investment security law. I don't want to argue with you. I wasted too much time here already. |
|
|
|
Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching. I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements. Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security. And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly? See quoted underlined, bolded. Again, I don't see the relevance of Monero. The definition of obfuscation is you will not see. Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security. That Monero is forcing hard forks on a periodic schedule clearly shows the developers are in control of its future which investors expectations are based on. I read in Monero Speculation that Monero investors are investing based on the expection of Shen-noether implementing Ring Confidential Signatures. The obfuscation is actually quite weak. "Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write. I'm done. You take the last word. Good luck. Please do, since he is dead wrong on this. By the way a better example would be Ethereum.
Done. You wrote earlier "IANAL". Please remember you are not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching. I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements. Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security. And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly? See quoted underlined, bolded. In my particular case sure, it's more about thinking it is interesting technology (mostly PoW cryptocurrencies -- I don't consider most of the rest very interesting) and less about doing fellow man a service, though I don't mind do that either. I also enjoy the competitive multiplayer game aspect of crypto (mining, trading, etc.)
So it is the chess in you. From my perspective, I say AnonyMint is more ideologically driven. The game you are playing is swallowed by the macro game AnonyMint is interested in. The means justifies the ends. China and Blockstream are... (don't want to be banned by the man I entrusted) |
|
|
|
What about proposing the project to the new DAO in Ethereum that everyone's crazy about. That would be a nice testbed for both Jambox and the DAO.
Oh god, would that be entertaining. In what way specifically do you envision it entertaining for you or others? I am thinking it would a crying shame to marry a serious project with a Rube Goldberg circus. Is that what you had in mind? |
|
|
|
Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching. I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements. Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security. Perhaps we ought to just admit crypto is nefarious=Libertarian and cease wearing our underwear on our heads. Ahem. Cough. Cough. You just think the technology is cool and want to do your fellow man a service. Paint me skeptical. |
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war is an attention whore that has NEVER released a single crypto-currency algorithm for public review.
Neither have you. I've been told by AnonyMint that you published papers with faulty, flawed, or insufficiently described algorithms. |
|
|
|
Work out the details of your own business plan, I'm too busy to dig into specifics, nor are my opinions even relevant. What matters is what you (and other participants), investors, customers, prosecutors, judges, and/or juries believe. At the moment I have none of these roles with respect to your venture.
I think the forum will miss the debates between AnonyMint and yourself. Somehow I think the forum will no longer be as informational as it was when he was around. I am reasonably sure based on what he wrote to me today he is not coming back, not through a sock puppet or even spiritually. I don't think you understood. AnonyMint didn't want to raise any funds via ICO and still doesn't. It was your Monero community members who said he never did anything in crypto, that motivated him to want to accelerate his work by obtaining enough funding to hire another programmer. AnonyMint has continued to work day and night on crypto for 4 years for less than $2000 per month at the bare minimum expenses that one can survive and still be productive. There is saying about relationships. You never know how good it was until it is gone. |
|
|
|
I'll point you TPTB's posts about "economic reality". Trading tokens from one form to another may or may not change the economic reality. The specific mechanism being used isn't necessarily important, but it also could be. As I said I made no specific claims.
How can the prior knowledge that the investors will be dependent on the independent decisions of social networking users desire to sell their coins, be construed as any form of security-of-investment secured by expectations of AnonyMint's future actions? Where is the security? Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching. |
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with contract work even for an ICO though, but it's easy for that to be a bit of a sham. A contract worker should be paid to do specific work as a truly independent contractor. As long as that is reality of the relationship and not a wink-wink relationship
even though it is hard to make money in crypto without some sort of scamming or association with scamming is understandable.
What lack of independence between JAMBOX's tokens and ICO tokens? Did you fail to understand that AnonyMint proposed the ICO tokens would have to be traded on the DEX for the JAMBOX tokens? Could you clarify for myself and the readers how the proposed "acoin" could be an ICO for AnonyMint's JAMBOX, given that AnonyMint confirmed that all of JAMBOX's crypto-currency will be distributed by unprofitable proof-of-work to the social networking users of JAMBOX?
Did you even read AnonyMint's explanation.
|
|
|
|
It can fund you in ETH, but it doesn't mean it has to be an Ethereum project. At least that's how I understood it, which is actually the beauty of it. If contractors are requored to only to create projects in Ethereum then that would limit the potential of the DAO.
Yes that was the meaning of my second paragraph. But in practice I don't think that will happen short term. I could be wrong though. I'll need to do some more reading on DAO funded projects. My understanding is there is a governance requirement whereby the investors must vote on every expenditure. Am I incorrect? So does this mean if funds were raised and it was voted not to release all the funding to AnonyMint, then the minority of investors who are overruled by the majority end up with some turf battle gridlock similar to the block size debate. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone who disputes the ban of AnonyMint, is welcome to contact the moderators and verify the ban. AnonyMint confirmed to me in encrypted chat that he is permanently banned from Bitcointalk.
I perceive based on feedback that there isn't any serious interest to fund AnonyMint's work and in fact that there many here who want to destroy anything AnonyMint does, so it is my perception there is no benefit to come from expending more time here.
|
|
|
|
Can you expressly define "superior anonyminty" ? Anonymint has claimed anonyminty is an impossibility and a degree of privacy is what we can expect, all things considered.
Don't fret, because as the angel investor of the banned AnonyMint, I am in possession of a copy of his unpublished Zero Knowledge Transactions research. |
|
|
|
|
