http://www.livescience.com/47685-ebola-outbreak-duration-prediction.html

"Grim Ebola Prediction: Outbreak Is Unstoppable for Now, MD Says"


Zero chance of that.  Vaccines take a long time to develop, and then you have to grow, produce, test and distribute them.  Not going to happen within a year even with massive investment.


Yes, longer than a year, and it is likely that it will spread.  There is a lot of misplaced anger.  People think that America is in control of everything and should have "done something".  Others will blame EU or China (they are heavily invested in Africa) or whomever is getting the natural resources.  There will be angry infected people who need serious help but are not going to get it.
The medical resources are already stretched thinly, this is going to break them.  It kills doctors and nurses more than anyone.

Those with the capability to do something and are thinking that this is "someone else's problem" are wrong.  If you are in a city, it will be your problem sooner or later.


Oh yeah, give governments your money.  As if they need it and don't have as much as they can print already, as well as the ability to take it from everyone they want to.   If you are going to make a difference, you are going to have to do something yourself.  If you have the will and a way to do that, then "Government" may throw some of that money at you and give you the responsibility to choose who lives and who dies.  This is already deeply into triage due to resource constraints (mainly human resource).  Waiting for "government" to solve it isn't going to help until too late.  Not until their voters care and an election is looming and by then it will be far too late.

Just in case folks missed it, and for posterity, lets put this image in a post along with it.


Ignore the Dr's orders at your own peril.

Fortune is favoring the bold.

This post was worth more to anyone that heeded it than anything else that happened this week.
I think we all owe our OP OG host some serious props for sharing the wealth of information.

Thank you Dr. Cypherdoc, this was a prescription that just had to be filled for a healthy balance sheet.  Thanks for looking out for us.
Did I mention, thank you?
Oh yeah, thanks.

Yeah, they need to do something... but don't think this is the best method.  They would be better off with both.  Bitcoin is not a crime.

A technical response is what was sought in the first instance.  It was not found.  What was found was marketing statements about something that is hoped for (and yes, we all hope for it, we just don't have it yet, at least not from NXT).

1) He didn't call NXT crap, he said the explanation of it was meaningless to him.
2) You added no meaning, so its still meaningless to him. Just promises and hyperbole, and you added a big dose of enmity.
3) There isn't any competition.  You either add value or you don't.
4) You are attacking and accusing others of doing so, when they aren't.
5) If you look for enemies everywhere, you will find enemies everywhere.

This is meant to be helpful to you, to assist you in gaining the empathy needed for you to fulfill what appears to be your goal.

If instead your goal is to create NXT haters, carry on as you are doing.  Most of us won't form an opinion either way without code to review, but you might trap up some emotional reactions with your negativity and manage to create a few more NXT haters then there were before your posts.

Good catch, I don't know anything about what they are doing with that.
You may well be right about this.  It will depend on the facts.
If Poloniex is putting together these baskets, or has an interest in them, or is involved in some way other than merely posting bid and ask prices, they could have problems.
If these are just items that someone else, jl777 maybe, is putting up for sale, and poloniex is merely acting as the electronic communication network, they could very well be in the clear on this too.

If I were their legal adviser I might suggest that they seek out a No-Action letter from the SEC and clearly define their involvement with the questionable issues.

The banking agreements we sign in the USA give either party (customer or bank) the right to close an account for any reason, or even for no reason.
There is no obligation on either side to provide a reason, and there is strong incentive not to provide a reason for the bank.
Bank policy is typically to provide some notice, but it is not a requirement.

If they told you they closed the account because of bitcoin, that would be very interesting.  I suspect that is just your guess and that they didn't say it outright?

This is quite a development.
There are some complexities with doing such a consolidation that are worth taking a close look at.  Fast block chains are more likely to have forks and longer ones, so this may not be the last time such code is useful.

Looks like QE is coming, not much room left.

Yes, Overstock customers are a different set of customer, but the point stands. 
Boeing has the same way of selling their extra airplane as anyone else does.  The ExIm is a crutch that enables bad business decision making and socializes risk while privatising profit.
I'm just not a fan of government insurance for a select few elite "too big too fail" constituencies.
It gives the moniker of "white collar welfare" that gets applied to aerospace and others too much credence.

Yes, not so worried about the fork, Monero forks/orphans very frequently given the fast blocks, this is the longest fork tong by a big margin, >30 some blocks forked.
It may stimulate some interesting developments in the code for fast block resolution and consolidation.

It would be a good development if fork consolidation were advanced. 
For example if Dead fork tx that were not respent in the live fork before consolidation time may be retransmitted and spent within the good fork without manual intervention.

Yes, promises to deliver in the future are a problem point with regulations, and very often with civil action.

Some distinction should be made between the offering parties (coin-makers) and the exchange.  Those doing securitization are bearing the bigger risks.
The Exchanges as a group tend to get a lighter hand though, unless they partake in the offerings in a material way.
They tend to get a pass on the Electronic Communication Network exclusions.  There are a bunch of "No-Action Letters" for Instanet and BATS System because the SEC repeatedly rules that it is an ECN communicating quotes for asks and offers.  Taking a commission on the trades from system subscribers is fine.
It starts to cross the lines when Broker and Dealer activities begin.  If an ECN is trading its own book, or making any sort of financial advisement, its trouble.

Are they closed source, or centrally developed?

Yes, I am familiar with the case and its subsequent applications.
It does not apply to trading and exchange of capital.
It does apply to offerings which entail the use of capital by others, futures, derivatives, contracts for difference, or securities, and it emphasizes substance over form with the test which you articulated well:


It might satisfy it, I don't really know what Supernet is.  Very possibly it does, from what I've read of it.  Ethereum has perhaps a similar issue.
Certainly none of the other items on offer at poloniex would satisfy that test.
Open sourced distributed developed software money is neither a common enterprise, nor does it depend solely on the efforts of#4.
Centralized development can become problematic however as it pushes the line closer to #4.

#2 Expectation of profits...  There seems to be quite a bit of that being promulgated.

The experts disagree, so can we.  Maybe it was babbling nonsense, maybe it was profound.



This case would apply to derivatives contracts, and futures contracts.  Or to a security.  So I don't see it as a problem for Poloniex though it may keep Risto from coming to the USA, sigh...
If the SuperNet is a security of some sort it could bring trouble.
I don't really know what it is, it is difficult to determine from what is written in the Supernet treads I've come across.
It seems to mostly be promises, which could put its issuer in hot water depending on how it is handled.

Edit: Calling it an IPO (or even an ICO) is likely a mistake.  It may confuse the regulators against the interests of those involved.

True, it merely means that no one else knows what he is doing.
We'll have to wait for the code before we will know.
Satoshi did it similarly, except he didn't talk about it much before the code was done.
In the mean time, as usual folks will buy the rumor and sell the news.

The eye of the needle was a famous gate in Jerusalem.  It was so named because it was very small.  A rich man going to heaven being like a camel going through the eye of the needle was particularly apt to his contemporary audience.  Not only was it very difficult, but you'd have to remove the packs and possessions, then the camel would have to bow down and be on its knees.  The lesson was one of humility, not of impossibility.

Is Poloniex doing anything at all with securities?
Even Bitshares and XCP aren't traded there as securities. 
Nothing they sell is a share of a company, or anything like that, is there?
Again, I am in now way intimate with their business practices, but I'd imagine that would be a hard one to stretch into applying to their business.
They may run into trouble with the CFTC once the Winklevoss do their thing, because then they would run into issues if anyone traded what might amount to a basket, but most of what I see there is pretty small volumes.

Which law specifically do you think is violated?

Lawsuits are civil matters, one could be sued for anything at any time.  This liability exists with all business and is a different matter entirely than lawbreaking.

Some problems that they don't have:
The primary defense for poloniex is as the service provider, they are not an adviser or broker, they provide no financial advice.
For currency exchanges in particular in the State of Montana no Money Transfer license is required.  Not even USForex has one in the state:
http://www.usforex.com/about-us/legal#MT

They seem in compliance, but I have no special information regarding their operations so don't take my word for anything, ask them if you have a concern.

If they start offering Securityies with the BitsharesX stuff, they may need to register under Section 6 of the SEC Exchange act of 1934.