http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
Is full of examples of how this sort of incident is just more of the same from the right-wing Xtian fundies. Numerous incidents of nontheist soldiers and airmen who have experienced direct harassment and threats from the, extremely religious, US military. As they say, you will know they are Christian, by their love(!)

Because if you're against their god, you're against 'Murca, dammit!

I wonder if Barack Hussein Obama has his war reports served up to him with a picture of a praying US soldier and rousing biblical quotes on the cover? No? Oh, yes, that'll be because he's a Marxist Terrorist who intends to turn the US into an Islamic Caliphate, according to the right-wing media.




 

That's what they frequently cite as a reason for why atheists should swear the oath to their god, because it wouldn't matter to the atheist so why do they keep complaining about it? After all, you know, that kind of justification never leads anywhere dangerous(!)

We're so busy looking to the Islamic countries as examples of the dangers of fundamentalist theism, The West seems to have missed the fact that much of the US is as deeply entrenched in their own version of 'the acceptable insanity'.

You don't 'fix' someone else's rabid dysfunction by telling them that your version of the same dysfunction is right and theirs is wrong.

You don't tell people what to think, that's indoctrination, instead, you teach people how to think for themselves outside of the incessant fallacious argument they are conditioned to accept without (critical) thought. You teach them criticial thinking skills and objective reasoning in order for them to be able to make sense of the world around them. As I tell my children, the only way we will ever find peace as a species is to grow beyond our infantile superstitions and religions, and the only way to achieve that for people who are conditioned to maintain the intellectual dishonesty that theism requires, is to educate the crap out of them.

I don't see any proof beyond you claiming to be connected to Billy Berlusconi. We've had Satoshi Nakamoto, himself, appear on this forum on a regular basis quite recently, if you believe every claim that is made by anonymous forum members.

This doesn't really mean anything, does it?

I would also ask why you chose to clone a coin with the primary focus of anonymous transactions. It would suggest you intended to transfer coins around without being able to be tracked. Hardly the choice of a new paradigm of morality-based coin projects, now, is it?

I understand that many coins launch with great promises of charity and transparency, only to immediately start making excuses about why they can't actually work with an independent escrow, or submit to a PoD, or pretty much anything else that would otherwise reduce the risk of them simply pumping and dumping.

Your OP ticks multiple boxes for being a scam, which is why any forum member with experience who has posted here has expressed great skepticism at your noble claims.

What leads you to think that simply launching a cryptocurrency for charity is going to bring in new money?

Why, as well, would you fail so badly at launching this coin if you, supposedly, are able to count on the resources of someone as connected as Billy Berlusconi? Couldn't you hire a decent coin coder or launch team?


BTW, as for asking why people keep demanding new coins come with new tech, why label this coin as having 'innovative' proof-of-heart or 'anti-scam' tech if those labels don't actually mean anything?

How about you start by explaining what innovative tech this coins has?
What else does it have apart from cloned code and a pinkie-promise to deliver the moneyz unto the poor children?

How about getting Billy Berlusconi to mention this coin project in his social media feeds?

Going by previous form Spo, this'll be an exceedingly brief discussion.

Spoetnik Altcoin Observer:
"I observe that Altcoins are all shite and the people who buy them all idiots and/or scammers".
This message has been brought to you by the letters F and U.

 

Ok, let's try this:

http://www.eu-consumer-law.org/consumerstudy_part3a_EN.pdf

The ASIC manufacturer does not get to decide how the product is going to be used by the individual who is buying it, therefore, they cannot define it's purchase as being for the purpose of commercial activity. (Professional meaning an activity derived from educational training).

The notion of declaring that all sales are considered b2b is utterly false. A business does not get to dodge their consumer responsibilities simply by stating that they consider all their sales to be to businesses.

If the invoice is addressed to a Limited Company (Ltd), it is a b2b sale with all applicable rights/laws related to such.

If the invoice is addressed to an individual, it is a b2c sale with all applicable rights/laws related to such.

Because the OP says so, right? Right?

Dev, please explain the innovative nature of "Proof of Heart" or, as is also claimed "Innovative POA (proof of AntiScam) to secure investor from frauds."

You talk of innovative technology but all I can see is you cloning a coin, renaming it and marketing it as being for charity.

How much are Hero accounts going for these days?

In the world of cryptocurrency, when trying to work with regulatory environments that are not able to accommodate the unique characteristics of the technology, it is often a case of not asking for permission because the answer will often be an uninformed knee-jerk of a 'No'. So businesses function as best as they can and wait to be told they cannot do something before they cease doing that thing.

In this case, there were repeated FUD posts in this thread claiming that the ICO would fall foul of the SEC, something Poloniex could not ignore and so they had to ask for legal advice because otherwise they could be in a whole heap of trouble on the basis that the issue had been raised where it probably hadn't on previous occasions.

Once a company is told by legal advisors that they should not be doing something, they need to then get clarification that explicitly permits them to continue, otherwise they are likely to be in a lot of trouble when and if the authorities in their jurisdiction get involved.

The sheer size of this ICO, plus the number of people who would love to see it fail, would most definitely have brought forth scrutiny from the SEC, even if it was primarily because someone, somewhere, would likely have contacted them to complain that Poloniex, a US-registered, exchange, were going to host it.

As stated previously, Poloniex sought advice from their lawyers regarding IPO/ICO's as a direct result of people posting in this thread their concerns that it might contravene SEC rules in the US. They were advised by their legal team not to proceed with the superNET ICO and, having been made aware of the potential complications, could not risk hosting it.

I think you'll now find that Poloniex will not be permitting any more ICO's until they receive legal confirmation that it is safe to do so without falling foul of the regulatory environment they operate in, as a US-based exchange.

A cautionary tale:

I recently owned a not-insignificant amount of VRC. I sold nearly all of it a week ago because of the pages and pages and pages of FUD being posted led me to believe that because I had not seen a reply to this question I had asked a few days previously:


 . . .and that all there seemed to be was incessant whining and bickering going on that made this coin appear to be on the verge of absolutely discrediting itself because of the manner in which its community, or the few fudders, were behaving.

VP1eAShRFocMBZtjdsbKCsSkGa7yoj8bhs
VBKvixedokiyXPTZzhEsncEZ1DXJzCScd4
VDJaAP8hUAoG99JwodpvFirU4gr6zhrfFB
VSc86V2d6VFxtUGreyJb7DL7vw1ZpHsgHb

These addresses show you that, on the 31st of August, after having supported this coin for months, mining it, donating to its funds and posting pictures of me using VeriBIT to withdraw cash from a bitcoin ATM in order to show how versatile it was, there was SO MUCH bickering and complaining taking place, by members who had pretty much hijacked this thread for most of the last few weeks, I sold it off in the belief that there hadn't been any suggestion that the juggernaught dev project was even still in the pipeline and that the community was attacking itself in the meantime.

Sure, you might say, "Ah well, them's the breaks and you just made the wrong choice." and I accept that.

What I find absolutely galling, however, is that it would appear the people who are going to benefit most from the jl777 effect on VRC, are the very same assholes who were rubbishing it incessantly, in that they apparently hold hundreds of thousands of VRC between them.

Well played guys, well fucking played. :slow handclap:

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you're making an argument based on the content of that article then you clearly know feck all about cryptocurrency. It cites three things that it claims are major flaws?

1. It's a prototype, you know, like the first aircraft was, and that got replaced by better aircraft, so bitcoin is doomed.

Except, of course, if you want to compare it to the first aircraft then you have to accept that the very first aircraft is then going to, over time, be turned into a Boeing 777. One and the same aircraft evolving. That is what is happening to bitcoin by way of constant development. Bitcoin bought and held in your wallet from 2012 is not being superseded by a new currency, the same bitcoin is still there in 2014 when the software has already gone through development and evolution.

2. The rate of money creation is too slow and limited and the 'fact' that people won't spend it because they want to hoard it.

The first claim is that there are not enough bitcoin to go around. So the author of that article knows nothing about the 8 zeros after the decimal point and, what is more, makes an assertion that nobody will use it, they will just hold it. Try telling that to the many online businesses that have started accepting bitcoin and found it to be one of the best decisions they have ever made, with some even starting to accept altcoins as well because of the increase in business they have been getting.

3. Bitcoin is less secure than National currencies and people will steal it from your computer

Bizarre comparison there with the idea of a National fiat currency being more 'secure'. How does that work? The cryptographic process that bitcoin works with is rock solid and fiat currency can be, and is, forged on a regular basis. As for people stealing your coins, the argument is that because you're too stupid to look after your own money, then everybody is and so we have to have banks protecting us from our stupidity, for a cut of every single payment we send or receive, plus ongoing account fees of course. When they fail we bail them out because we need them to look after us, right? To then reference the guy who threw his hard drive away with the wallet on it is nothing to do with a weakness with bitcoin and Gox, again, was no more a weakness with bitcoin than it was a badly-run centralised service that, allegedly, was hacked. Not the currency, the exchange service.

The entire article is ignorant, ill-informed nonsense and, therefore, I am at a loss as to why you even posted a link to it and told people to read it.

Actually I think that is the point. That the legal advice they have received will now effectively rule out Poloniex from hosting IPO/ICO's.

As for JHL tokens, there may be legal technicalities that would allow them to retain it as a token on their exchange for buying and selling, but the actual process of hosting an Initial Public Offering exposes them to potential ramifications that could ruin them, given that they have now been told they should not be doing it.

That isn't a true reflection of the facts. Poloniex were more than happy to offer James a home for his ICO, but concerns that were raised by some members in this thread, regarding the possibility of the SEC in the US classifying it as a financial IPO and, therefore, requiring it to be conducted under strict rules and regulations, prompted Poloniex to seek legal advice which resulted in them having to withdraw their offer.

It was solely an issue to do with Poloniex being a US-registered exchange and wanting to ensure they did not contravene any regulations which could expose them to legal difficulties.

It matters because, otherwise, you could incorporate a company in one jurisdiction and run it from another without having to obey the laws of the regulatory environment you were in. Numerous legal challenges over the last couple of decades have seen most countries around the world adopt the position that, if you are controlling/managing a company while domiciled in that country, the company is required to obey the legislative operating rules of that country, vis-a-vis taxation, kyc and due diligence, money laundering regs and correct licensing and operation of financial products and services being offered or provided.

The US, in particular, takes an extremely dim view of attempts to circumvent their laws, going so far as to require almost any company in any part of the world wishing to do business with its citizens, individual or corporate, to adhere to US rules and regs.

There is no such thing as being 'domiciled on the internet', as long as there is a centralised service being provided there is a physical presence somewhere of people working the levers and pushing the buttons. Where they are is generally where the company is considered to be operating from, even if it is incorporated in an 'offshore' jurisdiction like the B.V.I.

With regards to the classification of these cryptographic 'TOKENS', there is probably a fair amount of room to manoeuvre at this time, with "Virtual Tokens of Value" being the favoured term to describe the nature of what is being bought or sold, without needing to adhere to the strict rules imposed when something is perceived as a financial product or a currency. Saying that, though, I don't blame Poloniex for being gun-shy about the SEC in the US sticking their oar in. If they were located in a less, erm, 'reactive' country, when it comes to the strength and length of the arm of the law, they might consider it worth sticking with claiming the products their business is involved in are not legally recognised as truly financial in nature, but if they wish to have anything like a chance of staying the course as a US-based cryptocurrency exchange, the fact it has now been brought to their attention means they cannot avoid the potential ramifications of going against the legal advice they have since received.

Regulations applicable to a company relate not to the jurisdiction it is incorporated in but, rather, the jurisdiction where 'management and control' is proven to be.

In amongst all the twitter spamming trying to pump rumours about Ethancoin joining the supernet, I spotted one from the nxtcommunity declaring 5th September as being the ICO date. Is this correct?

I mean, they have a countdown clock and everything!

Did I miss a post where you went from the above to deciding to ninja the launch?

Ensuring that the only people who got their funds out at the start were a few whales and a plethora of dust accounts (top and bottom account payout), is what hurt the legitimacy of the exchange. The moment they first announced they were implementing this practice I knew that they were intending to screw the rest of their customers over.

Worst.Repayment.Plan.Evar.

Oh, yes, let us not forget their dishonest use of announcing one date for the account freeze to take place and then implementing it a day later, you know, when a whole bunch of people had transferred funds in thinking it had already taken place. Nice touch guys, thanks for that.