I was looking for a meme, but I couldn't find one appropriate for that level of stupid, so here, have this one instead. It's not as stupid as trying to sell people "invisible money". Who would ever buy magical internet money that exists as a bunch of ones and zeros in a computer?  I am going to miss this place if it ever shuts down. Sincerely, White & Nerdy[...] Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave. |
|
|
|
The thing with gold is that it's one of the best money laundering assets.
You can buy an acre in a gold mining area and then "make-appear" 100kg of gold that you ..."mined" from your ground.
And voila. Now you have 100kg x 40k $ = 4mn USD... all "mined" out of "the ground". Or so you say.
So if you have black money => you buy gold => you pretend that you mined it => you legalized your black money.
Gold is one of the very few cases that you can make money appear out of nowhere, in terms of accounting. That's a very useful - even irreplaceable quality. Most other types of assets or currencies have a trail.
The scale is totally different. CC can be mined by an individual who doesn't have to document how they paid their electrical bill. A producing gold mine is not cheap, and then it is also probably possible to forensically detect if the worthwhile scale of mined gold had been physically extracted. And the scale makes it perhaps worth investigating/prosecuting. |
|
|
|
I was looking for a meme, but I couldn't find one appropriate for that level of stupid, so here, have this one instead. It's not as stupid as trying to sell people "invisible money". I'll leave the meme's to others  hahaha! Good one.    (What is Dash selling  ) |
|
|
|
Actually, the public blockchain is a very good analogy for gold.
Got to give credit where credit is due, TikTok ain't no lone 'backsplaining cowboy because he like any good speculator destined for bankruptcy possesses the skill to double-down after stop-losses have been catapulted into the blogosphere. Let's dance! Don't stop, make it pop
DJ, blow my speakers up
Tonight, Imma fight
'Til we see the sunlight
TiK ToK, on the clock
But the party don't stop no
Whoa-oh oh oh
Whoa-oh oh oh
|
|
|
|
Armstrong warned us: Re: Europe, you reap what you sow...  |
|
|
|
Re: If 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced in just 1 year, what are we?
A sieve. |
|
|
|
Gold is a public blockchain
 One must admit that is a crowning achievement.  (all in jest and joke, no animosity) |
|
|
|
I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake.
In most civilized countries any doubts are treated to defendant's benefit. Vitalik doesn't need to worry. In the USA that is only for criminal (not civil nor class action) cases and even then it is "beyond reasonable doubt". I added to my prior post. Re-read please. Also note class action cases can subpoena foreign entities. I learned that from a recent Armstrong blog. Wait I will find the link and edit this post. Edit: the audio is at the bottom of this blog post: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/selling-bullshit/ |
|
|
|
Hope their lawyers were really, really good:
No chance Vitalik was a director or a manager. Tech guys hate such positions because they distract from tech stuff. That is your defense (joke, because you and I both know Iota is too small a fish for the SEC to fry any way, not much less the issue of layers of legal hurdles in between the SEC and Iota/you ... thus it is silly to allege any serious chance of action being taken against you personally[1]) Seriously you are undoubtedly correct in the overall scope of this, although one could argue that he is likely thought by the public investors to be on the level of a board member in terms of how he was making public statements about how much ETH they were selling and this would finance them for 4.5 years. I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake. [1] my only point to you is really that I wouldn't play legal jurisdiction game theory unless I had no other good options. I personally wouldn't do it for ethical reasons of trying to respect other cultures and their legal systems. If I thought it was absolutely necessary (in some Libertarian idealism) to achieve some greater good for society, I could perhaps justify it. And that is why I never intended to get into a war with you, but your iotatoken partner is a hot-head who couldn't resist making a war in this thread. And it spread. I care a little bit about not siphoning off all the crypto gamblers' funds to insiders of altcoins which are going no where, but I thought you had enough interesting technology in Iota to justify earning $100,000 or so on it. I thought you'd be satisfied with the $500,000, but I guess I must realize you only get what maybe 12.5% of that? Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave. |
|
|
|
Animosity is not good. We're just having fun here with our altcoins (or "shitcoins" for others - depending one's view I guess) Just 5 minutes of anger can cause one's immune system to underperform for up to 7-10 hours or so. On the other hand, 5 minutes of loving feelings (gratitude, appreciation) can have the same positive effect to the immune system, extending for several hours. The "battle mode" that one might engage in while foruming and debating in troll threads, is not really conductive to one's health. It must be viewed as a fun exercise. Three beers to that :lifting mugs: |
|
|
|
Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure.
Frankly saying, you overestimate your influence. Their asses are covered by legal entities created by a team of lawyers. Even if you are smarter than that team only the company will take the hit. Hope their lawyers were really, really good: There are a number of situations in which, where an offence is committed by a company and it is proved to have been committed with the ‘consent or connivance’ of a director, manager or other senior person, that person is also guilty of the offence. Examples of such provisions are to be found in many statutes creating criminal offences, including the Theft Act 1968, the Fraud Act 2006 and, more recently, the Bribery Act 2010. The rationale behind them is to enable the prosecution and punishment not only of the corporate entity but, where sufficiently culpable, those who control it. In other words, they provide a means of holding to account those who are complicit in offences committed by companies.
So, under s14 of the Bribery Act, where an offence under s1 (bribing another person), s2 (receiving bribes) or s6 (bribery of foreign public officials) of the Act is committed by a company and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a senior officer of the company, the senior officer as well as the company will be guilty of the offence. This provision only applies to the substantive offences under the Bribery Act – there can be no individual director liability in respect of the corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery.
Under this and similar provisions in other statutes, the corporate entity and the senior person who consented or connived are both guilty of the main offence, ie there is no separate offence of ‘consent or connivance’. A relatively recent example is Director of The Serious Fraud Office v Mabey Engineering (Holdings) Ltd [2012], where the engineering group Mabey & Johnson pleaded guilty to breaching UN sanctions by paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime and three senior executives were subsequently convicted of the same offences on the basis of their consent or connivance. There is in fact no requirement that the company itself be prosecuted, provided the offence can be proved against it. Any prosecution of the relevant senior person would have to establish, to the satisfaction of a jury, that the company had committed the offence in question.
Negligence
There are also a number of statutes creating criminal offences that extend the ‘consents or connives’ provision to include an offence committed by the body corporate that is attributable to any neglect on the part of the individual director or senior person. An example is s37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974, which applies to all the criminal offences created by the Act (the vast majority of which, since January 2009, carry a prison sentence of up to two years). This broader basis for imposing liability is not, however, limited to health and safety matters. Similar provisions affect offences under statutes as wide-ranging as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Companies Act 2006 and the Private Security Industry Act 2001, many of which carry significant custodial sentences.
The potential for criminal liability in these circumstances is more akin to the position in the United States where, in relation to certain offences concerned with public welfare (such as those relating to environmental protection and food safety), the ‘Responsible Corporate Officer’ (RCO) doctrine imposes criminal liability on officers who, because of their position in the corporation, had the responsibility and authority to prevent or correct infringements of the law.2 Crucially, corporate officers can be prosecuted under the RCO doctrine even if they were unaware of the particular conduct within the corporation, provided they:
knew that such conduct was unlawful;
were ‘in a responsible relation to public danger’3 (ie had authority to exercise control over the specific activities that caused the unlawful conduct); and
failed to prevent the conduct, for example by failing to implement suitable systems and controls.4
Penalties under the RCO doctrine can be significant. In 2007, for example, Purdue Frederick Company was accused of misbranding the painkiller OxyContin. Its CEO, general counsel, and medical director were also charged under the RCO doctrine and pleaded guilty to charges of misbranding a drug. They were each sentenced to extensive community service, fined $5,000 and excluded from participating in federal healthcare programmes for 12 years.5 They were also collectively ordered to pay approximately $34.5m in disgorgement.
|
|
|
|
Well you are both right, lol.
Let AlexGR have his small point victory. Perhaps Monero could put an * footnote on their slogan.
The larger more salient point is generalizethis'.
I wonder if Alex was a king in a previous life--maybe King of Epirus? Or Liberland's 7 km˛ delta. I am just joking because any animosity/tension I had felt with AlexGR seems to have grown wings and flown away. |
|
|
|
He's smart, he knows to diversify unlike n00b "investors" stampeding into hot potato du jour.
^This  Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure. |
|
|
|
He's smart, he knows to diversify unlike n00b "investors" stampeding into hot potato du jour.
^This Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure. |
|
|
|
|
Well you are both right, lol.
Let AlexGR have his small point victory. Perhaps Monero could put an * footnote on their slogan.
The larger more salient point is generalizethis'.
|
|
|
|
I can detect my health is really improving a lot, because I am starting to get back the energy (and thus mental locomotion, intense focus, and clarity) to make research level insights again. Research level insight first published on Rust’s forum by myself: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/30(Don't know if anyone else made this point in the prior art, I presume probably yes) P.S. I doubt Bitcoin core devs can do the above, because programming language typing is not their area of specialization (especially the number theorists/cryptographers). We have different talents and specializations, so we need to learn to respect each other.Kaboom! I just blew up every modern OOP language including C++ and Java: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/37And iCEBREAKER's allegation that I don't code and that only one or two Rust community members interact with me is REKTED (yet again lol): https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/49Get off my lawn son. It is annoying (although humorously pitiful) when you accuse people who are more knowledgable than you. I am not bragging. I am humbled by all that I don't know and want to learn. I am just saying don't blow your usual technically-challenged, disrespectful snot all over my thread. Amicable, respectful, or even disrespectful technically astute comments are always welcome. Your jokes are welcome (you do have some talent and redeeming qualities). Edit: iCEBREAKER has a point. 
Animosity is not good. We're just having fun here with our altcoins (or "shitcoins" for others - depending one's view I guess) Just 5 minutes of anger can cause one's immune system to underperform for up to 7-10 hours or so. On the other hand, 5 minutes of loving feelings (gratitude, appreciation) can have the same positive effect to the immune system, extending for several hours. The "battle mode" that one might engage in while foruming and debating in troll threads, is not really conductive to one's health. It must be viewed as a fun exercise. Three beers to that :lifting mugs: |
|
|
|
Regarding Monero's anonymity, do you stand by the statement you've expressed below in the past (regarding broken anonymity due to metadata correlation)? Cryptonote was created by anonymous people. Even Monero's cryptographer is anonymous. Who created this anonymity that is easily broken by meta-data. I don't know if that is circumspect or just the way the world turns.
Against the NSA yes I stand by the assertion that IP address correlation unmasks, overlapping rings unmask, etc. It all adds up if you are trying to hide from governments, then I don't trust Monero or any anonymous coin. Notice I wrote "privacy" and not anonymity in prior post upthread. For privacy, I think Monero is suitable and Dash is not (because not autonomous End-to-End). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
