XPY Paycoin Paul Revere, TheMage, The community on forking, the future etc.

[miaviator]

TL;DR; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033894.msg11155942#msg11155942

if your post is missing please PM me.

[1715162985]

1715162985

[1715162985]

1715162985

[1715162985]

1715162985

[1715162985]

1715162985

[1715162985]

1715162985

[1715162985]

1715162985

[miaviator]

I wonder how long it will be until they just ban Josh's Coins?

I should point out that you can render certain addresses useless quite easily with just a few lines of code...


https://github.com/gaodaochu/dicecoin/commit/ca91e22a754ff8723d21a2edc8279c95eb8b08fa

You can do that, but you probably shouldn't. Would you buy a coin that someone can (and has) just take away that simply?

It's possible to fork a coin and rob somebody, but why would anyone "invest" in a coin when it's been proven that it's simple to just take them away?

I believe extenuating circumstances such as Paycoin, where its birth was created within a company that has failed at levels in which any board or investor would have crucified long ago.

A [hard] fork is a fork, and should not be taken lightly. It's not like a fork will happen every day and there is the potential of having multiple people put on the "blacklist". Getting a fork to get integrated smoothly is NOT an easy task. I helped Dogecoin when AUXPoW was done, and let me tell you there are a hell of a lot of more people than you can imagine just on the non-person side to get a hold of to ensure it goes over well.

So perhaps I should tell you to go fork yourself  (a little fork joke ).

How exactly would the "bad" addresses and "people" be determined? I for one do not see how it is possible, especially with a clusterfuck like Paycoin where the one thing Josh has been doing with proficiency is mixing millions of coins since day 1. Now there are supposedly millions of coins "stolen" and in the hands of "hackers" . Who exactly decides which coins are to be kept and which eliminated? The people who supposedly did the theft? I have heard repeatedly that you are one of the "best" people in the crypto world, but hearing such complete and utter nonsense about fixing Paycoin come from you makes me think otherwise.

Well thanks for the compliment (I think? lol).

So explain to me because I am apparently ignorant of what a prime controller really is, is it not basically a hyperstaking wallet set to stake well beyond the 5% (100% to 350% at compounding interest)? A wallet with an address attached to it? And there are what, maybe 50 of them in existence (which can be accounted for in the core code)?

This is the assumption I am going off of, I'm not a developer but I certainly understand the fundamentals of mining and networks, PoW and PoS. To me, and again maybe I do not understand the core code of paycoin, but one can use snippets of LukeJr's code to blacklist those prime controllers to "destroy" them. This is just one of a few ways to deal with the situation.


Back to your main concern, there is the blockchain which you have personally and vigorously linked to multiple addresses belonging to GAW/Josh. Also Crypsty has information on those wallets, and with the proper leg work and perhaps persuasion they could release that information of their internal addresses to a blockchain investigator and potentially be backtracked to GAW addresses(depending on how their back end architecture was done). There is also emails which dictate certain addresses belong to GAW/Josh.


There are many ways to get the information, you of all people should know that considering how well you have been following the blockchain. There are also ways to vet the information as well.


If I am wrong, please let me know. I would be curious to know if there are any wrong assumptions here.


EDIT: Whatever is done to try to fix will never be perfect and I understand that, but there are ways to attempt to fix things as best as possible.

There are THOUSANDS of addresses to which coins have been sent from Josh's stash of ~4-10? million XPY from the premine alone- not even getting into payouts from the Prime Controllers. Literally THOUSANDS. The numbers may even be in the tens of thousands of addresses. How exactly do you suggest that this be sorted out? How should the good guys and bad guys be determined? Were coins and Prime Controllers stolen? Says who, Josh? Or the people who helped Josh organize and perpetrate this fraud? The guys hand picked and PAID by Josh to distance Paycoin from him? I for one do not believe the storyline being pushed by Josh and the guys who helped build this fraud scheme who are now supposedly his worst enemies. I call shenanigans.  

Paycoin is what it is and if you stick your hand in this bucket of shit to try fix it you are going to end up with shit on your hands and it will remain a bucket of shit.

Understood there are thousands of sent addresses, but there are also the sending addresses as well as other information (such as exchanges, which should be following KYC laws once someone has a threshold withdraw) that could be used to identify which coins/addresses belong to GAW. Again as I stated, you wont get all of them but you could get a number of them. Maybe when this all goes to court and addresses that Josh was suppose to send to the SEC could be used as well. You need to think outside the box here, there is always a way to tie them back.


How is what I just stated above hard to do?


And again I ask, is a prime controller just a wallet? If so they are hard coded with an address that can be removed. Problem solved since I do not think any of these made it to the masses.Eliminate them all I say.


I dont 100% believe the story either, which is why I worded what I wrote the way I did in my statement.


On your last statement, I dont see my hand being stuck in a bucket of shit. I'm offering suggestions like many others have in this thread. I personally havent acted on anything and am not spending anymore time other than writing a bit on it.

You do not understand AT ALL, Mage. The number of unique addresses where coins were shuffled in and out of is ridiculous, and growing by the second- it is still going on full force as this is typed. Now you have to include a supposed theft of not only millions of coins, but also Prime Controllers which shit out thousands of coins a day. Which coins are you going to brand as legitimate? And who EXACTLY gets to decide? Josh? The people hand picked by Josh to distance Paycoin from him, as per plan? The "theives" who stole coins and Prime Controllers? What if Josh is tried and found innocent of all charges? THEN what? Are YOU going to pay the fucker back when he sues???  The things you have been suggesting as far as fixing Paycoin are completely fucking absurd and show no aforethought whatsoever. My suggestion is to either spell out an exact plan for your "fix" of Paycoin or never mention it again.

Going on a limb here... If the Prime Controller *wallets* were hard coded in the source code, wouldn't it be possible to say identify a wallet from 1 known address and extrapolate from there?  If have an address that you know belong to someone, you can identify a wallet (have no clue if can be done) then it would be easy to write a bit of code to record any TX from this wallet and see what other addresses are linked to it.  The have to compare something on the [value in] to be able to make that determination.. whatever formula they are using to go from a [value in] to a wallet identifier should work for to uniquely identify any and all wallets.

Without being a way to destruct anything it sounds to me like that could be a way to discover a portfolio of addresses, that could be a ZenCloud portfolio, a PayBase portfolio, a Josh portfolio and for whoever else a portfolio is needed.  One of the big problems right now is not being able to know easily which address belong to which wallet, that would make automated digging alot easier to implement.

Regarding the shuffling of addresses, this is a ZenCloud and PayBase side effect I believe, I would HIGHLY doubt that Josh has a wallet that shuffles anything unless he does so manually all day long.

You do not understand AT ALL, Mage. ...

For starters, let me help you with your panties you got in a bunch.  

I dont think I can be more clear on what I stated honestly. I asked some very clear and pointed questions, which I asked because I did not understand what you were getting at. There are very specific wallet addresses that belong to GAW and Josh that can be blacklisted. And all prime controllers from what I understand belong only to a select few to include GAW/Josh.

Fork the code, blacklist those addresses, and remove or blacklist or remove the large staking rate of those specific addresses. What the hell is so hard to understand? What does a transaction have to do with a unique address?

I never said anything about specific coins, I think this is where you are misunderstanding me.

[miaviator]

For starters, let me help you with your panties you got in a bunch.  
...

there is no support from the community to blacklist all PC's and no evidence (at least not enough to make conclusions) that current majority of PC holders have good intentions. it could just be an act to minimize Garzas toxicity on their investment and payroll. actually there was not enough support among the current ruling "elite" about the staking rates of these wallets and compromise of 100% was reached. pulled directly from someones ass, no math behind it

the only people promising dev work are the PC people. you will never get them and/or PC wallets out of the picture unless you have another choice of devs

I was under the impression that anyone could update and fork any coin at any time.   IE I could release a new wallet update that removes prime nodes and removes any remaining "we will not premine"~HG coins.  

If that release gains network consensus or exchange consensus it will become the primary fork and everyone elses transactions will become orphaned.

Unless there was some change to open source and p2p networks recently?  

due to toxicity of the coin the only people left to give it any support (dev, marketing, etc) are the PC holders who JUST made an agreement about 100% stake so they are not going the route of eliminating the golden gooses.

just because you put lipstick on the pig and say HEY anyone can start fork in the spirit of open source, yes thats true but its not reality. network consensus will be dictated by these entities for the foreseeable future. just as was outlined in Mr. Garzas sick mind

 
edit:
im not saying that these people do not have good intentions and maybe they will lower the stake later on. who knows. but for now it doesnt look too good. investing any money before that issue is under control  is a non-starter imo

I was under the impression that anyone could update and fork any coin at any time. 
...

It's not that simple.

It's not like a vending machine where anyone can walk up and insert a coin, it's like a concert stage where "anyone" can play music, subject to preapproval. Gaining the approval is the hard part. Anyone can attempt to fork, but one of two things has to happen:

1. You get approval from the person/people who own(s) the Paycoin repo on Github to approve your fork, after which all people using that source code now use your version; or,
2. You take the code, change it, and release it yourself. You then have to convince people to download and use your software. Once enough people convert (i.e. consensus is achieved), your software will be the official version.

This means you either have to convince the Paycoin devs to accept your fork (which definitely would not happen if you were trying to take away their ownership/control of Paycoin), or you have to manually convince tons of people to trust your code, download it, and use it. But guess what? Nobody would migrate to the software -- for a multitude of reasons -- mostly because of the fact that the act would seem super sketchy and none of those fucktards would be able to decipher the difference in the code. Compound this with the fact that it will be a direct power play against the current devs (if it weren't you would've just gone through them to make the changes), and you have another clusterfuck of insanity on your hands.

Cryptocurrency isn't as decentralized as you think it is, especially when we are talking about Paycoin.

However, there is one way you could get around this entire system: create an entirely new "Paycoin" community, beginning with your source code. In order for this to work you would just do the second option above and then, rather than convincing the old paycoiners to move to your software, you just convince new ones to join your Paycoin system. This might work, especially considering how many people want the original controllers of Paycoin to die in a pit of fire, but it would still be difficult -- honestly who the fuck would want to deal with Paycoin at this point?

Personally I would advise nobody to invest time, money or effort into Paycoin. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

On your last statement, I dont see my hand being stuck in a bucket of shit. I'm offering suggestions like many others have in this thread. I personally havent acted on anything and am not spending anymore time other than writing a bit on it.

Well I don't know about other people, but I have lost significant respect for your authority as I have seen your views unfold on this debacle. I hold litecoin and viewed you as one of the pillars of the crypto community.  That is no longer true.   (I guess this is the point where you call me a troll again!)

On your last statement,  ....

Well I don't know about other people, but I have lost significant respect for your authority as I have seen your views unfold on this debacle.  ....

I am quite new to crypto but what TheMage says makes sense to me. Paycoin has no future probably anyway so I doubt somebody needs to fix it, but if they are gonna to try to - his suggestions makes a lot of sense and would be a fair game to everybody if implemented. Edit: you troll...

Gaining approval is easy, it just has to be better than the previous version and accepted by the exchanges and you can force an upgrade by blocking old versions. If you need to upgrade to the latest version to use the exchanges and if you also have new features then you definitely would.

But I'm here just for the entertainment value, we already have PayCon that we can make changes to since we always have 100% approval. ie. If you don't like it, make something better.

How about this: offer any legitimate XPY holder the opportunity to convert into Paycon at fixed ratio for a period of time.  Destroy the XPY as you receive it, and viola Paycoin 2.0.  Of course you blacklist conversions from the coins held in the PCs, as well as any coins that can be traced to a GAW or Garza wallet without proof of payment (to protect the poor fools who ended up buying his dumped coins).

Again: Who gets to decide who is a "legitimate XPY holder"?? Josh? You? Mage? The group that helped Josh pull this fraud? WHO exactly decides. I asked this last night and got no answer. In my opinion having a coin where some self appointed group gets to decide which coins are legitimate is completely absurd and goes against everything that crypto stands for. That is not even getting into the fact that once such an absurd "fix" and the criteria by which "legitimate" coins are determined was declared, Josh and the other criminals who are holding millions of premined XPY would simply wash them through exchanges and such to make them "legitimate". I could easily produce a hundred addresses that I know are controlled by Josh, but that does not PROVE jack shit. If legitimate coin holders consist of an email, I am pretty sure Josh could come up with however many "legitimate" coin holders as he needs FFS. He most likely already has a shitload of those, along with corresponding accounts on the exchanges. This whole fix of stealing coins from the "bad guys" suggested by Mage sounds like another scam on top of the existing scam to me.

Gaining approval is easy,...

How about this: offer any legitimate XPY holder the opportunity to convert into Paycon at fixed ratio for a period of time.  ...

AND the way to do that is to have an exchange that has both coins on it. Let XPY holders buy Paycon if they want. If the Paycon group wants to subsidize that, all they need to do is list paycon on the exchange for very low XPY prices.

The reason this coin should just die is very simple.

The moment paycoin 2.0 or whatever "legit, LOL" approach get introduced, everyone will just try to convert to this new paycoin to try dump and get out of this mess.

It will be a continued effort of pump and dump. As we can clearly see from the people who invested on the back of $20 promise, these same people simply got involved to see the coin rise a bit to dump it for a profit. This whole paycoin scam was funded by get rich quick greed investors and operated by the king clown Homero.

The reason why bitcoin lasted so long and grew year on year is simply because it started without any promises, it didnt try to cockgrab anyone with a boner for money.

Over time it simply became a store of money, before then it was an experiment and in many sectors only a fun project to keep your eye on. All these altcoins try and jump on the bitcoin wagon by differentiating themself with various promises to pump the price and inevitably crash the price leaving a ton of bag holders.

To me XPY is very similar to mtgoxUSD , the numbers exist but the value is a fairytale.

[miaviator]

You do not understand AT ALL, Mage. The number of unique addresses where coins were shuffled in and out of is ridiculous, and growing by the second- it is still going on full force as this is typed. Now you have to include a supposed theft of not only millions of coins, but also Prime Controllers which shit out thousands of coins a day. Which coins are you going to brand as legitimate? And who EXACTLY gets to decide? Josh? The people hand picked by Josh to distance Paycoin from him, as per plan? The "theives" who stole coins and Prime Controllers? What if Josh is tried and found innocent of all charges? THEN what? Are YOU going to pay the fucker back when he sues???  The things you have been suggesting as far as fixing Paycoin are completely fucking absurd and show no aforethought whatsoever. My suggestion is to either spell out an exact plan for your "fix" of Paycoin or never mention it again.

Yay, only 10 pages behind.

I think identifying and removing Prime Controllers and their coins is technically doable. Beyond that - you're right, it gets murky.

Note I said "technically". There would be serious issues, like how to make the current PC owners to give them up voluntarily or make the change "secretly" so that they don't dump before it's forked.

The primary issue I see is theft and respecting property rights. Homero created this coin and put the vast majority of them in his pocket. Fact. He owns them, done deal, it's over. Not saying I think it is a good thing or that I support Homero or his scheme in any way, shape, or form (obviously), but what we are talking about here is taking someone's property. Just because some people decide they don't like him does NOT give them the right to take his property. Example: If I were to start a Real Estate investment group with 100 shares, and held 49 shares and a group of investors held the other 51, it does NOT give them the right to hold a majority shareholder meeting and eliminate my shares to increase the value of their shares, regardless of what they think of me. That would simply not be legal. Do you think Mage would think it is a good idea to pull some monkeyshit like that with Litecoin? It would boost the value of the remaining coins- RIGHT? Pure genius. Why not do it? Get at least 51% of Litecoin holders together and eliminate the coins of whomever does not support them, or does not get the memo in time to get "validated" or those that wish to remain anonymous. Poof, Litecoin gets a huge price per coin boost.

So you are saying that Josh should keep his Coins? What about if a person received the Coins through illegitimate means? Does that mean that the person should keep the Coins, especially if they have near infinite selling power with them?

You statement about litecoin doing is false, because if you were just doing it where you would cut off a certain part of the Coins that don't agree with your views then that part would fight against it and sell their Coins and attack the value so you wouldn't be gaining any value by doing it.

Who decides what is "illegitimate means"? You? Me? Josh? Mage? TeamXPY? What Mage has been suggesting about seizing and burning coins is theft. FUCK Josh, this is not about him. If some group of people are allowed to to what they please with a crypto currency because they don't like someone the whole system is fucked- completely. The fact is that Homero created Paycoin and put most of them in his pocket. That makes them legitimate- regardless of what you think of the scamming prick. If you don't like it then don't buy any. Not liking how someone else decided to make a coin does not suddenly make it right to steal what is not yours. Josh owns them fucking coins, and stealing his coins will do a billion times more damage to the core principles of crypto than that scamming turd ever could no matter how many idiots he cons into buying them. If it is allowed to be done to one person (regardless of what you or I think of him- and trust me, I think Josh is a fucking turd) then crypto is not secure for anyone.

Absolutely, Josh should not keep his coins... but destroying a technology for the purpose of getting back at an individual is NOT the way to do it. Cryptocurrency is just that, a cryptocurrency. No one wants to program dollar bills to scream and run away from drug dealers... the enforcement of laws or morals is left up to agencies and/or the public through public opinion... moral judgements is absolutely not the proper place to apply technology of any kind. If you want Josh's coins to be worthless, then make sure no one will trade or do business with him. Let the agencies confiscate them against his debts, fines, and fees.  But, for all that is reasonable... do not even introduce the idea of trashing a technology by overlaying arbitrary moral judgements onto it.

Who decides what is "illegitimate means"? ...

I don't think a decision of "legitimacy" is really needed. Seizing and burning are "old school" concepts, luckily in crypto it's relatively easy to create "parallel universes" so to speak. The coin would be forked, just like any coin can be forked for any reason. If someone (let's say PC owners) decide to follow the fork that keeps the PCs and their coins and their stake rates - that's fine. Those who follow the fork without PCs would have a separate ecosystem, and technically we could even have both forks listed on exchanges. Then the market could decide how much the coin is worth with or without PCs. Homero could still dump his coins, I'm sure there would always be some rinky-dink exchange willing to make a few satoshis on fees.

That's the idealistic scenario of course. The reality would be much more messy, it always is whenever Mr. Brilliant is involved. And I think there is a real chance we could see such hostile fork(s) emerging, seeing how things are going at the moment.

I see some apples and oranges mixups going on with the discussion about proposals to seize Josh's Paycoins. The bit where Josh posted the hardly intelligible rambling about stealing tv's had to do with the coins he said were stolen from him. What Mage is suggesting be done is to seize Paycoins that were created as part of Paycoin and have been Josh's property ever since. You either respect property rights or you don't. Whatever you think of Josh personally he owns millions of Paycoins- he did not steal them. If people are stupid enough to buy into a crypto coin where one guy owns damned near all of them that is their choice. Josh dumping the coins into markets is also probably not actually illegal- it is just a breach of trust on his part because he said he would not do that. Unethical and underhanded, but probably not actually illegal. What exactly would be the "charge" laid against Josh to justify seizing his coins and destroying them? If I were him and it happened to me I would sue, seriously. There are lots of crimes involved in this whole fraud scheme, but Josh creating millions of Paycoins and putting them in his own wallet is not one of them. Then, on top of that, if there really were such a seize&burn action against Josh- how does anybody know if he was not actually the one behind it? Letting a few million Paycoins get burned would make him look like a victim, AND perhaps remove some of the shit stain of Josh from Paycoin- but who knows how many coins he protected from being seized? Letting a shitload of XPY get burned so that the other millions he has hidden are worth way more would be a HUGE fucking win for Josh. The plan to seize and burn Josh's coins is so ill thought out and illogical there are giant holes in it wherever you look. If you want to get back at Josh, let Paycoin dive into the Satoshi price level. Don't salvage the fucking coin for him for fuck's sake- cmon- you think he doesn't want that?

[miaviator]

Dammit you guys need to stop posting so much while im at work!

On your last statement, I dont see my hand being stuck in a bucket of shit. I'm offering suggestions like many others have in this thread. I personally havent acted on anything and am not spending anymore time other than writing a bit on it.

Well I don't know about other people, but I have lost significant respect for your authority as I have seen your views unfold on this debacle. I hold litecoin and viewed you as one of the pillars of the crypto community.  That is no longer true.   (I guess this is the point where you call me a troll again!)

You know whats funny, I heard the same exact stuff when I helped out Dogecoin. But im still around and kicking!

And you've always been a troll /u/karljt but that doesn't mean I love you any less  

Okay... so... from an IRS perspective... how does a guy carrying only $13k in a bank account end of 2013 also carry $230k in note on a property + one or two exotic cars + Can't imagine how that was even close to legit. If it was, he needs to quit screwing around with this crypto currency and sell budgeting advice.

He may have suckered enough folks to pay for the $75k planes, $2k/night hotels, $2k/day car rentals, $160k 'gift' from Elon... and have an extension in for this year... but... wow... this guy really is a total scum bag. I hope if the IRS takes note, they go back 7 years in his history just for the fun of it.

It is very possible he hid his assets in GAW so it wouldnt be him but the company that would pay for stuff.

I see some apples and oranges mixups going on with the discussion about proposals to seize Josh's Paycoins. The bit where Josh posted the hardly intelligible rambling about stealing tv's had to do with the coins he said were stolen from him. What Mage is suggesting be done is to seize Paycoins that were created as part of Paycoin and have been Josh's property ever since. You either respect property rights or you don't. Whatever you think of Josh personally he owns millions of Paycoins- he did not steal them. If people are stupid enough to buy into a crypto coin where one guy owns damned near all of them that is their choice. Josh dumping the coins into markets is also probably not actually illegal- it is just a breach of trust on his part because he said he would not do that. Unethical and underhanded, but probably not actually illegal. What exactly would be the "charge" laid against Josh to justify seizing his coins and destroying them? If I were him and it happened to me I would sue, seriously. There are lots of crimes involved in this whole fraud scheme, but Josh creating millions of Paycoins and putting them in his own wallet is not one of them. Then, on top of that, if there really were such a seize&burn action against Josh- how does anybody know if he was not actually the one behind it? Letting a few million Paycoins get burned would make him look like a victim, AND perhaps remove some of the shit stain of Josh from Paycoin- but who knows how many coins he protected from being seized? Letting a shitload of XPY get burned so that the other millions he has hidden are worth way more would be a HUGE fucking win for Josh. The plan to seize and burn Josh's coins is so ill thought out and illogical there are giant holes in it wherever you look. If you want to get back at Josh, let Paycoin dive into the Satoshi price level. Don't salvage the fucking coin for him for fuck's sake- cmon- you think he doesn't want that?

The apples and oranges was when I suggested to removed the prime controllers and you jumped on my ass like a wild orangutan about burning coins specifically (which is primarily not what I suggested, but I did suggest to burn the coins within the PC's). You were the one who drug the entire "burn all the coins!" confusion in here. However you asked how it could have been done and I laid out a few examples.

What I may not know and I guess I still dont is if those PC's contain customer funds or are they isolated. However, find me one person not intimately involved in this scheme that owns a PC (because I doubt there is one).


And FYI, Vericoin forked their entire network when Mintpal was hacked in order to reverse/blacklist the coins that were stolen. This was of course before moolah bought them and turned it into a ginormous cluster eff.


At this point its just best we drop this discussion because we are obviously missing each others points here. Hell I was one of if not the most well known individual to call this out months ago. the only thing you can be upset with me is just being a nice guy for wanting to help.

I do not care about the semantics games you want to play. You are suggesting something that makes no sense unless you have some monetary interest in doing so. That is all I need to know.

Monetary interest? Are you are Josh's payroll now too?

I have zero interest in getting paid to help, I really don't care what is done with the suggestions I make. You are the one making a mountain out of a molehill for whatever reason (I mean aside at this point of just trolling me which is fairly obvious).

You insist that you wish to "fix" Paycoin out of the goodness of your heart and say that it has nothing to do with money. My father told me long ago "If someone tells you something is "not about the money", you can bet your ass it's about the money". This has proven to to be sage advice. Now you are starting to sound exactly like the paid GAW shills being exposed in these pages, accusing me of being what you most likely are.

Yes, thats exactly what I am saying. Whats wrong with helping people? Has it occurred to you that not everyone is motivated by money? I do not get paid a penny for any of the work I do with Litecoin or anything else. Nor do really own any crypto at this point (not that I had much to begin with). I had some wrapped up in an investment that looks to be turning into a scam and the last bit I had I donated to Seansoutpost.


I know its really hard to believe, but money is not a motivational factor for everyone. Some of us have a passion for what we do and love doing it. If you dont believe me, feel free to ask people who really do know me if I am the type thats is financially motivated.

[miaviator]

Here is what I know:

A: You have a deep knowledge of crypto and have been intimately involved with it for a long time, particularly Litecoin.
B: The suggestions you have for "fixing" Paycoin are completely absurd and will without a doubt inflict massive damage to crypto, which is what you claim to be trying to prevent.
C: You say that you have no monetary interest in "fixing" Paycoin.

Those three things do not add up, plain and simple. I think you are trying to play me for a fool by saying that they do.

Fair enough, we can discuss this.

1. You are correct on this, although I've never hid the fact that im not a dev (I've even mentioned this here). I started Nov/Dec 2013, with what was called the second wave of adoption.
2. I dont see it this way at all, can you please explain to me (and im being very serious here) what is wrong with blacklisting prime controllers? The damage that I talk about is purely from a sociological standpoint, and I can even elaborate on this if you want me too. I did a podcast last night and even talked about this specifically.
3. I don't, whats hard to believe in that? Again I ask very seriously what do you think I am going to do beyond what I have done/suggested? Do you think im going to fix the code for them? Because im not (nor do I have the proper skill set to do so).

I dont play anyone for a fool.

I already explained several points of why the things you suggest as a fix for Paycoin are absurd, and in my opinion probably illegal as well. They are also detrimental to crypto, particularly the part about destroying trust that coins are a stable and honest form of currency. If a group of people can decide to eliminate the coins of other holders of a coin, that is the worst possible thing you can do to foster trust, which is cyptos weak point already.

IF this was any normal crypto I would agree with you, but the fact that a company "owns" it is the entire reason I would even suggest this.


Cryptos are for the people (beyond the stupid catchphrase they use "The people's money", and I firmly believe this.


BUT.......I do understand where you are coming from. And again I do agree with your sentiments if this were any other normal crypto coin. But it is not, and has some "special circumstances" surrounding it. Any changes that I suggested were to get GAW out of the picture (the easiest way possible without crossing that line you mentioned earlier about who decides which coins to burn, because that can be very difficult to track and determine) and help those who actually hold Paycoin.


Here is the issue, we have a community of folks that regardless of what you or anyone else thinks is still part of the larger crypto community. I also believe that a lot of these folks are first time crypto users and this is their first experience. Sure, its easy to sit back and say "let them burn in hell for their stupidity", but stepping back and looking at the larger picture here that causes some issues.

Mary just got scammed by GAW via paycoin and its community, and this is Mary's first time crypto experience. She was interested in it for both monetary reasons and non monetary reasons (maybe she hates the FED and really understands how much a dollar is really worth). But now her experience has left a bad taste in her mouth.

Mary also has a friend Jake at work who is interested in Bitcoin. Mary explains to Jake what had happened to her, and the poor experiences she had with cryptos. All of a sudden, her story resonates with him and he not only decides not to get into it, but actively tells others not to get involved as well. Now compound that with a few thousand people (I'm just throwing darts here at a number, but its not unreasonable).



This is why I do what I do. I can give two shits less about the coin itself, im more concerned with the community. Even if these people ultimately decide its not worth it they can still join one of the many other communities within cryptos and become contributors to help spread education and awareness. Hell most of the people who own paycoin arent even on GAW forums anymore, they are over in other mediums.

First, prove to me that GAW owns Paycoin. Tell me how much, and where it is stored and why you believe it belongs to them, and then explain  why taking property from a corporation is different than taking it from an individual. Secondly, explain why you think it is ok to take property away from either GAW or Josh Garza. What is the EXACT criteria by which you conclude that it is fair, just and legal, to take property from someone else. You either respect property rights or you don't. The fact of the matter is that Crypto currency is legally considered property, and neither you or the group of fucking criminals that you suggest should be able to pull off this fix (scam), have the right to take property from anyone else. It is that simple.

The minute that a company is able to produce money out of thin air and assign themselves that money is the moment where I believe its fair to take it away from them. Especially since they can continue printing money out of thin air. The FED is a private institution and has done this for decades, so do you believe that is fair of them? This is literally the EXACT reason why cryptos was created! To get away from this BS.

Lets agree to disagree and be done with it. Obviously we aren't going to agree to each others for a lack of a better term morals (maybe ideas? I'm having difficulty trying to place a word here). I think at this point we are arguing philosophy more than anything else, which is fine, but if you want to lets just state that up front.

I would argue that the reverse is true as well: When a group or company is able to eliminate the money held by others , you have the same situation. Your position is hypocritical, illogical and morally indefensible.

I dont understand your logic.

Jonny Q public buys shares in a company and gets scammed.

Jonny Q public has the ability to take over said company and potentially turn profits around for themselves, outside of said company.

The company being Paycoin. How can you say this is illogical or morally indefensible?

[miaviator]

@ TheMage and Paul Revere ... I'm genuinely interested in your conversation, but don't want to jump in on it in this thread because it's sort of semi-tangent-ish.  (But I can understand why you two continue your discussion here)... would you consider starting a different thread where lesser voices could participate w/out overly extending this thread? Also, this seems like a good 'general purpose' crypto-currency community topic that would be served better to not be buried in this thread.

Of course, I think its a good topic honestly.

Paul you up for a good philosophical discussion (with all respect of course)?

Please do not suggest a series of published letters.

Personally I like The Mage's advice. If the paycoin foundation got rid of their primes, and josh's coins I think XPY would have just as much of a shot as any other shitcoin.

I don't get how people think he is trying to make money off of this expressed point of view. Unless he just bought some XPY on the lows last week (doubt it since he has spoken out against XPY previously) and is hoping his advice sends the coin to $20 a piece?

I dont day trade, for one because I have a day job and dont have the time to manage the risks around it. And no I have never owned XPY, I only have held BTC, LTC, and DOGE.

First, prove to me that GAW owns Paycoin. ...

I don't think anyone is proposing taking property away from anyone. What is being proposed is a fork of the coin which is identical other than that certain coins don't exist in the fork; the current coin (XPY) continues to exist, and a new coin (XPY2) is created which is functionally identical, only without the GAW coins. Is that theft? I don't see how.

As an existing holder of N XPY, I would also have N XPY2 (unless presumably I was GAW). I could choose to trade my XPY2 for "real" XPY, or vice versa, depending on which of the two I wanted to hold. They would both be listed on exchanges, and their prices would move independently of each other.

If there's general agreement that the fork is a good idea people would sell their XPY, pushing the price towards 0, while buying more XPY2, increasing the price. GAW still have their millions of XPY, nothing has been stolen, but the free market has set a more appropriate price for their out-of-thin-air gains and decided that they value a coin without the pre-mine (or whatever it is - I've not been paying attention) more highly.

I don't think anyone is proposing taking property away from anyone. ...

This.

XPY2 would cut at least 50% of the coin and all hyperinflation.

EDIT: Cut all prime controllers and their coins + any remaining premine which is not in the hands of customers.

• If an address held by dooglus is identified as a GAW address, then that would be okay because it's for the greater good? Even if that address is valued at $2k at the time it's excised from the blockchain?
  
• What if Rashabh is owner of 3 of the prime controllers? He's put up a lot of money for them and is as much a victim of GAW as anyone else. Should his prime controllers and their existing coins be wiped out?

And, everyone is okay with setting this precedent... so, maybe in the future a coin could decide to just wipe out all addresses associated with Southern Hemisphere IP addresses... or maybe dump all addresses associated with EU wallets... hey, they could set up a kiddy-porn honeypot and drop all those wallets, that would certainly be for the greater good...

Everyone is comfortable with a crypto-currency suddenly becoming judge and jury in accordance with the current holders' ideals? That is essentially what you will be doing when you take a $1000 or $10,000 or $1mm worth of addresses and cut them out.

I'm not sure how you clean up XPY, but if the prime controllers survive till June, then who knows who will own (technically rent) them... as it stands now, the PC tenants seem to hold a lot of power over the future of the coin. What if they decide they want to go for the big-bang and focus on setting up silk-road5 or they decide to cut out all wallets holding less than 100k coins to increase scarcity because they're just muggles anyway, right?

And, everyone is okay with setting this precedent... so, maybe in the future a coin could decide to just wipe out all addresses associated with Southern Hemisphere IP addresses... or maybe dump all addresses associated with EU wallets... hey, they could set up a kiddy-porn honeypot and drop all those wallets, that would certainly be for the greater good...

That's not how it works though is it?

I can take Bitcoin source and create a fork to wipe out Nakamoto's coins. Trouble is, nobody would use my fork so my BTCSM would be useless and worthless.

Anyone can take Paycoin source and fork it for any reason. The team/foundation/whatchamacallit just did it. A hostile fork would be more difficult to pull off but not impossible.

In other words there is no justice system here akin to "real life" laws, precedents, etc. Complete anarchy and random chance, embrace it  

[miaviator]

In any case, I agree that Andrew's position on Paycoin is ill-conceived. If Litecoin had any of the same traits as Paycoin, I'd say kill it too. Difference is that Charlie Lee is not a sociopathic fucker hellbent on deception and gaining money by falsities, bleeding a company and its fans dry and then blaming random people on the internet for it. He's just a software guy who figured he could do an Scrypt algorithm coin better than Tenebrix. Now he works at Coinbase. Coinbase doesn't accept Litecoin, and that's a problem.

But Paycoin? Kill Paycoin. It has never for a minute been a legitimate or viable idea. If the people who lost through it end up leaving the community, that's their decision. Plenty of people who never traded anything but Bitcoin have wound up leaving due to overwhelming losses. Crypto is not for the feint of heart, it is not for the cautious investor. It is, however, and I don't mean to be too mean to them, but it is for the moderately intelligent. You have to be able to spot the difference between hype and technology. Examine Paycoin for five minutes with a rational mind, not infected by your feelings toward a particular individual, and you can see that it offers nothing that other proof of stake coins do except ridiculous awards to a select few and a lot of foolish names for things. "Prime Staker" is nothing but "premine 2.0."

Litecoin will come with 150 premined coins: just the genesis block and the first 2 blocks to confirm the genesis is valid.  We believe a coin needs to be released in a fair manner.  Having one person (or a group) control a large amount of coins that can be used as they see fit is against the decentralized vision of Bitcoin.  Yes, it is true that without a stash of premined coins, we will not be able to afford to pay for bounties, but we believe people will see the virtue of this coin, invest in it as early adopters, and will be willing to spend time creating services to make this coin better.

Present rate, these coins are worth $209 USD. At the height of Litecoin, they were worth less than $8k.

This cannot be said about Paycoin. The investigation in this thread has thoroughly revealed that from its inception Paycoin was designed to prop up a failing company, and was indeed used for that various purpose. Further, it has been revealed that it was launched in bad faith, where an honest person, when realizing that their idea would surely not work, would have simply pulled back and started over.

It's no secret that I am a fan of Litecoin and have never owned a Paycoin. But objectively speaking, Andrew, you're doing yourself no favors by suggesting that anyone should do anything to save Paycoin. There will never be a market outside of that community which values the coin, and therefore it should be taken off the exchanges, since any time it is sold on them, it is done for the very purpose of enriching the callow or foolish, neither of which are things which the cryptocurrency community has a need to promote.

I already explained several points of why the things you suggest as a fix for Paycoin are absurd, and in my opinion probably illegal as well. They are also detrimental to crypto, particularly the part about destroying trust that coins are a stable and honest form of currency. If a group of people can decide to eliminate the coins of other holders of a coin, that is the worst possible thing you can do to foster trust, which is cyptos weak point already.

IF this was any normal crypto I would agree with you, but the fact that a company "owns" it is the entire reason I would even suggest this.


Cryptos are for the people (beyond the stupid catchphrase they use "The people's money", and I firmly believe this.


BUT.......I do understand where you are coming from. And again I do agree with your sentiments if this were any other normal crypto coin. But it is not, and has some "special circumstances" surrounding it. Any changes that I suggested were to get GAW out of the picture (the easiest way possible without crossing that line you mentioned earlier about who decides which coins to burn, because that can be very difficult to track and determine) and help those who actually hold Paycoin.


Here is the issue, we have a community of folks that regardless of what you or anyone else thinks is still part of the larger crypto community. I also believe that a lot of these folks are first time crypto users and this is their first experience. Sure, its easy to sit back and say "let them burn in hell for their stupidity", but stepping back and looking at the larger picture here that causes some issues.

Mary just got scammed by GAW via paycoin and its community, and this is Mary's first time crypto experience. She was interested in it for both monetary reasons and non monetary reasons (maybe she hates the FED and really understands how much a dollar is really worth). But now her experience has left a bad taste in her mouth.

Mary also has a friend Jake at work who is interested in Bitcoin. Mary explains to Jake what had happened to her, and the poor experiences she had with cryptos. All of a sudden, her story resonates with him and he not only decides not to get into it, but actively tells others not to get involved as well. Now compound that with a few thousand people (I'm just throwing darts here at a number, but its not unreasonable).



This is why I do what I do. I can give two shits less about the coin itself, im more concerned with the community. Even if these people ultimately decide its not worth it they can still join one of the many other communities within cryptos and become contributors to help spread education and awareness. Hell most of the people who own paycoin arent even on GAW forums anymore, they are over in other mediums.

First, prove to me that GAW owns Paycoin. Tell me how much, and where it is stored and why you believe it belongs to them, and then explain  why taking property from a corporation is different than taking it from an individual. Secondly, explain why you think it is ok to take property away from either GAW or Josh Garza. What is the EXACT criteria by which you conclude that it is fair, just and legal, to take property from someone else. You either respect property rights or you don't. The fact of the matter is that Crypto currency is legally considered property, and neither you or the group of fucking criminals that you suggest should be able to pull off this fix (scam), have the right to take property from anyone else. It is that simple.

The minute that a company is able to produce money out of thin air and assign themselves that money is the moment where I believe its fair to take it away from them. Especially since they can continue printing money out of thin air. The FED is a private institution and has done this for decades, so do you believe that is fair of them? This is literally the EXACT reason why cryptos was created! To get away from this BS.

Lets agree to disagree and be done with it. Obviously we aren't going to agree to each others for a lack of a better term morals (maybe ideas? I'm having difficulty trying to place a word here). I think at this point we are arguing philosophy more than anything else, which is fine, but if you want to lets just state that up front.

I would argue that the reverse is true as well: When a group or company is able to eliminate the money held by others , you have the same situation. Your position is hypocritical, illogical and morally indefensible.

I dont understand your logic.

Jonny Q public buys shares in a company and gets scammed.

Jonny Q public has the ability to take over said company and potentially turn profits around for themselves, outside of said company.

The company being Paycoin. How can you say this is illogical or morally indefensible?

What in the world are you talking about? Paycoin is NOT a company, it is a cryptocurrency, and the coins are not shares. This is the absurd non-sense that the spiderman unperpants clad clowns on Hashtalk think. You stated that GAW owns Paycoin, and I asked you to prove this and you flat out refused to even try. Some debater. I do not personally see any legal difference in taking someone else's property, regardless of whether that entity is a person or corporation, and the law agrees. In reality, corporations have stronger legal ownership rights than individuals here in the USA.  Even if Paycoin were a company, shareholders do not have the legal or moral right to hold a majority shareholder meeting and vote to eliminate the other 49% of shares. If that were the case, shareholders would do this over and over until just one person owned all of the shares- the idea is completely absurd. The people who bought into Paycoin and got scammed got scammed. It happened. It is a travesty. You pretending to have the power of court, judge, and jury will not change this.  Again, your position is hypocritical, illogical, and morally indefensible.

I just saw this additional reply from Crestington to this same debate, so I will add my reply here to try to reduce the Wall-O-Text that is developing.

So you are saying that a company has never outed it's CEO for the things they've done and money they've cost the company?

It can be viewed as being received through illegitimate means since the money came from uncle stu to make the appearance of a floor and the $20 floor and compensation etc. only really served to increase the floor that could be sold into. What is the compensation for creating a Cryptocurrency out of thin air, seems like a few million to me so if none of Josh's funds were used to buy those Coins and no money used to back the assets and everything sold into the market then it should be just fine if the community should want to eliminate the liability. Do you think that Josh is suddenly going to do a 180 and get all legit after a year of scamming literally everyone he came across? The moment things get comfy it's going to be back to old scam muggler. Josh having the Coins will always put a negative hold over the Coin no matter what and it's very likely he would end up using existing investor funds to pay off all his pre-existing debt (which was the reason it was made). Even if Josh does go to Jail, it still means that those Coins are accumulating interest and can later on be sold and will hurt all new investors.

You said before that Cryptsy should delist, that would hurt everyone and Josh. There is also no way that people won't set any buy orders since if it's on the exchange then people would set orders. If PayCoin holders want to see any increase in the value of their Coin, they should want this to happen. If you wanted to meet halfway, you could always just take away the ability for his increased Stake percentage and let him keep the Coins (although I think he gave up that right with the $20 floor)

So you are saying that a company has never outed it's CEO for the things they've done and money they've cost the company?

No, I did not say that. We are not talking about a company here, we are talking about a crypto currency called Paycoin.

It can be viewed as being received through illegitimate means since the money came from uncle stu to make the appearance of a floor and the $20 floor and compensation etc. only really served to increase the floor that could be sold into.

Paycoin was created. It is what it is. People have various amounts in their wallets. It is legal property. If fraud was perpetrated by GAW (And I do believe it was), this does not suddenly make it legal to take someone elses property because you have decided that you think someone else did something wrong.  If there was wrongdoing, that is for a court to decide, not some self proclaimed crypto do gooder or the gang of criminals (ALL associated with the same criminal from whom you and Mage say it is ok to steal from, no less) who you and Mage say should take property from other people. If a court orders property to be seized from either GAW or Josh, that is legal. A group of people deciding they will do that is criminal. Fact. There is simply no way around this fact.

I do not recall saying that Cryptsy should delist Paycoin. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't, but at any rate I do not see the relevance to this discussion about whether it is legal and moral to decide that it is ok to take someone else's property.

I understand why people want to take away Josh's coins and end the staking, but can't you see how that will kill the coin? If you can do that to him, or change something so fundamental (remember, the only reason most people have these coins is because they thought they would make money via staking) why would anyone invest in the coin when it can be taken away from them or something else can be changed?

It sucks that these people got conned, it's nice that people want to help, but it happened. Don't waste your/their time and energy on something that won't work.

There is also the issue of determining exactly which coins belong to Josh and or GAW, and then how do you prove, and I mean PROVE, that coins belong to someone else? It would be a simple matter to fake identities and move coins through exchanges and such, I will not list what I think would be best and easiest ways, but I am sure that some (HUGE) amount of this has already been going on. Then there is the issue of whether or not the gang of criminals that helped create Paycoin and run this scam are now "Not Josh". I for one do not buy that part at all. I think all or most of them are still just Josh's stooges. The best way I see for Josh to get his due is to let Paycoin go where it is already heading. Salvaging it for him would at the very least be a public image victory, and most likely a huge financial win as well.

Fuck that asshole Hashking, Fuck GAW, and Fuck Paycoin. (been catching up on Game of Thrones- saw the Blackwater Siege episode last night)

[SNIP]
Paycoin was created. It is what it is. People have various amounts in their wallets. It is legal property. If fraud was perpetrated by GAW (And I do believe it was), this does not suddenly make it legal to take someone elses property because you have decided that you think someone else did something wrong. 

You keep saying that blacklisting coins through a hard fork, or blacklisting addresses (same thing in your analysis I think) is "taking someone elses property". 

Aside from the merits or demerits of whether such is a good idea (and I am on the fence on that), I strongly disagree with your legal analysis.  In order to make the claim that you make, you would have to be able to show that U.S. law would allow you to sue for fork that disenfranchised [GAWCEO's] coins.  What would your legal theory be? 

Theft/Conversion?  What property was taken from [GAWCEO]?  You still have the old coins in the original blockchain before the fork.  No one "took" anything.  Its just that the majority decided to proceed down a different blockchain that excluded you from participating.  Hard to see any property conversion on those facts, absent an act of destruction of the original blockchain or coins.

Breach of contract?  First off, you would have to demonstrate a contract.  Who were the parties?  Who would you sue?  Everyone participating in the new blockchain?  Every wallet that decided to follow the new fork?

The fact is, crypto is a consensus currency.  If the consensus changes, so does the coin.  If the consensus changes so as to exclude one party or their coins in an old blockchain, then the new consensus forms a new "contract" (if you want to use that theory).  The old "contract" consensus doesn't go away (there is no breach of contract, because the old block can continue), but the coins in the old consensus likely lose all their value as a result of lack of interest/support.  The new fork creates a new consensus, new contract.

I fail to see any legal problem with this.  That is not to say I don't see the practical problems and the precedential problems (e.g., it might set a bad precedent and decrease confidence in crypto generally if people think their coins can be "taken" like that).  But I don't think a legal claim of conversion of "property rights" or breach of contract would lie.

[SNIP]
Paycoin was created. It is what it is. People have various amounts in their wallets. It is legal property. If fraud was perpetrated by GAW (And I do believe it was), this does not suddenly make it legal to take someone elses property because you have decided that you think someone else did something wrong.  

You keep saying that blacklisting coins through a hard fork, or blacklisting addresses (same thing in your analysis I think) is "taking someone elses property".  

Aside from the merits or demerits of whether such is a good idea (and I am on the fence on that), I strongly disagree with your legal analysis.  In order to make the claim that you make, you would have to be able to show that U.S. law would allow you to sue for fork that disenfranchised [GAWCEO's] coins.  What would your legal theory be?  

Theft/Conversion?  What property was taken from [GAWCEO]?  You still have the old coins in the original blockchain before the fork.  No one "took" anything.  Its just that the majority decided to proceed down a different blockchain that excluded you from participating.  Hard to see any property conversion on those facts, absent an act of destruction of the original blockchain or coins.

Breach of contract?  First off, you would have to demonstrate a contract.  Who were the parties?  Who would you sue?  Everyone participating in the new blockchain?  Every wallet that decided to follow the new fork?

The fact is, crypto is a consensus currency.  If the consensus changes, so does the coin.  If the consensus changes so as to exclude one party or their coins in an old blockchain, then the new consensus forms a new "contract" (if you want to use that theory).  The old "contract" consensus doesn't go away (there is no breach of contract, because the old block can continue), but the coins in the old consensus likely lose all their value as a result of lack of interest/support.  The new fork creates a new consensus, new contract.

I fail to see any legal problem with this.  That is not to say I don't see the practical problems and the precedential problems (e.g., it might set a bad precedent and decrease confidence in crypto generally if people think their coins can be "taken" like that).  But I don't think a legal claim of conversion of "property rights" or breach of contract would lie.

Crypto currency is considered property by the United States Federal Government. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a criminal act.

I am well aware that forking to remove coins can and has been done, but this does not make it legal or morally right.

[miaviator]

i dont agree with that view Paul. isnt this staking change already theft then? because Garza wont be getting 350% anymore just 100% (he didnt agree to this)

he can still use his 350% staking blockchain. people just decided that those are now funny money he can sell to his kids   heres your allowance kids!

Crypto currency is considered property by the United States Federal Government. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a criminal act.

I am well aware that forking to remove coins can and has been done, but this does not make it legal or morally right.

It is considered "property" only in a very limited way - for tax purposes.  That does not mean that you could maintain a claim for conversion or theft if your coins were blacklisted. 

If someone broke into your wallet and transferred your XPY, **that** would be conversion.  if you sell your XPY for a loss or profit, the IRS will require you to recognize the sale as income or loss.  All true.

Blacklisting a coin in a forked blockchain is not the same thing.  You still have your wallet, still have your coins.  Its just that no one is supporting that old blockchain anymore so the XPY you have in the old wallet becomes worthless.

You would have to somehow argue that U.S. law would protect not just the coins as property, but also your interest in continuing to be able to use the coins on any blockchain.  I don't see how this argument could be made.

i dont agree with that view Paul. isnt this staking change already theft then? because Garza wont be getting 350% anymore just 100% (he didnt agree to this)

he can still use his 350% staking blockchain. people just decided that those are now funny money he can sell to his kids   heres your allowance kids!

Just because something can be done or has been done does not automatically make it legal or morally right.

Crypto currency is considered property by the United States Federal Government. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a criminal act.

I am well aware that forking to remove coins can and has been done, but this does not make it legal or morally right.

It is considered "property" only in a very limited way - for tax purposes.  That does not mean that you could maintain a claim for conversion or theft if your coins were blacklisted. 

If someone broke into your wallet and transferred your XPY, **that** would be conversion.  if you sell your XPY for a loss or profit, the IRS will require you to recognize the sale as income or loss.  All true.

Blacklisting a coin in a forked blockchain is not the same thing.  You still have your wallet, still have your coins.  Its just that no one is supporting that old blockchain anymore so the XPY you have in the old wallet becomes worthless.

You would have to somehow argue that U.S. law would protect not just the coins as property, but also your interest in continuing to be able to use the coins on any blockchain.  I don't see how this argument could be made.

Crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a crime. End of story.

oh i agree about that. theres no inherent morality. its just consensus which can be immoral depending on your view of the world
i dont know about legality issue its so different in each country

the whole thing is a total shit show thanks to Mr. Garbozo

Why are you guys even debating to kill coins or not to kill coins? This fucking scam needs to die. End of story. Every coin should be valued at zero. The only fork that should be considered is the one that fucking stabs it to death and renders every coin useless digital space.

I agree.  The best way to fix it is to transfer all your XPY to BTC and use the BTC QT there problem solved 

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

Crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a crime. End of story.

That is way too simplistic (and wrong).  I am not going to argue the moral/ethical issue, just the legal point.

1) First, nothing would be "taken" from the possession of GAWCEO.  Conversion (which is the legal cause of action for theft), whether civil or criminal, requires that the wrongdoer take from the rightful owner possession of the property.  The loss of a possessory right is central to a claim of "theft"/conversion.  A fork in the blockchain would certainly interfere with GAWCEO's ability to use that which he possesses, but would not deprive him of possession of anything.  Comparing GAWCEO's possession of XPY and wallets a microsecond before and after the blockchain fork, there is no loss of any possession. 

2) You are really making an expectations argument (estoppel) or an implied contract argument (breach) I think, but that is not a theft or conversion issue.  And I think any claim by Josh on an estoppel theory would fail (he cannot assert an equitable argument because he has "unclean hands"), and an implied contract claim would fail for the reasons previously stated (new contract, new consensus does not breach old contract).

Consider this:  If instead of hard forking, the same folks get together and create a new coin called Paycoin Redux (PAX).  They do an ICO in which any holder of XPY can obtain equivalent value pro rata percentage of PAX coin by exhanging their XPY for PAX; except Josh and any person or entity that can be identified with Josh as an affiliate or family member is banned from ICO participation.  The XPY exchanged is destroyed.  The result of this would be exactly the same as a hard fork, but you cannot possibly claim anything morally, ethically or legally wrong with that.

Why are you guys even debating to kill coins or not to kill coins? This fucking scam needs to die. End of story. Every coin should be valued at zero. The only fork that should be considered is the one that fucking stabs it to death and renders every coin useless digital space.

I agree.  The best way to fix it is to transfer all your XPY to BTC and use the BTC QT there problem solved  

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

If the community decided to move onto a new chain where Josh's coins were blocked or stake rates changed in any way there is nothing he can do about it regardless of whether you say it's about property rights or not, morally right or wrong. A Cryptocurrency is never forever, it changes all the time and can be changed based on consensus, he would have to sue every single person who owned the PayCoin for deciding that they want to exclude him.

Why are you guys even debating to kill coins or not to kill coins? This fucking scam needs to die. End of story. Every coin should be valued at zero. The only fork that should be considered is the one that fucking stabs it to death and renders every coin useless digital space.

I agree.  The best way to fix it is to transfer all your XPY to BTC and use the BTC QT there problem solved  

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

I don't go for that Team Paycoin are the "good guys" bullshit either.

Eggzackry. Then there is the issue of whether these crooks are actually independant from Garza or not. I think not, and that people like Mage and Crestington are willingly or unwillingly being used to try to wipe some of the stench of scam and the criminal Garza off of Paycoin so that the scam can continue.

@ eightcylinders: . The fact is the crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone elses's property is definitely a crime. I am not saying that destroying someone's crypto currency can be successfully argued in court. We live in a world where it is successfully argued that brazen and obvious criminals are innocent and that innocent people are criminals all day every day. By your logic murder is legal because the glove did not fit.

Why are you guys even debating to kill coins or not to kill coins? This fucking scam needs to die. End of story. Every coin should be valued at zero. The only fork that should be considered is the one that fucking stabs it to death and renders every coin useless digital space.

I agree.  The best way to fix it is to transfer all your XPY to BTC and use the BTC QT there problem solved  

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

If the community decided to move onto a new chain where Josh's coins were blocked or stake rates changed in any way there is nothing he can do about it regardless of whether you say it's about property rights or not, morally right or wrong. A Cryptocurrency is never forever, it changes all the time and can be changed based on consensus, he would have to sue every single person who owned the PayCoin for deciding that they want to exclude him.

What is "the community"? If by community you mean those that have at least 51% of the coins or have ownership and/or influence over other owners of the majoirty of the Prime Controllers, you mean Josh&Co. He is playing you and Mage for fucking fools and doing a damned good job of it. He has you trying to fix his fucking scam coin to try to make it appear less scammy , so he can continue scamming. Fuck that, and if you help him then fuck you too.

Edit to add from the next post by Crestington below: "If you don't like the rules of the game then change the rules."

You simply do not get it. The rules favor Josh & Co., and he is playing you and Mage for fools. You and Mage have both bought into the fucking lie that the pack of criminals now currently said to be "Not Josh" and are supposedly in control of Paycoin are somehow goodguys now. Bullshit.  They are the same fucking pack of criminals that have been running the Paycoin scam all along. Of COURSE they are lying to you for fuck's sake, figure it the fuck out out already.

Why are you guys even debating to kill coins or not to kill coins? This fucking scam needs to die. End of story. Every coin should be valued at zero. The only fork that should be considered is the one that fucking stabs it to death and renders every coin useless digital space.

I agree.  The best way to fix it is to transfer all your XPY to BTC and use the BTC QT there problem solved  

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

I don't go for that Team Paycoin are the "good guys" bullshit either.

Eggzackry. Then there is the issue of whether these crooks are actually independant from Garza or not. I think not, and that people like Mage and Crestington are willingly or unwillingly being used to try to wipe some of the stench of scam and the criminal Garza off of Paycoin so that the scam can continue.

@ eightcylinders: . The fact is the crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone elses's property is definitely a crime. I am not saying that destroying someone's crypto currency can be successfully argued in court. We live in a world where it is successfully argued that brazen and obvious criminals are innocent and that innocent people are criminals all day every day. By your logic murder is legal because the glove did not fit.

It's not up to me to decide whether to trust them, I personally don't trust them since if they really wanted to be head of it then they would have proven their Coins and relationships. No transparency, no-go

My point was only that if you want to exclude him or anyone else and make changes then just do it, and figure out how it can be done.

If you don't like the rules of the game then change the rules.

problem is you cannot do that kind of wealth transfer with out creating some real victims (bag holders), maybe it was their fault of investing in or not. not really the point. if there is consensus that xpy community doesnt want to create bag holders they can try what TheMage and miavitor are saying. if you calculate how much money Mr. Garbozo has put in + he didnt fulfill his part of the "contract" by implementing the whitepaper, it disqualifies him (in my opinion) from the "profits". its fraud so why is he entitled to keep these monster inflation sources

this 100% stake is as much BS as 350%


ps:
im pretty sure the only way to extract any real wealth out of this is to cash it out in btc like some of you are saying at great losses but at least its something. but we cant really dictate what those who are stuck with it can do

the dreams of it being anything else than tarnished coin with a decent name are long gone

[miaviator]

Consider this:  If instead of hard forking, the same folks get together and create a new coin called Paycoin Redux (PAX).  They do an ICO in which any holder of XPY can obtain equivalent value pro rata percentage of PAX coin by exhanging their XPY for PAX; except Josh and any person or entity that can be identified with Josh as an affiliate or family member is banned from ICO participation.  The XPY exchanged is destroyed.  The result of this would be exactly the same as a hard fork, but you cannot possibly claim anything morally, ethically or legally wrong with that.

Oh Em Effing Gee! Do not go making statements you are clearly unqualified to make.

The establishment of a group responsible for determining the legitimacy, or otherwise, of those seeking to trade one coin for another confers the notion of authority and, as such, ownership of the project. If there is anything that the owners of a cryptocurrency project can be charged with, in terms of breaching various national or international laws, the governing body of the project would be held accountable.

I don't think I'd sleep particularly well at night putting my nuts on the line to try and keep this monstrosity alive for 'the sake of the community'.

If it isn't 'open to all' then the governing body is taking responsibility for vetting those who it is open to.

One word: Minefield.

@ eightcylinders: . The fact is the crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone elses's property is definitely a crime. I am not saying that destroying someone's crypto currency can be successfully argued in court. We live in a world where it is successfully argued that brazen and obvious criminals are innocent and that innocent people are criminals all day every day. By your logic murder is legal because the glove did not fit.

I agree with your point that it is probably impossible to identify all of the criminals, shysters, fraudsters, aiders and abetter, etc. in this scam so maybe its a moot point.

However, you keep saying that forking the blockchain and blacklisting coins in the process would "take or destroy" someone's property.  You are conflating "taking or destroying" of certain XPY coins (the private keys proving ownership of a coin) with taking or destroying one's ability to use and commercially exploit that same.  Conversion/theft is only concerned with the former, not the latter.

Oh Em Effing Gee! Do not go making statements you are clearly unqualified to make.

I will be happy to compare qualifications to make this statement with yours.

If it isn't 'open to all' then the governing body is taking responsibility for vetting those who it is open to.

One word: Minefield.

Really?  So in your crack legal analysis, all coin ICOs must be public, open to all?  You cannot limit for accredited investor status?  You cannot limit participation by criminals?  You cannot simply pick your friends?  This is a new legal idea, the ICo must be open to all.  Please enlighten us on the laws which require such.

Crypto currency is considered property by the United States Federal Government. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a criminal act.

I am well aware that forking to remove coins can and has been done, but this does not make it legal or morally right.

It is considered "property" only in a very limited way - for tax purposes.  That does not mean that you could maintain a claim for conversion or theft if your coins were blacklisted. 

If someone broke into your wallet and transferred your XPY, **that** would be conversion.  if you sell your XPY for a loss or profit, the IRS will require you to recognize the sale as income or loss.  All true.

Blacklisting a coin in a forked blockchain is not the same thing.  You still have your wallet, still have your coins.  Its just that no one is supporting that old blockchain anymore so the XPY you have in the old wallet becomes worthless.

You would have to somehow argue that U.S. law would protect not just the coins as property, but also your interest in continuing to be able to use the coins on any blockchain.  I don't see how this argument could be made.

Forget morally/ethically/legally right or wrong.

Why would you/anyone participate/hold/use/invest/develop in a coin if this is done. It can be done to bitcoins, but bitcoin works because it's so hard that it's almost impossible to do. Why would you bother wasting any time/energy/money on a coin that has shown can be taken away like that? It just doesn't make sense It can be done, but doing it should kill the coin so why do it?

I mean this saga (and crypto, in general imo) is full of people that suck at logic and common sense, but wouldn't this be a bridge too far? Forget the morality of the fork, look at the reality that will happen in the aftermath. A coin that has shown that it can easily be taken/blacklisted if you piss off a group of people that are either morally corrupt or incompetent to be involved in this mess up to this point. Doesn't seem like a smart idea to me.

Really?  So in your crack legal analysis, all coin ICOs must be public, open to all?  You cannot limit for accredited investor status?  You cannot limit participation by criminals?  You cannot simply pick your friends?  This is a new legal idea, the ICo must be open to all.  Please enlighten us on the laws which require such.

No, that is not what I said at all. Nice try though.

What I said is that if it is not 'open to all' then there must be a qualifying set of conditions, which are defined by a governing body. It is this instance that then exposes the 'governing body' to liability for the project by way of them asserting their authority over the coin project.

Which is ENTIRELY different from declaring that all ICO's *must* be open to all.

Your legalese kung fu is extremely weak.

Crooks eating their own. Greed is a powerful force to a scam artist. Getting rid of one crook's coins makes the coins of other crooks more valuable to them. It's all about the pump. The pump. The pump. It's all about the dump. The dump. The dump.

I hope you are not suggesting that I am involved in any way in XPY.  I have been calling this a scam since the original thread, and I even predicted back in October that Josh would exit the scene and blame it the SEC and FinCEN!

I hold exactly 1 XPY and 1 Hashtaker, which I bought only to create a second account on Hashtalk when my first account was shadowbanned (for asking difficult questions about the pre-mine).  I have used my account on Hashtalk to ask questions and try to bring some light to this scam as best I could without getting shadowbanned again.

My belief is that it might be a good idea to fork XPY to get rid of all Prime Controllers and get rid of wallets known to be associated with Josh/GAW.  You can question that all you want, but if you want to try to make me a part of this scam you better have your facts straight.

To Eric and Joe back away from PayCoin 100% and destroy your coins. Prove it.

Actions speak louder than words. Publicly state that PayCoin is a pre-mined scam coin and the whole enterprise, and anyone involved with its development, promotion, or sale is a scammer.

Agreed. This whole latest fork is simply to make Paycoin appear less scammy so that the scam can continue. If these people actually wanted to fix inflation they would pull the coins out of the Prime Controller addresses. If the statement " We will publicly burn the XPY staked from our PC's" bullshit smells right, you are very easily played for a fucking fool. Why create coins to destroy them? Empty the fucking address ya fucking moron, and then you don't create the coins to begin with. A fucking 5 year old could figure this out. What the fuck? Cmon, that is an obvious lie being tossed out to con gullible idiots to keep playing along with the scam for fucks sake.

Consider this:  If instead of hard forking, the same folks get together and create a new coin called Paycoin Redux (PAX).  They do an ICO in which any holder of XPY can obtain equivalent value pro rata percentage of PAX coin by exhanging their XPY for PAX; except Josh and any person or entity that can be identified with Josh as an affiliate or family member is banned from ICO participation.  The XPY exchanged is destroyed.  The result of this would be exactly the same as a hard fork, but you cannot possibly claim anything morally, ethically or legally wrong with that.

This I completely agree with. The issue with forking out addresses on the same coin, without regard for if it can be legally enforced as theft or anything else, sets up a bad idea within crypto-currency as a technology. Imagine if the governments had said "fork out all silk-road coins" and "fork out all mt-gox coins"... then they decide to regulate coins so that to launch a coin you need to be able to put a freeze on any address at the drop of a hat if the court orders it.  

It is much cleaner to make a new coin and throw up an exchange where any coin that's over (days-since-announcement-of-new-coin) can exchange 1:1 into the new coin. That means all staked coins die in their original chain and only those holding coins at the point of the announcement can exchange, so no arbitrage crap.

I would really have liked if the discussion about the fork would have branched off to a different discussion thread instead of being in the middle of this huge 1600 page thread.

The reason why I am saying that this discussion is extremely important and unfortunately from where it is now, it will be buried in here and future generations cannot find this very important discussion.

Why i think it is very important. In my opinion it very well exposes a key problem in PoS coins in general and the problem is that this kind of forking discussion sounds feasible to some people so that there is some nonzero probability that somebody is going to try to get it done. Whether that fork succeeds or not does not change the outcome. In both cases the coin gets killed if somebody even tries to do such a fork. Who in their right mind would like to buy or own such a coin for any serious purpose if those kind of forks can even be tried for real? This is the main problem in my opinion why PoS coins in general just are not good for anything else than pump and dump scams.

In bitcoin nobody so far has seen a similar fork for similar reasons to be even remotely feasible. And that is good. The reason why it does not seem feasible is that in bitcoin the important people to decide for this kind of issues are miners and the do not have a huge personal opinion about who owns the coins. That is a strength. The people making the decisions are not susceptible to fuck everything up for personal reasons.

As soon as people even start thinking about fucking with coin design for any personal reasons it will open the floodgates for much more to come. And those personal reasons are going the get ugly pretty quick.

I find it also quite funny that the whole thing started as a moral high horse position about righting a wrong and pretty soon it degerated into opinions that whatever is being done is right because it cannot be procecuted. There is a huge difference in levels of morality between being a white knight and not being procecuted and the later ones are not so hugely different from Josh that they should play white knights and condemn Josh.

Consider this:  If instead of hard forking, the same folks get together and create a new coin called Paycoin Redux (PAX).  They do an ICO in which any holder of XPY can obtain equivalent value pro rata percentage of PAX coin by exhanging their XPY for PAX; except Josh and any person or entity that can be identified with Josh as an affiliate or family member is banned from ICO participation.  The XPY exchanged is destroyed.  The result of this would be exactly the same as a hard fork, but you cannot possibly claim anything morally, ethically or legally wrong with that.

This I completely agree with. The issue with forking out addresses on the same coin, without regard for if it can be legally enforced as theft or anything else, sets up a bad idea within crypto-currency as a technology. Imagine if the governments had said "fork out all silk-road coins" and "fork out all mt-gox coins"... then they decide to regulate coins so that to launch a coin you need to be able to put a freeze on any address at the drop of a hat if the court orders it.  

It is much cleaner to make a new coin and throw up an exchange where any coin that's over (days-since-announcement-of-new-coin) can exchange 1:1 into the new coin. That means all staked coins die in their original chain and only those holding coins at the point of the announcement can exchange, so no arbitrage crap.

But the people this is supposed to exclude are already in a position to take full advantage of this. I know for a fact that Garza was and still is mixing and parking XPY in varying amounts in many hundreds (probably thousands) of addresses. How does one prove who they are with a crypto coin? An Email address? Sorting out which coins belong to whom is simply not feasible, and returns to the same basic false assumptions used to try to justify forking coins out of the Paycoin Blockchain that belong to certain people. Garza & Co. have had a 6 month head start and have been laundering millions of coins 24 hours a day since the launch. Any plan to help improve the viability of or enable cashing out from Paycoin is going to help Garza and associates, there is no way around this.

P.S: These comments about a potential fix of Paycoin not being on topic here are every bit as absurd as the fix suggestions themselves.

P.S: These comments about a potential fix of Paycoin not being on topic here are every bit as absurd as the fix suggestions themselves.

If that comment was towards me, I do not find the discussion to be off topic. I just find that the discussion to be hugely important as a general philosophical discussion. However here when it is just about paycoin it is a very crappy discussion about a very crappy coin so in here it is just crap. Not off-topic but crap.

My intent with discussing possible fixes to Paycoin here is primarily in relation to the fact that supposedly upstanding members of the crypto community are volunteering to do something that I know for sure will actually help Garza & Co. and the entire Paycoin  scheme and enable them to ensnare more victims. There are also some legal and moral quandaries involved in any potential Paycoin fix. If this discussion bothers you, then tough shit. You are quite free to go start or join some other thread to follow the topic as you see fit. I am not following that thread fork, thanks.

lets take it as a hypothetical then   im interested on your take on it

to me that you would go that far with minimal leg work & no concrete proof in your hands just seems wrong. specially if your plan is to squish it by prolonging it

This will probably get the anti-lawyer folks up in arms, but here it goes:

A lawyer's primary duty is to his or her client, not the public and certainly not a potential defendant.  Except for certain limited instances, a lawyer is not required to fact-check a client to ensure that they are on the up and up.

The exceptions to that are:  (1) when a lawsuit is filed, because courts do not want to waste their time dealing with half baked  unsupportable claims, a lawyer must conduct a reasonable investigation to confirm facts and law, (2) a lawyer cannot provide advise or assistance to knowlingly aid a client in fraud or the commission of a crime (with apologies to Saul), (3) a lawyer must be honest and civil in deals with third parties (a lawyer could not lie in a C&D; for example, could not say "I have reviewed the Amazon agreement" etc.)

There are a few other very limited exceptions but those are the big ones.  That is **only** the ethical duty, however, not whether its a good idea to proceed to a C&D on the word of your client alone.

As far as whether it was a good idea for BM to proceed to a C&D without conducting an investigation, that is a different question as I said above.  It is **not** a good idea for three reasons at least.  

First, it does a disservice to the client IMHO.  When the bluff is called, the client (and law firm) lose a lot of credibility when they fail to follow through with a lawsuit.  Clients frequently ask me to send C&Ds to try to bully smaller companies, and I always say the same thing: I will only send a C&D if you are able to provide a sufficient retainer to pay my fees throughout a lawsuit, and you are ready, willing and able to initiate a lawsuit if there is no compliance by the deadline.  No bluffs, they are bad for the client's and the firm's reputation.

Second, sending a C&D without an investigation for any kind of internet activity risks a major backlash (as happened here).  It is a pretty common defense to simply post the C&D for the world to see, and let the public response do its job.  Absent a real wrong, most people hate it when lawyers send C&Ds (especially to journalists or web sites) .. doing so almost ALWAYS backfires badly, and I personally have dissuaded several clients from making this mistake.

Third, for the reasons above, if I send a C&D client I need to be ready to follow through with the lawsuit.  Which means, I won't send a C&D without first making sure I can sign my name to a lawsuit.. which in turn means I have to conduct an investigation anyway because filing a lawsuit requires such.  But that is just my practice (and the practice of most top lawyers I know), not an ethical requirement.

[miaviator]

Reserved

[boxhock]

Hello mr Troll

[eightcylinders]

Taking a stab at summarizing as objectively as possible here:

Issue: Is it a good idea to replace Paycoin or fork Paycoin in such a way as to substantially reduce or eliminate the control and economic interests of Homero Garza and GAW?

Arguments in favor (in outline format):

1) There is a large and dedicated (some might say too dedicated) community of newbies holding Paycoin who have lost tons of money and will turn their backs on crypto forever if Paycoin is not saved for them in some form.

2) There are a number (not sure how many) of active developers in Team Paycoin who want to make this work, so why not let them try?

3) If successful, it would at the very least eliminate or reduce Garza's ability to profit further from the scam by selling off his pre-mined coins and hyper-inflationary Prime Controllers in the future (past is done, nothing we can do about that).

Cons - arguments against:

1) It was not just Garza, he had help and there is suspicion that some or all of the very developers trying to save Paycoin are doing so for their own benefit, so that they can reap the benefits of the Prime Controller hyperinflation and pre-mined coins for themselves.  This allows the scam to continue albeit with possibly different "owners"

2) The coin was a scam coin, and allowing it to continue to exist in any form is bad precedent/will encourage more scam coins

3) It is impossible to eliminate all of Garza's stash of pre-mined coins and hyperinflation generated coins since he has been mixing and transferring these amongst thousands of wallets, intermingled with customer hot wallets, etc.

4) Eliminating Garza's stash, even if possible, violates a fundamental moral premise underlying crypto that coins should not be destroyed or banned

5) Arguably, eliminating Garza's stash, even if possible, would be illegal as theft or conversion of property rights (this is the main subject of the exchanges between PaulRevere and myself, as I disagree with this particular point strongly).

I think that summarizes the main lines of argument, if I missed an argument let me know and I will add it.

FWIW, my position for clarity's sake is: ONLY IF all or substantially all of Garza's stash can be eliminated, and IF the centralized control and hyperinflation associated with Prime Controllers can be entirely eliminated (no Prime Controllers, every wallet stakes the same), then it could be worth doing if only to show the Paycoin holders that the larger cryptocommunity is not like the scammers they have been dealing with.  I do not, however, know whether that could be done.  Paul Revere's points about the impossibility of blacklisting all of Garza's wallets are sound and his blockchain analysis over the past few weeks has shown a lot of mixing and obfuscation; and if there is **any** possibility that Garza could end up benefiting from Paycoin 2.0, then it should not be done. But I don't see any harm in exploring ways that the community might be able to identify an blacklist Garza's stash, to see if there is some feasible alternative.

Note: The discussion presumes that in its original incarnation, Paycoin was a scam coin that was designed to and did result in a massive pre-mine and massive hyperinflation that benefited disproportionately Garza, GAW and the holders of so-called Prime Controllers, to the detriment of everyone else who merely bought Paycoin; and that Garza and GAW were integral to the exploitation of this scam.  Posts debating *that* presumption should be had in the original thread.

[buddhamangler]

With regard to #5.

Disclaimer: I have never owned nor ever will a paycoin.  I have watched this shit show for entertainment.  My personal belief is that the coin should just die and go away.

Anyone can mathematically search for a valid private key containing any number of coins and move them to an address they control.  Is this theft?  I don't believe it is, you don't own coin, you have information that lets you control coin.  If that information gets out, your coins are gone.  Not only that, your "control" of a coin is also regulated by consensus.  If consensus says your coins are no good, they are no good.  Technically speaking you don't really own anything in this world, you may have a piece of paper that "proves" you own something, but it doesn't mean jack to someone in the position of power to take it from you anyways.

Every person has the right to move onto the new fork if they want, that includes exchanges.  The ease of which this fork could be pulled off screams to the fact that this is a shit coin, and not much will ever change that.  The idea that exercising free will by upgrading some software somehow is illegal is just not true.

[Crestington]

Yes this is great, lets talk about ownership and ownership rights within a Coin. What do you do to change that? Who benefits and who loses within the ecosystem? Who's right is it to blacklist or change parameters of a Coin without the approval of a certain party if viewed negatively in public opinion?

[miaviator]

Yes this is great, lets talk about ownership and ownership rights within a Coin. What do you do to change that? Who benefits and who loses within the ecosystem? Who's right is it to blacklist or change parameters of a Coin without the approval of a certain party if viewed negatively in public opinion?

Yes lets?

[Crestington]

Yes this is great, lets talk about ownership and ownership rights within a Coin. What do you do to change that? Who benefits and who loses within the ecosystem? Who's right is it to blacklist or change parameters of a Coin without the approval of a certain party if viewed negatively in public opinion?

Yes lets?

I was saying that it is possible within the technical rules of the Blockchain that any one group, if large enough can exclude someone and change the rules of the Blockchain and there is nothing they can do about it. In this case, the coding had a bug in it that was never fixed and another group came in and put in a fix and changed the rules of the Blockchain. What do people do then? Stay on the old chain with the broken wallet, or the new one that works? It does however decease the favor of the 350% Prime addresses down to 100% but also increases the 10% Stakers to 100%. In terms in inflation you then have a problem of an even higher increase of compound Staking, and with the minimum age of 1 hour it still amounts to around 10,000% yearly and relying on scraping in order to keep inflation down would not work either. You have a situation with many chosen wallets selling into the whole market which Stakes at 5%, the ones with 100% wallets wouldn't really care if price was going down, they can still sell Coins at lower prices and make profit.

[miaviator]

Yes this is great, lets talk about ownership and ownership rights within a Coin. What do you do to change that? Who benefits and who loses within the ecosystem? Who's right is it to blacklist or change parameters of a Coin without the approval of a certain party if viewed negatively in public opinion?

Yes lets?

I was saying that it is possible within the technical rules of the Blockchain that any one group, if large enough can exclude someone and change the rules of the Blockchain and there is nothing they can do about it. In this case, the coding had a bug in it that was never fixed and another group came in and put in a fix and changed the rules of the Blockchain. What do people do then? Stay on the old chain with the broken wallet, or the new one that works? It does however decease the favor of the 350% Prime addresses down to 100% but also increases the 10% Stakers to 100%. In terms in inflation you then have a problem of an even higher increase of compound Staking, and with the minimum age of 1 hour it still amounts to around 10,000% yearly and relying on scraping in order to keep inflation down would not work either. You have a situation with many chosen wallets selling into the whole market which Stakes at 5%, the ones with 100% wallets wouldn't really care if price was going down, they can still sell Coins at lower prices and make profit.

I think the group which needs to actually have a say in the issue is the PayCoin holders who do not have any interest in or management of Prime Controllers.   

The solution presented of simply forking the XPY code to remove all Prime Controllers and their principle seems to be the easiest and most effective solution which would allow the community to have that say.  Individuals and organizations could simply choose whether or not to move to the new fork or stay on the old one.

As coins would technically exist in both chains primes on the old chain could compound stake or raise stake rates or whatever.

If Prime Controllers or any feature were to be coded into the coin it would be a different story.  For now I'm not sure why a peercoin clone needs hyperstaking wallets?

The point of doing anything with XPY would be to actually develop the unique features.

[Crestington]

Yes this is great, lets talk about ownership and ownership rights within a Coin. What do you do to change that? Who benefits and who loses within the ecosystem? Who's right is it to blacklist or change parameters of a Coin without the approval of a certain party if viewed negatively in public opinion?

Yes lets?

I was saying that it is possible within the technical rules of the Blockchain that any one group, if large enough can exclude someone and change the rules of the Blockchain and there is nothing they can do about it. In this case, the coding had a bug in it that was never fixed and another group came in and put in a fix and changed the rules of the Blockchain. What do people do then? Stay on the old chain with the broken wallet, or the new one that works? It does however decease the favor of the 350% Prime addresses down to 100% but also increases the 10% Stakers to 100%. In terms in inflation you then have a problem of an even higher increase of compound Staking, and with the minimum age of 1 hour it still amounts to around 10,000% yearly and relying on scraping in order to keep inflation down would not work either. You have a situation with many chosen wallets selling into the whole market which Stakes at 5%, the ones with 100% wallets wouldn't really care if price was going down, they can still sell Coins at lower prices and make profit.

I think the group which needs to actually have a say in the issue is the PayCoin holders who do not have any interest in or management of Prime Controllers.   

The solution presented of simply forking the XPY code to remove all Prime Controllers and their principle seems to be the easiest and most effective solution which would allow the community to have that say.  Individuals and organizations could simply choose whether or not to move to the new fork or stay on the old one.

As coins would technically exist in both chains primes on the old chain could compound stake or raise stake rates or whatever.

If Prime Controllers or any feature were to be coded into the coin it would be a different story.  For now I'm not sure why a peercoin clone needs hyperstaking wallets?

The point of doing anything with XPY would be to actually develop the unique features.

If prime controllers were removed then all holders gain 5%  but that's not too bad, just the 1 hour compounding since it gives exchanges a lot of sway, an exchange can hold upto 25% or more of the coins (the lower the stake % the more likely people keep on an exchange).

[TheMage]

Outside of paycoin completely, this is a topic worthy of extensive writing. As time permits, I think I will write a paper on it (although it may take a bit of time). This is a great philosophical discussion that I think should be addressed now rather then later because of the nature of cryptos. And it should be a discussion where many of the leaders of the crypto community should interject and give opinions on all sides. This should be a major topic of discussion for all communities, because it could influence future laws on how cryptos should be regulated (ignoring the fact that there will be people here stating that cryptos shouldnt be regulated, but we all know it will happen, starting with BitLicence).


As a matter of fact, this should be moved to the general section instead of the alts section (even though it was derived from the Paycoin discussions).