Zero Knowledge Transactions

[TPTB_need_war]

So you are making a lethal weapon of financial self-defence, which the system cannot destroy, and therefore you (the system and the people) will learn to respect the mutual differences?

Well I just proposed the exact same!

Isn't it so elegant to discover that the best arrangement for the free market (i.e. no futures contracts which is the Proverb I learned from Hommel, "Do not be surety for another person" and I refined more as per below) in making each development autonomous from the succeeding ones (and let the market decide to burn their coins to the next improved fork) is also the one that is legal.

The point is do not promise the future, because the further away the future, the less control one truly has. Better to sell what you have now, then in the future sell what you have then. Gives the markets more degrees-of-freedom. This is why Ethereum's lockup of shares for so long was so evil.

An example of degrees-of-freedom is that some other developer could also offer a fork that coins could be burned to. Competition increases performance. Another example of degrees-of-freedom is imagine your car with a reverse gear, you would need to drive around the block to go backwards. Or imagining tying your shoelaces together, then you can only hop instead of walk or hop.

[rpietila]

Ah sorry, I am clearly being too smartass lately. Perhaps I have stress or too much/little green herbs.

In short, the SEC argument goes about like this: Crypto Kingdom is a game, so it is an expression of people's mutual imagination. Thought is protected by freedom of speech. Also there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, except of course dole out punishments to people from exercising imagination. That is a dangerous road for them, because..

..the way to market this is the public is catchy as well: "Have you ever heard of such tyranny where playing a game that solely handles imaginary objects, none of which was in any way created by the government, lands you in prison?"

So if your coin is inside CK, it is shielded from everything they want. A different world.

Of course at some point they will have to cross the line and officially declare imagination to be a crime, otherwise nobody will use any part of their system* since CK is so much better. I will laugh that day, for my reward is great  

Isn't it so elegant to discover that the best arrangement for the free market (i.e. no futures contracts which is the Proverb I learned from Hommel, "Do not be surety for another person" and I refined more as per below) in making each development autonomous from the succeeding ones (and let the market decide to burn their coins to the next improved fork) is also the one that is legal.

The point is do not promise the future, because the further away the future, the less control one truly has. Better to sell what you have now, then in the future sell what you have then. Gives the markets more degrees-of-freedom. This is why Ethereum's lockup of shares for so long was so evil.

Sounds fresh!

* They have intentionally designed the world system and economy to have a hellish proportion of waste, to drag us down in every possible way. So I am not claiming to have developed anything new, just refusing to implement the deoptimized systems, and showing that it works much better than the touted "only possible choice".

[TPTB_need_war]

What are we really lacking?

The person who knows that will become very rich and/or famous if they can act on that knowledge. It could be a technology and/or a marketing insight. Or even a political call-to-action such as Paine's Common Sense. Or even a change in development and investing paradigm. I have some micro and macro ideas/insights, perhaps my having them is due to being much closer knowledge-wise to the technology than you and others are. Or maybe it is just because every human mind is unique.

One could argue we lack nothing but time.

[smooth]

Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.

Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg).

I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning).

[TPTB_need_war]

Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.

Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg).

I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning).

Wasn't Peter R who first proposed something like that years ago. I am nearly certain but I forgot the name he gave to the concept.

[smooth]

Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.

Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg).

I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning).

Wasn't Peter R who first proposed something like that years ago. I am nearly certain but I forgot the name he gave to the concept.

Peter R proposed spin-offs as a bootstrapping mechanism for new coins based on Bitcoin's distribution. I don't remember him proposing it as an upgrade mechanism (although a hypothetical Bitcoin "upgrade" does fit within his model). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Unless he proposed something else in addition, which is also possible.

[TPTB_need_war]

So if your coin is inside CK, it is shielded from everything they want. A different world.

My reading of USA law is that if CK coins were obtained at any time by USA citizens or residents as investment securities from some controlling entity, then plausibly the SEC (if it has the cooperation of the other nations) can prosecute the controlling entity and take actions to shut down the coin, such as declare running the protocol to trade the illegally produced securities an illegal act.

One of my alternative theories is that Bitcoin was planted by the DEEP STATE to impel the nations of the world to join together to fight the lawlessness and deregulation that Bitcoin enables.

The only way I see to avoid the coins being classified as an investment security is to sell a product (the coins, source code, and initial autonomously running network) as a contract job and do not retain any control after that sale.

I haven't studied how you are distributing the CK coins in all cases, so I can't comment on whether I believe CK coins are tainted illegal or not under USA securities law. Also I would rather not make any such legal comment about any altcoin.

Usual disclaimers apply that I am not an attorney nor a legal adviser. Every reader should consult their own.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.

Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg).

I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning).

Wasn't Peter R who first proposed something like that years ago. I am nearly certain but I forgot the name he gave to the concept.

Peter R proposed spin-offs as a bootstrapping mechanism for new coins based on Bitcoin's distribution. I don't remember him proposing it as an upgrade mechanism (although a hypothetical Bitcoin "upgrade" does fit within his model). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Unless he proposed something else in addition, which is also possible.

To my untrained eye, this idea of pinning a new coin's distribution to the BTC blockchain looks a lot like what happened with CLAM. <apologies for being off-topic>

[XMRChina]

Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.

Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg).

I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning).

Wasn't Peter R who first proposed something like that years ago. I am nearly certain but I forgot the name he gave to the concept.

Peter R proposed spin-offs as a bootstrapping mechanism for new coins based on Bitcoin's distribution. I don't remember him proposing it as an upgrade mechanism (although a hypothetical Bitcoin "upgrade" does fit within his model). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Unless he proposed something else in addition, which is also possible.

To my untrained eye, this idea of pinning a new coin's distribution to the BTC blockchain looks a lot like what happened with CLAM. <apologies for being off-topic>

Clam distribution used LTC, DOGE and BTC.

[smooth]

Do the development as crowdfunded stages with each product produced running autonomously. Enable coins to be burnt from one development stage to the next. Each stage runs as a decentralized, autonomous protocol. Whole new paradigm for altcoins. Perhaps I will be the first to test the model (pending decision involving this thread). Maybe Gmaxwell is reading and can apply this to the general concept of side-chains.

Adam Back already proposed burning coins as an upgrade mechanism, which he called a one-way peg. It was that idea, in fact, which directly led to side chains (i.e. bidirectional burning or two-way peg).

I personally believe that spin-offs are a better model for upgrades than burning but the argument could be made either way (and there may be technical reasons to prefer burning).

Wasn't Peter R who first proposed something like that years ago. I am nearly certain but I forgot the name he gave to the concept.

Peter R proposed spin-offs as a bootstrapping mechanism for new coins based on Bitcoin's distribution. I don't remember him proposing it as an upgrade mechanism (although a hypothetical Bitcoin "upgrade" does fit within his model). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Unless he proposed something else in addition, which is also possible.

To my untrained eye, this idea of pinning a new coin's distribution to the BTC blockchain looks a lot like what happened with CLAM. <apologies for being off-topic>

No, because CLAM used number of outputs, not number of coins (and CLAM used equal weighting across several coins with completely different values, further separating it from any economic reality). That's a rather peculiar quantity without much of a tie to any economically significant value. The stated objective was to distribute the coins in a wide and flat manner. The reality has been somewhat different.

[othe]

Still better to burn the coins or the new owner of your new fancy coin project is this:

-The FBI thx to Silkroad confiscated coins
-Mark Karpeles because he just stole hundreds of thousands
-Exchanges because most coins are simply in their coldstorage
-Satoshi
-Some hackers and owners of darkmarkets who stole them
...
-a few endusers who have actual interest in them

[smooth]

-The FBI thx to Silkroad confiscated coins
-Mark Karpeles because he just stole hundreds of thousands
-Exchanges because most coins are simply in their coldstorage
-Satoshi
-Some hackers and owners of darkmarkets who stole them
...
-a few endusers who have actual interest in them

Those are all statements about BTC itself. Yet somehow the market still seems to value BTC orders of magnitudes more than coins that started with a new distribution and don't have that baggage (though they likely all have their own), so it is hard to argue that sort of distribution is a huge, huge problem.

Anyway, the discussion here wasn't about spinning off from BTC, it was spinning off from earlier versions of a coin in development to later versions.

Also, exchanges should distribute the spin-off coins to customers, not keep them. In some cases that has been done for spin-offs, dividends, etc. although cryptsy at least has a particularly awful policy of explicitly claiming they own everything.

[rangedriver]

If you think you know whats wrong with him I think you should tell him with no strings attached.  I think what happens on these forums should be separate from the health of a person in real life.

Just my two cents.

I understand that his attitude in he past might have left a bad taste in some peoples mouths but its a persons health we are talking about.

I'm not saying its unfair in any way to ask for something in return, its just the thoughts of the tree huger, humanitarian in me.

You're absolutely right of course and I completely concur.

Anonymint is most likely suffering from some kind of fungal mycotoxicosis. Or in layman's terms: mold poisoning.

It's curable with a bile acid sequestrant such as cholestyramine in conjunction with high-dose omega 3 and an amylose-free diet.

He'd first need to rule out Lyme Disease though. Blood tests would confirm.

[Come-from-Beyond]

My reading of USA law is that if CK coins were obtained at any time by USA citizens or residents as investment securities from some controlling entity, then plausibly the SEC (if it has the cooperation of the other nations) can prosecute the controlling entity and take actions to shut down the coin, such as declare running the protocol to trade the illegally produced securities an illegal act.

Maybe find a way to prevent US citizens from accessing the coin? It's just 5% of the earth population, as we see it's Asia that influences cryptoindustry, not USA.

[rpietila]

So if your coin is inside CK, it is shielded from everything they want. A different world.

My reading of USA law is that if CK coins were obtained at any time by USA citizens or residents as investment securities from some controlling entity, then plausibly the SEC (if it has the cooperation of the other nations) can prosecute the controlling entity and take actions to shut down the coin, such as declare running the protocol to trade the illegally produced securities an illegal act.

One of my alternative theories is that Bitcoin was planted by the DEEP STATE to impel the nations of the world to join together to fight the lawlessness and deregulation that Bitcoin enables.

Yeah. I also believe that they many will just ignore that it is a game, a product of imagination, and proceed to trying to regulate it.

The crux is that:

1) It is easy to market to yourself and to larger masses than before that imagination is a sovereign right of an individual. How can you get more personal than that?

2) It is difficult to control and impossible to destroy CK (arising from the fact that it exists in collective imagination).

This gets me to the "what gives?" question. People don't have the balls, they don't have the experience how it really feels that gov takes your all (in my history: confiscate all wealth, and throw me to mental prison for drugging (see my absence from BCT in 2013)).

If the people knew what I do, they would know most of the feeling bad when government attacks you is guilt. As long as the government actions are legitimate, you feel bad for getting "caught". But once the gov oversteps, sets up monkey courts against you, resorts to laws that are not lawful and interprets them crookedly, or does not give a fair trial at all (such as mental facilities), their actions become laughable and counter-productive. Court-martials are needed to give a shred of legitimacy to shooting on the spot all the people that "just don't want to play this stupid game".

Knowing that you (plural/singular depending on the situation) give the legitimacy to the government, and can and should take it away if they (despite your admonition) don't behave, empowers the people to:

1) Regard gov the same as shit on the ground: if you stay away, it does not bother you, but you get the more dirty the more you touch it, or

2) A bug carrying a deadly disease. It is just a bug, a nuisance, but it can kill you and has killed many in the past. Luckily it will be eradicated once the technology/society gets to that stage.

3) Spend effort to check what should be done, and do it. It is a decades-long process.


To go to the practical topic even more:

- Whitechapel Road is a security, right? (in Monopoly) SEC can rule it illegal but people would hardly comply. Sometimes saying stupid things makes people think of you as stupid, and SEC is much dependent on public opinion in this era where the public can choose to play with them or ignore them (previously of course it was different as they held the domain).

- S-IVO is a security, k? (in CK) It is distribution of Ivory, which is btw. prohibited by international trade agreements, so trading it even in your imagination is a crime, and this affects all the other games as well. So double-crime here. You are crimethinking.*

- ION is a security. (in CK)


What people need to realize is that the game is a game - it falls under the clause some use that "all resemblance to XXX,YYY is incidental". Our item MUSH that gives you boost in the skill Meditation, and contributes to Wisdom, allowing you to gain knowledge skills, and reduces life anxiety, may make some 3-latter agency think that playing should be disallowed for all since it carries an implicit reference to things they have outlawed in their world (because of the effects that we want the characters to have, but they don't). Well, nothing they can do does not and cannot make it disappear from the game because the game is imagination. I could go on and on (and will, of course, since this is important, the ushering in of a new world - what could be more important?   )

Our TOS say that playing under the influence of outside world (such as what you are doing now) is prohibited. You are not ready to play CK. Go play with SEC then, luckily we have a choice now unlike pre-crypto.


* God mentioned in the commentary of the 10 words that it is sin to even think of committing adultery. One of the reasons was to illustrate to people that sin is a deadly disease, which affects all, and examples that nobody can escape were used, because God wanted to point out that nobody's works are perfect, and therefore all need salvation.

People in general don't accept God's word. They believe their conduct can be acceptable, or don't care. God's judgement seems distant.

Now as Satan, the Prince of "outside world", is moving to complete crimethink so that even in imagination something may not happen that is not dictated from the central, my prognosis is that people will reject Satan (and the infiltrated government agencies) same as they earlier rejected God, for the same reason. Satan cannot any more allow them to indulge in their lusts even in the domain of thought!

[generalizethis]

I may not agree with Risto's religious views. But the game does allow you to explore the conscious power to lend value on its own terms, freely and without the insipid fear that wears away and dulls our imagination.

[TPTB_need_war]

P.S. my health is not going well. I am pretty much giving on trying any therapies (because nothing works and I've tried "everything") until and if ever I can afford the best research specialists doing diagnostics on me. So don't expect too much from me. But I am still trying. I did run 9 kilometers in the past 2 days but today was a total Chronic Fatigue day bed ridden.

That was kinda stupid. If you're suffering from any type of chronic fatigue you definitely don't want to be doing anaerobic exercise - you'll be burning precious amounts of protein and the physiological response will leave you exhausted for days. Plus, all the while you're ill, your anaerobic threshold is likely to be much lower than the standard model. So while daily exercise is critical, anything over ~110bpm is a no-no, at least for the first six weeks. Then you can start to build it up.

Anonymint is most likely suffering from some kind of fungal mycotoxicosis. Or in layman's terms: mold poisoning.

It's curable with a bile acid sequestrant such as cholestyramine in conjunction with high-dose omega 3 and an amylose-free diet.

He'd first need to rule out Lyme Disease though. Blood tests would confirm.

I will look into this and which diagnostic tests or diagnostic therapies can be tried. If this turns out to be the case, we can discuss a thank you remuneration privately.

Here is the post I made today about my health. Apologies to steer the thread on my personal issue. Will be doing the math on Shen's paper shortly (was catching up on sleep).

...I am terribly sleepless (36 hours awake)....

So lets be cruel to be kind.

Get some fucking sleep.

Ross, J.J. (1965). Neurological findings after prolonged sleep deprivation. Archives of Neurology, 12(4), 399-403.

You're no bloody good to crypto if you're dead because you keep yourself awake, because you feel the need to make a point, win a point or win over some funding. You'd be more effective, in this regard, after getting some zzz's.

Trip the power switch.

Absolutely. I relapsed probably because of that marathon session. See the link I posted above.

[vaporware asset wizard]

With regards to CK being played as a game in the imagination of people it's similar to money being transferred in a hawala money transmitting network where no money moves except in the intentions of the hawala brokers to pay a sum of money to another person in the chain from sender to receiver. USA still was able to close down hawala brokers allegedly involved in 911 finances (which was later shown to be bogus). My point is TPTB don't recognise mental boundaries like intentions and imagination. I really wish CK well, but I expect they will want to probe player minds all the same.

[rpietila]

USA still was able to close down hawala brokers allegedly involved in 911 finances

Bullshit in every way 

1) The 9/11 was a Mossad operation, financed by the U.S., and I doubt any anti-NWO groups were even told about the operation beforehand, so they could not contribute to it financially.

2) Some hawala brokers may have closed down based on their own decision, but that does not imply that it is a power possessed by the gov to "switch them off".

3) I never said the banksters will surrender without a fight, but they will have a hard time finding people to fight against others' imagination soon. The end game is summarized in the Bible as follows. 44-45 concern the effects of "the stone cut without hands, which destroys the earthly government":

Code:

1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.
4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation. [O king...: (Chaldee, to the end of chapter seven)]
5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. [cut...: Chaldee, made pieces]
6 But if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore shew me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. [rewards: or, fee]
7 They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it.
8 The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. [gain: Chaldee, buy]
9 But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you: for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can shew me the interpretation thereof.
10 The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king's matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean.
11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
12 For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.
13 And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.
14 Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king's guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon: [answered...: Chaldee, returned] [captain...: or, chief marshal: Chaldee, chief of the executioners, or, slaughtermen]
15 He answered and said to Arioch the king's captain, Why is the decree so hasty from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel.
16 Then Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would shew the king the interpretation.
17 Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions:
18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. [of the God: Chaldee, from before God] [that Daniel...: or, that they should not destroy Daniel, etc]
19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.
20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:
21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.
24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.
25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. [I have...: Chaldee, That I have found] [captives...: Chaldee, children of the captivity of Judah]
26 The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?
27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men , the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;
28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; [maketh...: Chaldee, hath made known]
29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. [came: Chaldee, came up]
30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart. [but for...: or, but for the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king]
31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. [sawest: Chaldee, wast seeing]
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, [thighs: or, sides]
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. [without...: or, which was not in hands]
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things : and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [broken: or, brittle]
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [one...: Chaldee, this with this]
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. [the days: Chaldee, their days] [the kingdom: Chaldee, the kingdom thereof]
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. [without...: or, which was not in hands] [hereafter: Chaldee, after this]
46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.
47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is , that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.
48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.
49 Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king.

[TPTB_need_war]

Selling unregistered securities internationally appears to be asking to put oneself in multiple-jeopardy because you become culpable to numerous jurisdictions and court interpretations.

My reading of USA law is that if CK coins were obtained at any time by USA citizens or residents as investment securities from some controlling entity, then plausibly the SEC (if it has the cooperation of the other nations) can prosecute the controlling entity and take actions to shut down the coin, such as declare running the protocol to trade the illegally produced securities an illegal act.

Maybe find a way to prevent US citizens from accessing the coin? It's just 5% of the earth population, as we see it's Asia that influences cryptoindustry, not USA.

https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

This interpretation does not address the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the securities laws, which will continue to reach all Internet activities that satisfy the relevant jurisdictional tests. Even in the absence of sales in the United States, we will take appropriate enforcement action whenever we believe that fraudulent or manipulative Internet activities have originated in the United States or placed U.S. investors at risk. Further, we are not addressing the circumstances under which a U.S. court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. person with respect to that person’s offshore Internet offer.

It appears that securities regulation in the EU is limited to shares in companies (and certain bonds), but if you are selling coins which you used to fund development activities and you are controlling the coin ongoing, one might argue this is equivalent to a company operating an exchange which trades the shares it issued. In other words, you didn't register your company but it is still operating as a company. Thus I do think offering ICOs in Europe are potentially culpable especially as EU totalitarianism proceeds with the sovereign debt collapse the push to federalize the governance and taxing power to Brussels as a "solution" to the ("incorrigible nations") debt crisis, i.e. the member nation debts need to be consolidated thus fiscal policy and thus law needs to be consolidated (the Euro was the Trojan horse to full integration of sovereignty). Does anyone think this interpretation of potential risk is ludicrous and if so then why?

Perhaps a securities case will be brought as part of a class action lawsuit, such as if Ethereum investors become disgruntled.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=ilj#page=9

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0298:EN:HTML

Council Directive 89/298/EEC of 17 April 1989 Section 1, Article 2: 2(e) 'transferable securities' shall mean shares in companies and other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, debt securities having a maturity of at least one year and other transferable securities equivalent to debt securities, and any other transferable security giving the right to acquire any such transferable securities by subscription or exchange;

Even in the Philippines (Asia) you can't even take an exemption from registration without applying to the Commission and paying a fee:

http://www.sec.gov.ph/laws/src%208799-chapter_iii.html

10.3.   Any person applying for an exemption under this Section, shall file with the Commission a notice identifying the exemption relied upon on such form and at such time as the Commission by rule may prescribe and with such notice shall pay to the Commission a fee equivalent to one-tenth (1/10) of one percent (1%) of the maximum aggregate price or issued value of the securities.