The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug

[Come-from-Beyond]

wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.

Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papers

What changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans.

It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them.


More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone.

Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun.

The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling.

My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses.

What a pile of bull shit. Laws related to finances have only one real purpose - to help banksters to keep the current status quo. Of course, lawmakers pretend they work hard to protect us against terrorists/pedophiles/immigrants. There are only few people here who believes them.

[TPTB_need_war]

wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.

Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papers

What changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans.

It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them.


More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone.

Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun.

The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling.

My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses.

What a pile of bull shit. Laws related to finances have only one real purpose - to help banksters to keep the current status quo. Of course, lawmakers pretend they work hard to protect us against terrorists/pedophiles/immigrants. There are only few people here who believes them.

You don't even comprehend what I wrote. It is far above your abstraction capacity.

When markets don't have decentralization (which in this case is centralized due to asymmetric information which is why only accredited or sophisticated investors are allowed because they have more motivation to become informed and have proven they will do their DD), then those effectively centralized markets WILL BE INEVITABLY regulated/captured by special interests. It is an inevitable outcome of the lack of a free market due to centralization (in this case asymmetry of information is a form of centralization of the market). Thus the market can't anneal to productive investment, due to the lack of decentralized decision making (e.g. all the fools rely on the information from a few "experts" who manipulate them).

And you forgot to point out that you are one of the special interests who are milking the fools and just as culpable as the banksters you try to deflect their attention to.

You are pretending you are the good car salesman and the banksters are the bad car salesmen. Nice one!  

You’ll be greeted by a friendly sales person—and if he’s any good at what he does, he’s also personable and disarming.

What follows is a classic episode of the good-cop-bad-cop game with your salesman pretending to be arguing for you. I say pretending because the manager and your salesman work for the same organization, are both on commission, and both stand to benefit from you paying a higher price. They’re on the same side, get it?

This sad comedy plays out several times during the negotiations with the salesman conducting a physically impressive begging routine, while his manager makes exaggerated side to side motions with his face as if to say “definitely not”—all playing out in a corner office with glass walls so you can see the drama unfold inside. Finally, after your salesman has done “all he can”, the manager makes a quick guest appearance to deliver the let-me-give-you-our-bottom-line speech.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You don't even comprehend what I wrote.

Didn't read the rest, not interested in new excuses. Put me back on ignore, please.

[TPTB_need_war]

Those giving the middle finger to the SEC are really risk takers:

He had paid over $35 million in assets handing them to his former attorneys in 2002 for restitution in the criminal case. He argued that the SEC has failed to show he had not been compliant with the government. The SEC contended that Durante was still on the hook for over $25 million to them.

So in other words, every agency can go after you for the same amount of money because Walker effectively held that if you paid even in full to one agency, it does not matter and cannot be credited toward another. There is absolutely no foundation in law for Judge Walker’s abusive pro-government decision.

Now this week, another contempt was imposed in New York City federal court confirming anyone who has any account tied to a New York entity should get the hell out of town and fast.  New York U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on Tuesday said the founder of defunct hedge fund ThinkStrategy Capital Management LLC, who owes the SEC and others nearly $30 million, is still in contempt of court and must remain incarcerated indefinitely. Engelmayer said he was troubled by the lack of effort on the part of Chetan Kapur to show that he doesn’t have access to significant assets or to help his attorneys gain access to an email account which may shed light on whether or not he has funds in overseas bank accounts. In other words, he is in prison and will not be released until he PROVES he has no money overseas. The SEC has flipped the law so you are now guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Many argue you cannot do business in Russia or China because they still lack the RULE OF LAW. I am sorry, but so does New York City. When I asked a lawyer in New York why the government never charges bankers; his response was telling: “You do not shit where you eat.” There is simply no hope to save the system anymore without a complete crash and burn.

[TPTB_need_war]

enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable.
They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on...
and servers kept over heating and got fried up

As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise.

It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points.

I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now).
Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them.
So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on.
everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc..
so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro

Please clearify. tnx

1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal.

I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:

2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams.

3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero.

4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market.

5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem:

As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.

did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh   if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt

No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner.

New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value:

The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger.  People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.

When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account.  He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized.  They're distributed but not decentralized.  Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...

Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance.  There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc.  They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade.  In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.

This is why gold was utilized at all.  Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time.  Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it.  There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system.  The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme.  The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.

6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games:

Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me (I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs.

This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.

+1 for conscious reason.

The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone.

"I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally".

This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that!

They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy.

7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5:

you can read my observations here.

Interesting post.

The salient quote is of course:

Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?

I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed.

[TPTB_need_war]

Dash got "distributed" in the two crashes of 2014 and 2015

OK, we'll just take your word on that, mate.

And before you start showing us pretty pictures, be sure those pictures have owners' names attached. Makes for even prettier pictures.

Market theory insures he is incorrect. The majority buys at the top and sells at the bottom. The insiders have the advantage of seeing what percentage of the float is real (not them), so they know exactly where the bottom is and can buy it.

Market theory insures he is incorrect. The majority buys at the top and sells at the bottom

That wasn't the point. The point was availability.

A market is not a socialist politburo charged with ensuring equal distribution.

[...]

Thats why I don't have much sympathy with the accusations levelled at Dash on the basis of mining history. It's irrelevant now [...]

You move the goal posts but that still doesn't absolve your error.

The point is an overly centralized distribution can't become less centralized to attain a normal equilibrium that would have been possible without the instamine.

Free market is synonymous with decentralized market.

[TPTB_need_war]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber

[smooth]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber

Key Priorities: ... Fraud

Common Internet Scams: .... Investment Fraud

The wheels of justice grind slowly...

[TPTB_need_war]

You think all "ICOs" are manipulation.

I am confident they are ILLEGAL if publicly marketed to USA investors.

And no those weren't just my opinions. You will always try to distort what I wrote. How about you just state what you think about Synereo and stop trying to tell readers what I said. They can read my posts to see what I wrote.

Greg @ Synereo is avoiding explaining all the specification and technology to us in terms we can understand. No excuses you can make for that which are valid. He is selling AMPs and not giving us information we can verify. That is an illegal prospectus. If Synereo didn't sell AMPs to the public, Greg et al would have no obligation to explain the technology in detail to us in terms we can understand and verify.

[TPTB_need_war]

This blog post was obviously written about STEEM:

https://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

IMO (and IANAL), that is a very, very, very astute blog post.

[TPTB_need_war]

STEEM IS A SCAM

Here is what i first read by eclipse crypto dev


[...]

Here's how they did it:

First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released

(1) no compiled wallets
(2) no instructions to build
(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mine

This wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.

Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.

After the relaunch, no one would challenge them on mining because if they did, the devs would just relaunch this scamcoin again. So, no one who pays attention (and the people who have the means to procure whatever hashes they want are also the people who are paying attention), would challenge them on the hashes. As they hoped, no one did and they completely dominated the hashes for 1 week.

Now after 1 week of hashing, they dump all their coins into vests, where the price of a vest goes up with the amount vested. This is not your typical stakeholding where one unit of currency is worth one stake. This is on purpose so that they can COMPLETELY CONTROL THIS COIN IN A CENTRALIZED WAY after just 1 week.

Vests don't cost 1 STEEM anymore like they did when the devs bought them. They now cost 5 STEEM. That means that you will need to dominate all the hashes for 5 weeks just to match the control the devs have after 1 week. They have driven your costs up by 5, not using the market, as should be done, but by using this freemine/threat-of-relaunch scam.

So, why don't we all just mine for 5 weeks and decentralize control ourselves? There are two main reasons.

First, anyone who is paying attention (this includes all smart people with BTC to throw at things like this) won't dump money on a scam like this. So you are going to get a bunch of gullible small timers who don't have the foresight to convert to vests anyway, even if vests were legit. The small timers just want to get a profit asap.

Second, there's only 3 more weeks left of true mining before delegated mining kicks in. Delegated mining is when the devs pick 19 "witnesses" to mine. Maybe they might pick one or two legit miners, but the most likely scenario, given the scam they have perpetrated so far, is that they will pick at least 17 instances of themselves to mine.

In other words, it's impossible now to decentralize this coin because the devs have rigged it since the beginning. Not only that, they will be getting all the coins, unchallenged, for as small of a price as they want to pay.

Dash's scheme on steroids. Wow.

[TPTB_need_war]

You think all "ICOs" are manipulation.

I am confident they are ILLEGAL if publicly marketed to USA investors.

Maybe that's why it's important to know that the managers of these are not in the US, and in this case, neither is the company.
However, regardless of either of our ideas, if they were truly as "illegal" as you state (out of context), then there would be action being taken, and I don't see that going on.  (not to say that there are not scams, and intentional fraud, etc - a small %, like in every industry)

Also: citation?  If it's illegal, it has a link stating so clearly.  Of course, you've employed circular reasoning by using the term "investment", and begged the question.  Crytpocurrency is neither a currency, nor an investment in the eyes of the law.

Details of USA Securities Law is covered in the following thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0

Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners.

Greg Meredith will have a difficult time arguing that he was not promoting this, and he is a USA citizen. In my opinion he is taking a huge risk.

Greg @ Synereo is avoiding explaining all the specification and technology to us in terms we can understand. No excuses you can make for that which are valid. He is selling AMPs and not giving us information we can verify. That is an illegal prospectus. If Synereo didn't sell AMPs to the public, Greg et al would have no obligation to explain the technology in detail to us in terms we can understand and verify.

Edit: it is rather useless if I go expend my scarce time to become an expert in process calculi so that I could find game theory flaws in Synereo's process calculi approach to their hyped Attention Model feature. Because it would still be an asymmetric information market for the investors, as then they would be required to trust either my conclusions or Greg's (Synereo's). The only solution is for Greg to do proper disclosure by explaining the technology in terms that all AMP investors can understand. They have the time to produce a very exquisite website and consume hours every week on video Hangouts that do hyped handwaving on technical details, then they should also have enough time to explain the technology in sufficient detail that we can analyze without requiring us to become one of the few process calculi researchers on earth.

Greg never avoids explaining.  In fact, I've never heard him not add an invitation for more explanation if needed, to what he says in hangouts.

Verbal handwaving is not technical explaining. It is clever marketing to fool n00bs, but I know better.

Ask an informed question, and you'll get an informed answer.

I have stated what is needed. When the appropriate technical documents are made available, which expert programmers such as myself and smooth can understand and verify without needing to become process calculi researcher. We need sufficient technical detail so that we can verify if the system will do what he is claiming it will do.


Please don't reply to my post with more diversionary bullshit. It is getting very repetitive.

[TPTB_need_war]

He's smart, he knows to diversify unlike n00b "investors" stampeding into hot potato du jour.

^This

Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure.

Frankly saying, you overestimate your influence. Their asses are covered by legal entities created by a team of lawyers. Even if you are smarter than that team only the company will take the hit.

[TPTB_need_war]

Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure.

Frankly saying, you overestimate your influence. Their asses are covered by legal entities created by a team of lawyers. Even if you are smarter than that team only the company will take the hit.

Hope their lawyers were really, really good:

There are a number of situations in which, where an offence is committed by a company and it is proved to have been committed with the ‘consent or connivance’ of a director, manager or other senior person, that person is also guilty of the offence. Examples of such provisions are to be found in many statutes creating criminal offences, including the Theft Act 1968, the Fraud Act 2006 and, more recently, the Bribery Act 2010. The rationale behind them is to enable the prosecution and punishment not only of the corporate entity but, where sufficiently culpable, those who control it. In other words, they provide a means of holding to account those who are complicit in offences committed by companies. 


So, under s14 of the Bribery Act, where an offence under s1 (bribing another person), s2 (receiving bribes) or s6 (bribery of foreign public officials) of the Act is committed by a company and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a senior officer of the company, the senior officer as well as the company will be guilty of the offence. This provision only applies to the substantive offences under the Bribery Act – there can be no individual director liability in respect of the corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery.


Under this and similar provisions in other statutes, the corporate entity and the senior person who consented or connived are both guilty of the main offence, ie there is no separate offence of ‘consent or connivance’. A relatively recent example is Director of The Serious Fraud Office v Mabey Engineering (Holdings) Ltd [2012], where the engineering group Mabey & Johnson pleaded guilty to breaching UN sanctions by paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime and three senior executives were subsequently convicted of the same offences on the basis of their consent or connivance. There is in fact no requirement that the company itself be prosecuted, provided the offence can be proved against it. Any prosecution of the relevant senior person would have to establish, to the satisfaction of a jury, that the company had committed the offence in question. 

Negligence


There are also a number of statutes creating criminal offences that extend the ‘consents or connives’ provision to include an offence committed by the body corporate that is attributable to any neglect on the part of the individual director or senior person. An example is s37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974, which applies to all the criminal offences created by the Act (the vast majority of which, since January 2009, carry a prison sentence of up to two years). This broader basis for imposing liability is not, however, limited to health and safety matters. Similar provisions affect offences under statutes as wide-ranging as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Companies Act 2006 and the Private Security Industry Act 2001, many of which carry significant custodial sentences.


The potential for criminal liability in these circumstances is more akin to the position in the United States where, in relation to certain offences concerned with public welfare (such as those relating to environmental protection and food safety), the ‘Responsible Corporate Officer’ (RCO) doctrine imposes criminal liability on officers who, because of their position in the corporation, had the responsibility and authority to prevent or correct infringements of the law.2 Crucially, corporate officers can be prosecuted under the RCO doctrine even if they were unaware of the particular conduct within the corporation, provided they: 


    knew that such conduct was unlawful;

    were ‘in a responsible relation to public danger’3 (ie had authority to exercise control over the specific activities that caused the unlawful conduct); and

    failed to prevent the conduct, for example by failing to implement suitable systems and controls.4 


Penalties under the RCO doctrine can be significant. In 2007, for example, Purdue Frederick Company was accused of misbranding the painkiller OxyContin. Its CEO, general counsel, and medical director were also charged under the RCO doctrine and pleaded guilty to charges of misbranding a drug. They were each sentenced to extensive community service, fined $5,000 and excluded from participating in federal healthcare programmes for 12 years.5 They were also collectively ordered to pay approximately $34.5m in disgorgement.


[Come-from-Beyond]

Hope their lawyers were really, really good:

No chance Vitalik was a director or a manager. Tech guys hate such positions because they distract from tech stuff.

[TPTB_need_war]

Hope their lawyers were really, really good:

No chance Vitalik was a director or a manager. Tech guys hate such positions because they distract from tech stuff.

That is your defense   (joke, because you and I both know Iota is too small a fish for the SEC to fry any way, not much less the issue of layers of legal hurdles in between the SEC and Iota/you ... thus it is silly to allege any serious chance of action being taken against you personally[1])

Seriously you are undoubtedly correct in the overall scope of this, although one could argue that he is likely thought by the public investors to be on the level of a board member in terms of how he was making public statements about how much ETH they were selling and this would finance them for 4.5 years. I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake.

[1] my only point to you is really that I wouldn't play legal jurisdiction game theory unless I had no other good options. I personally wouldn't do it for ethical reasons of trying to respect other cultures and their legal systems. If I thought it was absolutely necessary (in some Libertarian idealism) to achieve some greater good for society, I could perhaps justify it. And that is why I never intended to get into a war with you, but your iotatoken partner is a hot-head who couldn't resist making a war in this thread. And it spread. I care a little bit about not siphoning off all the crypto gamblers' funds to insiders of altcoins which are going no where, but I thought you had enough interesting technology in Iota to justify earning $100,000 or so on it. I thought you'd be satisfied with the $500,000, but I guess I must realize you only get what maybe 12.5% of that? Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake.

In most civilized countries any doubts are treated to defendant's benefit. Vitalik doesn't need to worry.

[TPTB_need_war]

I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake.

In most civilized countries any doubts are treated to defendant's benefit. Vitalik doesn't need to worry.

In the USA that is only for criminal (not civil nor class action) cases and even then it is "beyond reasonable doubt".

I added to my prior post. Re-read please.

Also note class action cases can subpoena foreign entities. I learned that from a recent Armstrong blog. Wait  I will find the link and edit this post.

Edit: the audio is at the bottom of this blog post:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/selling-bullshit/

[TPTB_need_war]

At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.

Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD.

Free markets = decentralized markets.

When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.

Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure.

You think this has anything to do with you, a random stranger on the Internet just like me and the next guy? Wow, this is pretty intense

You need to read the Ethereum Paradox and "The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug" threads to understand I am not a random stranger. Didn't you know I am alleged to be Satoshi?

Re: [POLL] Should Alternative Currencies Have Their Own Forum Section ?

Although philosophically I'd like to vote "yes", I voted "no" because the reality is the scams are the BTC economy:

Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave.

At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.

Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD.

Free markets = decentralized markets.

When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.

Nobody invests into BTC or mining equipment anymore. When did you bought ASICs valued 10.000 USD last time? Aren't those USD you now use to buy BTC just been taken from former BTC sales?

Bitcoin cannot do without Alts, both built up a complete whole economy. Remember people are not buying/selling anything using BTC, they just gamble on Alts. Basically I do agree on BTC up causing Alts going down and vice verse. Enclosed system like two water tanks with a flexible tube connecting them.

I agree the two go hand in hand. Since alt coins are really the biggest thing you can purchase with BTC, ...

This is true. Most people don't want to trade their BTC for a non-CC asset, because this their gambling money. They can't buy mining equipment with BTC to increase their holdings of crypto-currency. This is why ICOs have become more popular than mined distribution, with the ASIC resistant Monero as an exception.

ASICs killed the mining ecosystem. This has been r0ach's point, that if the coins don't circulate, then the ecosystem dies. Bitcoin is dying. Only the altcoin circulation kept Bitcoin alive.