TPTB_need_war Bitcoin Fork in the making!

[smooth]

HONCHO is online and talking 2am to 7am in the Philippines..maybe he is not anonymint, unless insomnia kicked in.

Is Anonymint from the Phillipines?

TPTB said he was from New Orleans and now living in the Phillipines.

[1714675363]

1714675363

[1714675363]

1714675363

[1714675363]

1714675363

[1714675363]

1714675363

[HONCHO]

Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.

I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

Perhaps we ought to just admit crypto is nefarious=Libertarian and cease wearing our underwear on our heads. Ahem. Cough. Cough.

You just think the technology is cool and want to do your fellow man a service. Paint me skeptical.

[smooth]

Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.

I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly?

Perhaps we ought to just admit crypto is nefarious and cease wearing our underwear on our heads. Ahem. Cough. Cough.

You'll get no argument from me about crypto being nefarious.

You just think the technology is cool and want to do your fellow man a service. Paint me skeptical.

In my particular case sure, it's more about thinking it is interesting technology (mostly PoW cryptocurrencies -- I don't consider most of the rest very interesting) and less about doing fellow man a service, though I don't mind do that either. I also enjoy the competitive multiplayer game aspect of crypto (mining, trading, etc.)

What I do in particular isn't relevant to anyone else though.

[HONCHO]

Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.

I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly?

See quoted underlined, bolded.

In my particular case sure, it's more about thinking it is interesting technology (mostly PoW cryptocurrencies -- I don't consider most of the rest very interesting) and less about doing fellow man a service, though I don't mind do that either. I also enjoy the competitive multiplayer game aspect of crypto (mining, trading, etc.)

So it is the chess in you. From my perspective, I say AnonyMint is more ideologically driven. The game you are playing is swallowed by the macro game AnonyMint is interested in.

The means justifies the ends. China and Blockstream are... (don't want to be banned by the man I entrusted)

[smooth]

Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.

I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly?

See quoted underlined, bolded.

Again, I don't see the relevance of Monero. If there is a relevant principle involved I'd guess it can be considered in the context of this project without reference to another.

Likewise, my personal interests have nothing to do with this project as far as I can tell.

[ArticMine]

...

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

...

Please do, since he is dead wrong on this. By the way a better example would be Ethereum.

[HONCHO]

Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.

I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly?

See quoted underlined, bolded.

Again, I don't see the relevance of Monero.

The definition of obfuscation is you will not see.

Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security.

That Monero is forcing hard forks on a periodic schedule clearly shows the developers are in control of its future which investors expectations are based on. I read in Monero Speculation that Monero investors are investing based on the expection of Shen-noether implementing Ring Confidential Signatures.

The obfuscation is actually quite weak.

"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.

I'm done. You take the last word. Good luck.

Please do, since he is dead wrong on this. By the way a better example would be Ethereum.

Done. You wrote earlier "IANAL". Please remember you are not a lawyer.

[ArticMine]

...

The definition of obfuscation is you will not see.

Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security.

That Monero is forcing hard forks periodically clearly shows the developers are in control of its future which investors expectations are based on. I read in Monero Speculation that Monero investors are investing based on the expection of Shen-noether implementing Ring Confidential Signatures.

The obfuscation is actually quite weak.

"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.

I'm done. You take the last word. Good luck.

Let us start with the basics: Who is the issuer of the alleged security?

[smooth]

Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.

I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now) involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.

Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.

And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly?

See quoted underlined, bolded.

Again, I don't see the relevance of Monero.

The definition of obfuscation is you will not see.

Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security.

Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?

"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.

I'm pretty sure you're engaging in appeal to hypocrisy. My relationship with Monero and the legal analysis of Monero is not relevant to your claim here of there being a "legal bypass", especially if you claim that Monero is also not legal. Surely you must see the futility of that line of argument. If not then I guess TPTB has associated with someone who can't think very clearly.

[HONCHO]

Let us start with the basics: Who is the issuer of the alleged security?

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

Your FinCEN guidance is entirely out-of-band of investment security law.

I don't want to argue with you. I wasted too much time here already.

[HONCHO]

Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?

I said I would give you the last word, yet you ask me a question.

Because Monero more clearly fits that Howey test than the proposal AnonyMint made. So the greater likelihood is that AnonyMint's proposal is legal than is Monero.

"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.

My relationship with Monero and the legal analysis of Monero is not relevant to your claim here of there being a "legal bypass", especially if you claim that Monero is also not legal. Surely you must see the futility of that line of argument. If not then I guess TPTB has associated with someone who can't think very clearly.

I shouldn't point out that I just caught you in a failure of logic, because then you might conclude I must be TPTB.

Smooth stay tuned. The fireworks are only just beginning. You won't want to miss it.

I will sign off.

[ArticMine]

...

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

So you propose a security without an issuer?

Your FinCEN guidance is entirely out-of-band of investment security law.
...

No argument there; however compliance with investment security law does not mean there exists or there does not exist an illegal activity in another area of law.

[smooth]

Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?

I said I would give you the last word, yet you ask me a question.

Because Monero more clearly fits that Howey test than the proposal AnonyMint made. So the greater likelihood is that AnonyMint's proposal is legal than is Monero.

1. Even if this were true, it wouldn't help your argument. Monero could be illegal and your propose scheme could also be illegal. Your statement proves nothing.

2. It isn't true. TPTB's proposed scheme, viewed from the perspective of "economic reality" in its totality, incorporates an ICO that will be used to raise money to support a collection of related efforts by related parties, including the JAMBOX effort. it was also stated that the ICO coin coin will be a vehicle which can be used to acquire JAMBOX tokens from people who want to sell them (and suggested this might be the only such vehicle). This ties the components together in a scheme that structurally has no viable analogy with Monero. So the two are structurally different and incomparable. On this basis it is entirely possible that either, both, or neither could be legal.

I'm reasonably confident you won't, and can't, find a "legal bypass" that allows investor funds to flow into developing something that has the reasonable expectation of somehow benefiting the investors (and if it doesn't, the investors either won't buy it or are being scammed). I'm also reasonably confident that not everything that is illegal will be prosecuted, so everyone will have to make their own judgements on this. TPTB seemed interested in these issues of legality, more so than me in some ways.

[smooth]

...

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

So you propose a security without an issuer?

In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return.

Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto).

It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make.

In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread).

[HONCHO]

Always enjoy seeing non-lawyers twist their logic to obscure their criminality from themselves. There is proverb, it is nearly impossible to teach a man whose livelihood depends on not learning.

But it is better to not refute them, so they may continue to reap what they sow.

Well I think it is time to stop playing word games don't you. Better to play with real things such as knives, guns, functioning software, and other less ambiguous means of defining conquest.

[smooth]

Always enjoy seeing non-lawyers twist their logic to obscure their criminality from themselves. There is proverb, it is nearly impossible to teach a man whose livelihood depends on not learning.

Right back at you brother.

[ArticMine]

...

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

So you propose a security without an issuer?

In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return.

Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto).

It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make.

In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread).

Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security.

[smooth]

...

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

So you propose a security without an issuer?

In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return.

Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto).

It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make.

In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread).

Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security.

I think I agree with that. Not sure the relevance to this thread, but then I saw no relevance to Monero having been brought up at all, except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

[Mr Felt]

...

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

So you propose a security without an issuer?

In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return.

Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto).

It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make.

In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread).

Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security.

I think I agree with that. Not sure the relevance to this thread, but then I saw no relevance to Monero having been brought up at all, except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

"Issuer," "security," etc. are all legal terms defined by statute and which have been interpreted by courts.  The Howey test is one case about one particular type of investment contract (one involving real property) and whether it constituted a "security" under the Securities Act (U.S. Jurisdiction).  The court looked to investor expectations to help determine that the contracts in question were securities.  Whether the securities needed an "issuer" was never in discussion - obviously they do, they don't come from nowhere and they are creatures of contract, which require people or other entity with a legal existence (like a corporation, partnership, llc, etc).  

Question: what jurisdiction is being discussed/contemplated? Why not start with some definitions from the relevant statutes from the relevant jurisdictions instead of making stuff up? How will long-arm statutes be avoided?    
OP has said nothing in 10+ pages, Caveat emptor.

[HONCHO]

except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

The hypocrisy of claiming Monero is not a coordinated entity from one side of your mouth, then defending your tribe "us" out of the other side of your mouth.

You may even believe that the two sides of your mouth are two people, so that they are not inconsistent.

You succeeded in hoodwinking AnonyMint and destroying his reputation by convincing him that he would be on the successful side by speaking out against ICOs, premines, etc.. So that the former reputation that AnonyMint had became unusable when it was time to use it.

You've laid so much waste in your wake. And potentially destroyed the one person who could have actually fixed crypto for all of us.

I hope you are proud of your result.

But I wouldn't be too smug. AnonyMint is one clever mofo. I am sure he will no longer use words.

In fact, I know his next plan. And he will turn the definition of mining inside-out and upside-down. And you will bow at his feet. Keep your television tuned. The fireworks haven't yet begun.