[SCAM ALERT] ***********EMUNIE - CAUTION ADVISED*************

[jubalix]

nooo

I needed dan@emunie.com email....that email server died today along with the webserver.

the client doesnt rely on those at all

So its your server's and not the web hosting server's that are down?

so the dan@emunie.com, how does access to that stop the OB1 release?

there would be about 24hrs work left in OB1 max???

is that right?

Because if people are emailing me and there is no mail serve, then it will not be delivered nor can I pick it up. So even if I can't reply right away, people will get pissed and it will give a bad impression/create FUD ammo.

So email functional was #1 priority at the time

hmm I c, so maybe of OB1 just take this out, or put a declaimer on about that. i think this will be attacked relentlessly until i t can be decentralised anyway, since it seems to have central points of failure.

I misread, dan was referring to his emunie email, not the client system....my fault here

[1715394729]

1715394729

[1715394729]

1715394729

[1715394729]

1715394729

[1715394729]

1715394729

[1715394729]

1715394729

[1715394729]

1715394729

[Fuserleer]

seriously...dude, wth?? 

what has regular email got to do with eMunie being centralized?? 

[coinerjoe]

Be cautious on anything OP says.   He was already outted on another thread for trying to blackmail somebody and when he was outted he didnt have anything to say to the guy who outted him cept some bs posturing about him violating the sites TOS for supplying proof of the blackmail.  He has shown the characteristics of an attention seeking scammer, and not a very intelligent one.

[Fuserleer]

Be cautious on anything OP says.   He was already outted on another thread for trying to blackmail somebody and when he was outted he didnt have anything to say to the guy who outted him cept some bs posturing about him violating the sites TOS for supplying proof of the blackmail.  He has shown the characteristics of an attention seeking scammer, and not a very intelligent one.

I got the same crap from him....."send me 10BTC or I expose your lies"...go ahead.  I countered all of them with a thing called evidence in my rebuttal.

Taking off my professional coat for a second, the guy is a complete low life scum bag that deserves whatever brute force comes his way, should he (and we) ever be fortunate enough that he meets someone hes attempted to blackmail. </procoatoff>

Aside from that, this thread will be history pretty soon anyway, so enjoy the drama while it lasts.

[garicup]

I just want to know what happened with Eid, or why people internally from the project now seem to have less faith in it and calling it centralized etc? Any note on this? Its kind of bad when you own employees / ex-employess / supporters / ex-supporter say its a scam

[jubalix]

I just want to know what happened with Eid, or why people internally from the project now seem to have less faith in it and calling it centralized etc? Any note on this? Its kind of bad when you own employees / ex-employess / supporters / ex-supporter say its a scam

I'm not sure they said it  was a scam, as to centralised, I think some think having a company means centralised, it doesn't. Rather it a result of being public, you probably have to do it.

[jubalix]

seriously...dude, wth??  

what has regular email got to do with eMunie being centralized??  

no no I don't mean "centralised" as in what goes around here  as that, I mean, if you have identified that you need a mail server , and some how that has been taken down, then move to a service that cannot be taken down e.g. google,


If that means some emunie functionality it temporarily lost, then so be it....but I think I misread what you meant,


I may have my wires crossed I thought you were referring to emunie needed a mail server, but I think you meant you wanted your emunie mail server for questions and debug....!


in that case a google mail address is fine e.g. bugforemunie@gmail.com or something.

[r0ach]

eMunie isn't a Proof of Stake implementation, nor does it use the BitCoin protocol, or have a fixed supply creation over time.....so I'm not sure how your argument applies comparing apples to oranges.

Or are you stating that eMunie shouldn't/doesn't need an IPO as an overall blanket categorization of crypto-currencies in general?  

If that is the case, as eMunie has a dynamic inflation/deflation model, which in turn uses reserves available that it and only it has control of to mitigate large peaks and troughs over short time scale, how would you propose that we provide those reserves to the system in the first place without having a distribution of eMu beforehand?

Furthermore, without an IPO, how do you propose that eMunie escapes the lowly sandpit that all crypto-currencies currently live, and actually make it before the eyes, and into the hands of the people that Satoshi originally intended for everyday use of BitCoin?

5 years have passed and BitCoin is no closer to being used for everyday purchases broadly across the globe than it was 2 years ago. It is firmly stuck in the sandpit of rampant speculation, selfishness and greed, as are other crypto-currencies, the magnitudes of which make the regular financial industry look tame on a per capital basis; alas because of this no party/parties are working collectively to inform and educate the man on the street to achieve that original goal.

That was a pretty impressive side skirting of every issue.  I feel like I'm talking to Bill Clinton himself.  I have no ill will towards your project, but the original poster claiming you had a history of membership on social engineering/black hat websites doesn't seem to be kidding.

Let me go over this again because these are problems that Bitcoin solved, and Emunie seems to be evolving backwards with:

The entity who is closest to the creation of the money supply in the fractional reserve, fiat system benefits the most.  In other words, central bankers issue currency for profit.

Bitcoin was designed from the ground up to defeat that system, to make it so people can't profit off issuing currency.  In the Satoshi model, he didn't issue any currency, he was not a currency creator, and there was no profit for him to make off his own invention that wasn't readily available to anyone else from adoption in using it.  

You're set to make lots of money off this project, correct?  So what we have is a guy attempting to replace the Federal Reserve with himself.  Ok, you're going to say you're a less tyrannical version of the Federal Reserve, but when the entire goal of the project seems to be based entirely on personal profit, it's hard to take seriously as a "trust free" system.  At any given time, why would we not expect some new, client update for you to make even more profit?  Or maybe since it's closed source, you can just sell it all off to Goldman Sachs and they can charge people $10 a month to use it.  As you can see, this is obviously not a trust free system when personal gain through issuing currency is a large part of the goal.  On a fundamental level, it's actually hard to differentiate you from the bankers we already have, albeit with slightly more transparency.

I'm not a lawyer, but the Satoshi system seemed extremely cleverly designed to avoid having the legal system classify him as a currency issuer.  Under legal framework, you, and all the other IPO currency people such as NXT and Ethereum, might actually be classifiable as "central bankers", which might subject you to a lot of laws or criminal proceedings you don't want to deal with.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Under legal framework, you, and all the other IPO currency people such as NXT and Ethereum, might actually be classifiable as "central bankers", which might subject you to a lot of laws or criminal proceedings you don't want to deal with.

I won't say for Ether, but in Nxt only BCNext could be sued for being a currency issuer. Actually it's good for all Nxt users. What about BCNext... good luck if u want to catch him!

[td services]

This makes me to worry. Someone attacks all launched cryptos. We would better unite against common enemy, instead of insulting each other...

+1 I'm seeing this pattern as well.

[td services]

Be cautious on anything OP says.   He was already outted on another thread for trying to blackmail somebody and when he was outted he didnt have anything to say to the guy who outted him cept some bs posturing about him violating the sites TOS for supplying proof of the blackmail.  He has shown the characteristics of an attention seeking scammer, and not a very intelligent one.

I got the same crap from him....."send me 10BTC or I expose your lies"...go ahead.  I countered all of them with a thing called evidence in my rebuttal.

Taking off my professional coat for a second, the guy is a complete low life scum bag that deserves whatever brute force comes his way, should he (and we) ever be fortunate enough that he meets someone hes attempted to blackmail. </procoatoff>

Aside from that, this thread will be history pretty soon anyway, so enjoy the drama while it lasts.

LeoC appears to be scammer or in collusion with Level Coin, proven by identical funding addresses between extortion attempt by LeoC against Ethereum posted by Charles H and original funding address used by Level Coin in Level Coin announcement.

I had a detailed history, lost while composing, here's link to Level Coin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422309.400

LeoC says I'm too jumpy and should go smoke a bowl and relax.

[eid]

I just want to know what happened with Eid, or why people internally from the project now seem to have less faith in it and calling it centralized etc? Any note on this? Its kind of bad when you own employees / ex-employess / supporters / ex-supporter say its a scam

I'm not sure they said it  was a scam, as to centralised, I think some think having a company means centralised, it doesn't. Rather it a result of being public, you probably have to do it.

I thought I had explained this already but apparently not. Please read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439045.msg4930738#msg4930738

[jubalix]

I just want to know what happened with Eid, or why people internally from the project now seem to have less faith in it and calling it centralized etc? Any note on this? Its kind of bad when you own employees / ex-employess / supporters / ex-supporter say its a scam

I'm not sure they said it  was a scam, as to centralised, I think some think having a company means centralised, it doesn't. Rather it a result of being public, you probably have to do it.

I thought I had explained this already but apparently not. Please read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439045.msg4930738#msg4930738

this point is not correct

4: eMunie Ltd: This is the developer and whoever else is on the board of this corporation (who are they btw?) getting in bed with one of the most ruthless and dangerous criminal cartels in history (Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and her government) and agreeing to play by their rules. We have to TRUST the developer when he says he will simply close the company if it becomes necessary.

a company is free to give stuff away.

[eid]

I just want to know what happened with Eid, or why people internally from the project now seem to have less faith in it and calling it centralized etc? Any note on this? Its kind of bad when you own employees / ex-employess / supporters / ex-supporter say its a scam

I'm not sure they said it  was a scam, as to centralised, I think some think having a company means centralised, it doesn't. Rather it a result of being public, you probably have to do it.

I thought I had explained this already but apparently not. Please read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439045.msg4930738#msg4930738

this point is not correct

4: eMunie Ltd: This is the developer and whoever else is on the board of this corporation (who are they btw?) getting in bed with one of the most ruthless and dangerous criminal cartels in history (Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and her government) and agreeing to play by their rules. We have to TRUST the developer when he says he will simply close the company if it becomes necessary.

a company is free to give stuff away.

I didn't claim otherwise.

[jubalix]

I just want to know what happened with Eid, or why people internally from the project now seem to have less faith in it and calling it centralized etc? Any note on this? Its kind of bad when you own employees / ex-employess / supporters / ex-supporter say its a scam

I'm not sure they said it  was a scam, as to centralised, I think some think having a company means centralised, it doesn't. Rather it a result of being public, you probably have to do it.

I thought I had explained this already but apparently not. Please read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439045.msg4930738#msg4930738

this point is not correct



4: eMunie Ltd: This is the developer and whoever else is on the board of this corporation (who are they btw?) getting in bed with one of the most ruthless and dangerous criminal cartels in history (Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and her government) and agreeing to play by their rules. We have to TRUST the developer when he says he will simply close the company if it becomes necessary.

a company is free to give stuff away.

I didn't claim otherwise.

so 4's a non issue inmho

[eid]

I'm not sure what point it is you're making here. Is it that there are no UK export restrictions on encrypted software if it's given away? If so, could you provide links. I would like to read this. This was brought up on the emunie forum and as far as I know never addressed fully.

In more general terms, you're entitled to your opinion and I thank you for sharing it here. My opinion is obviously otherwise regarding having to sign legally binding contracts with governments and trusting people to just walk away from those contracts when necessary (in terms of the claimed philosophical goals of emunie as opposed to making lots of money). This requires trust in the developer and his business partners that he won't give in when it gets rough (assuming he hasn't already). This has been my point right from the start.


regards,


eid

[jubalix]

I'm not sure what point it is you're making here. Is it that there are no UK export restrictions on encrypted software if it's given away? If so, could you provide links. I would like to read this. This was brought up on the emunie forum and as far as I know never addressed fully.

In more general terms, you're entitled to your opinion and I thank you for sharing it here. My opinion is obviously otherwise regarding having to sign legally binding contracts with governments and trusting people to just walk away from those contracts when necessary (in terms of the claimed philosophical goals of emunie as opposed to making lots of money). This requires trust in the developer and his business partners that he won't give in when it gets rough (assuming he hasn't already). This has been my point right from the start.


regards,


eid

I value your views, I am just trying to get to the core of it.

Corps law, (for corporations) usual gives a set of legislation that corporations are run by, and these generally allow pretty diverse operations. Eg Corps often start of with replaceable rules or something similar

You don't sign legally biding contracts with the government, rather you aquire a suite of formalised protection from state interference as well as obligations. These obligations may what worries you. And yes they are there. Usually they are not that onerous, e.g., not trading insolvent, directors duties, tax requirements.

Corporations offer many benefits such as survivability from their foudners, separate legal personhood, e.g. a corporation is explicitly not Dan. They are separate at law. A mean to organise structures and hold formal accounts with various entities. Enforce rights etc.

Don't get me wrong corporations do lots of nasty things and bilk a lot of people, but also they don't make life easy for Govt's just look at all the tax apple is not paying by its ireland-holand set up. legally avoiding minimising billions in tax and theres not a thing USA/EU can do about it. This is also as an aside an interesting way in which money finds a way to transact at minim cost through arbitrage of jurisdictions.

If what I apprehend you are getting at it the  Govt has legally got its claws in and can make Dan do whatever now, I actually feel Dan is in a better position that when he was emunie did not have a company. Because Dan went public he was bound by inumeral laws and easily locatable.

This forces him to incorporate and emunie is in whatever it does is much better protected this way. Corperations have much more protection, perhaps the biggest being limited liability.

I respect your views however.

[btcmania]

5 years have passed and BitCoin is no closer to being used for everyday purchases broadly across the globe than it was 2 years ago. It is firmly stuck in the sandpit of rampant speculation, selfishness and greed, as are other crypto-currencies, the magnitudes of which make the regular financial industry look tame on a per capital basis; alas because of this no party/parties are working collectively to inform and educate the man on the street to achieve that original goal.

You can't argue with that. BTC is so volatile that one day it can be $1400 and a few weeks later $800. People want to actually sell houses with that kind of uncertainty? Not to mention that you'd be standing at the checkout line with your groceries (or plasma TV) for 30 minutes waiting for the confirmations.

Coins are all about greed nowadays, mining them before others can and before the difficulty skyrockets. These idiots with their garage full of racks of GPU's just raking in the money.

[eid]

I'm not sure what point it is you're making here. Is it that there are no UK export restrictions on encrypted software if it's given away? If so, could you provide links. I would like to read this. This was brought up on the emunie forum and as far as I know never addressed fully.

In more general terms, you're entitled to your opinion and I thank you for sharing it here. My opinion is obviously otherwise regarding having to sign legally binding contracts with governments and trusting people to just walk away from those contracts when necessary (in terms of the claimed philosophical goals of emunie as opposed to making lots of money). This requires trust in the developer and his business partners that he won't give in when it gets rough (assuming he hasn't already). This has been my point right from the start.


regards,


eid

I value your views, I am just trying to get to the core of it.

Corps law, (for corporations) usual gives a set of legislation that corporations are run by, and these generally allow pretty diverse operations. Eg Corps often start of with replaceable rules or something similar

You don't sign legally biding contracts with the government, rather you aquire a suite of formalised protection from state interference as well as obligations. These obligations may what worries you. And yes they are there. Usually they are not that onerous, e.g., not trading insolvent, directors duties, tax requirements.

Corporations offer many benefits such as survivability from their foudners, separate legal personhood, e.g. a corporation is explicitly not Dan. They are separate at law. A mean to organise structures and hold formal accounts with various entities. Enforce rights etc.

Don't get me wrong corporations do lots of nasty things and bilk a lot of people, but also they don't make life easy for Govt's just look at all the tax apple is not paying by its ireland-holand set up. legally avoiding minimising billions in tax and theres not a thing USA/EU can do about it. This is also as an aside an interesting way in which money finds a way to transact at minim cost through arbitrage of jurisdictions.

If what I apprehend you are getting at it the  Govt has legally got its claws in and can make Dan do whatever now, I actually feel Dan is in a better position that when he was emunie did not have a company. Because Dan went public he was bound by inumeral laws and easily locatable.

This forces him to incorporate and emunie is in whatever it does is much better protected this way. Corperations have much more protection, perhaps the biggest being limited liability.

I respect your views however.

You've shown that I've been making assumptions regarding registered companies having extra obligations (by law) particularly in terms of export and how they carry out their business. I've realised I don't know whether this is true or not.
For instance, if there are export laws regarding encrypted software, do they apply to private persons, or just businesses. Probably both, but I honestly don't know. The same goes for when the government realise just what it is Dan is up to and the laws which will apply (or they will make up). Does it make a difference here? Again I don't know.
This being the case, I will edit my OP to reflect this (for now at least).

Lets try and look at what we do know about Ltd companies.

1) It will make things easier when dealing with other companies (e.g. buying advertising and funding Dan's round-the-world holi...err promotional tour).

2) It will allow Dan to pay salaries and bonuses to himself and the other shareholders/employees. (not sure about this. Does it give Dan a license/protection to divert funds or would he even need that?)

3)It will protect Dan from financial ruin if the project goes tits up.

That's all I can think of for now. Any additions/thoughts?

As you said, this is a necessary evil since Dan decided to be public. As I see it, this was a big mistake in the first place, and its the reason I feel the project was faulty from the ground up. "Dan Hughes" is the point of all centralisation (the person and the fact that I know the name in the first place).


Thanks for challenging my points; it's quite refreshing and it's made me think.

[GigaCoin]

*YAWN* This has gotten so boring that no one cares about the baseless FUD anymore