Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network

[jibble]

as things stand now, preventing loss is most important.
two cases are theoretically possible to be actually called losses: dilution of existing buyers, and buyers of the 500K not getting the new token.
under the primum non nocere principle (first do no harm), the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

I don't know if i am alone in this thinking but those 500k coins that were dumped, i think 1 person got the majority .

that about 400k of coins , at currently market value which would now be 20 cents a piece , is like winning the lottery , its like 80,000 dollars

that to any project so young can be extremely damaging , especially if it advances beyond 1 dollars in the future or more , not only if the coin manage to reach a complete sell out of tokens at 42 million but out of the current amount that has been sold total , it makes up a good 10-15% at least share of all coins currently in circulation to investors .

Giving away 100,000 dollars to those who bought into the scammer dumping , then having to give away even more to compensate those investors that didn't get scammed seems a bit counter productive , giving even more free coins away.

Giving the coins in smaller bundles to 10 different projects would be a much more efficient advertisement for the coin but this would still just cause dumping and effecting the price and giving away potential and actual value .

if those who bought those super cheap coins where able to keep 5-10% of the coins they managed to buy + more coins to cover the actual BTC they spent buying those scam coins , at current market value.

this would be a reward for giving back coins , while also making sure any incurred loses they would suffer from returning them are covered , this would't cause a potentially large amount of coins out in the open held by a few and wouldn't effect the price anywhere near as much, while still saying thank you and helping out those affected by the dumping

[Foerster]

Those who bought the 500k coins should get back what they paid in BTC + 15% gain.
They get compensated a bit and nobody is hurt.

the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

Tau chain logical reasoning would not approve.
There is zero possibility that current holders will not turn out diluted by just raising the token supply a bit.
For no dilution to take place one would have to give current holders infinitely more tokens to make the 500k infinitesimally small in relation.

[ohad]

Those who bought the 500k coins should get back what they paid in BTC + 15% gain.
They get compensated a bit and nobody is hurt.

only one of them is known (though holds 90%)

the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

Tau chain logical reasoning would not approve.
There is zero possibility that current holders will not turn out diluted by just raising the token supply a bit.
For no dilution to take place one would have to give current holders infinitely more tokens to make the 500k infinitesimally small in relation.

it's not about raising the tokens supply, but adding all buyers up till today ~10% more tokens (automatically with the distribution of the new token), except the 500K.

[klosure]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

[mr001]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

This seems to be a good solution.

[NILIcoin]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

This seems to be a good solution.

I think there is one more thing to consider here. Agoras coins are like shares in the future Agora platform. Now if I invest my dollars (or btc) to get the share, and some have invested their time working to create the value to  the share (as options in the regular scheme), having free-of-charge (gifted) shares floating in the market reduce the value of the initial share. A gift of an asset (token) that is traded in the market is always on the expense of all asset holders

I think that some sort of cooperation with  Dor's project can be interesting and useful and maybe profitable to both communities of coin holders but it have nothing to do with the stolen coin and these have to be taken out of the equation as of now. Whoever got the stolen coins can prove they came from that address and can be compensated by Ohad with btc or new Agora in the pre dump value .  I can see a good reasoning behind giving a little bonus for choosing new-Agora over btc  since for the project well being it is much better that the btc will stay in the hands of the developers of tau.

[Counterfiat]

The principle 'first do no harm' if applied in law gives a framework that provides for desirable long-term positive outcomes. For example the expression, 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' is not beneficial to those held captive, but removes motive for such heinous crimes into the future, saving many more lives and heartbreak. The way that common law has developed over time, is similar with respect to 'receiving stolen goods'. It takes away the ability to profit from such situations by giving the liability for the loss to the receiver of stolen goods. Therefore if we seek 'to do no harm', we seek to enact society's standards of preventing harm now and into the future.

If Ohad was to request all tokens 'received as stolen goods' be returned within seven days, there is legal precedent in the fairness of this action. If Ohad were then to say that though a receiver of stolen goods is to bear the loss in accordance with the laws of our land, however I am prepared to make a goodwill gesture by paying an amount equal to the cost in btc - This would be incredibly generous on Ohad's part. If further to this Ohad was to give a bounty, if returned in seven days, Foerster suggested 15%, then that would be way over and above what anyone could expect as a receiver of stolen goods.

To empower the receiver of stolen goods with a beneficiary interest, has been proven time and again over many centuries in the development of common law to be morally destructive.

Hence should the return of stolen property be done immediately without any further negotiation?

Ohad could choose to reserve some 500,000 tokens or more for potential legal costs, and generous bounties into the future. If these contingency coins are never used, then they are as good as destroyed in effect.

Thereby the way is now made clear to cancel all previous coins, redistributing new coins to only the deserving recipients, leaving out completely the stolen coins, except the contingency coins. This truly fits with the principle 'first do no harm' to the vast body of people involved in countless endeavours.



Disclaimer: these discussions might serve as preparatory thoughts for further discussions with a lawyer. I am in no way giving legal advice; now, beforehand or in the future with regards to any or all input I make. I suggest to seek professional legal advice and treat my comments as entertainment value only.

[ohad]

assume we discredit the whole 21M rather only 20.5M (i.e. not sending new tokens also to the 500K holders).
you might claim that this is more justifiable (yet arguable).
but is it good from the *project's* point of view?
what is the project's best interest?

in addition, the 3% premine aren't meant to be mine personally. it is supposed to support the project for the long term (together with the presale funds).

last question: if the 500K were sold in 1% less than the market price (not 90% or so), would still reverting trades involving stolen goods was so important?

[ohad]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

[Counterfiat]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

That is a great outcome.

Kudos to Dor!

[rocanonz]

Good news. We can move over now!
---
The project best interest it's to have Tau-Chain ready and inteligently crunching zeroes and ones, not today, not tommorow but yesterday, everyday

[mr.coinzy]

Dor is doing the right thing and i salute him for doing so.
If any of the other holders of stolen coins see this, please follow Dor's honorable example and do the right thing as well.

[martinzester]

I bought them too and want to return
feeling sad for my loss buying them, ohad pm me plz

[ohad]

so as things stand now i think the easy thing to do is to send new tokens to all addresses except the 20.5M, and Dor will return the new tokens when he receives them. same for other bittrex buyers. this will also help us authenticate who actually bought from the dump.

[jibble]

so as things stand now i think the easy thing to do is to send new tokens to all addresses except the 20.5M, and Dor will return the new tokens when he receives them. same for other bittrex buyers. this will also help us authenticate who actually bought from the dump.

most buyers of the coins managed to get them for a considerably lower price than market value .

I and i don't think many other would be opposed to buyers who bought for extremely low prices to keep a small amount of their coins , to cover the cost of their bitcoin losses , at the rate of the actual coins value .

So if someone manage to buy the scammers coins for say 2 btc, but bought , 200,000, them being able to keep 2btc's worth at what the real current market value of agora is or was before the scam .



This helps those out that lost potential bitcoin from the buyer and doesn't affect the market or share of the coin drastically

[mr001]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

Dor is a good man! Our problems are nearly solved.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I think Dor, the CEO of Synereo, has proven his character and moral fiber to us by his actions.  It is nice to know that there are still people who do the right thing regardless of the monetary consequences.  I hope Ohad compensates Dor for his losses.  We all are fortunate that it was Dor who purchased the mass majority of the stolen tokens.

[klosure]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

A humbling example of integrity.
I'll remember it when Synereo's crowdsale starts.

[andyatcrux]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

A humbling example of integrity.
I'll remember it when Synereo's crowdsale starts.

Agreed. Hats off to Dor for this. Mad respect indeed. But I am not aware of any new crowdsale.

[Shield]

ohad
did martinzester returned coins 
if he did then how much coins he returned and how many total coins left