Quote from: bitillionaire on April 21, 2015, 10:56:16 AM

In any case, I agree that Andrew's position on Paycoin is ill-conceived. If Litecoin had any of the same traits as Paycoin, I'd say kill it too. Difference is that Charlie Lee is not a sociopathic fucker hellbent on deception and gaining money by falsities, bleeding a company and its fans dry and then blaming random people on the internet for it. He's just a software guy who figured he could do an Scrypt algorithm coin better than Tenebrix. Now he works at Coinbase. Coinbase doesn't accept Litecoin, and that's a problem.

But Paycoin? Kill Paycoin. It has never for a minute been a legitimate or viable idea. If the people who lost through it end up leaving the community, that's their decision. Plenty of people who never traded anything but Bitcoin have wound up leaving due to overwhelming losses. Crypto is not for the feint of heart, it is not for the cautious investor. It is, however, and I don't mean to be too mean to them, but it is for the moderately intelligent. You have to be able to spot the difference between hype and technology. Examine Paycoin for five minutes with a rational mind, not infected by your feelings toward a particular individual, and you can see that it offers nothing that other proof of stake coins do except ridiculous awards to a select few and a lot of foolish names for things. "Prime Staker" is nothing but "premine 2.0."

Quote from: coblee on October 09, 2011, 06:14:28 AM

Litecoin will come with 150 premined coins: just the genesis block and the first 2 blocks to confirm the genesis is valid. We believe a coin needs to be released in a fair manner. Having one person (or a group) control a large amount of coins that can be used as they see fit is against the decentralized vision of Bitcoin. Yes, it is true that without a stash of premined coins, we will not be able to afford to pay for bounties, but we believe people will see the virtue of this coin, invest in it as early adopters, and will be willing to spend time creating services to make this coin better.

Present rate, these coins are worth $209 USD. At the height of Litecoin, they were worth less than $8k.

This cannot be said about Paycoin. The investigation in this thread has thoroughly revealed that from its inception Paycoin was designed to prop up a failing company, and was indeed used for that various purpose. Further, it has been revealed that it was launched in bad faith, where an honest person, when realizing that their idea would surely not work, would have simply pulled back and started over.

It's no secret that I am a fan of Litecoin and have never owned a Paycoin. But objectively speaking, Andrew, you're doing yourself no favors by suggesting that anyone should do anything to save Paycoin. There will never be a market outside of that community which values the coin, and therefore it should be taken off the exchanges, since any time it is sold on them, it is done for the very purpose of enriching the callow or foolish, neither of which are things which the cryptocurrency community has a need to promote.

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 12:46:42 PM

Quote from: TheMage on April 21, 2015, 03:57:53 AM

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 03:52:09 AM

Quote from: TheMage on April 21, 2015, 03:47:56 AM

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 03:37:13 AM

Quote from: TheMage on April 21, 2015, 03:29:31 AM

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 03:07:09 AM

I already explained several points of why the things you suggest as a fix for Paycoin are absurd, and in my opinion probably illegal as well. They are also detrimental to crypto, particularly the part about destroying trust that coins are a stable and honest form of currency. If a group of people can decide to eliminate the coins of other holders of a coin, that is the worst possible thing you can do to foster trust, which is cyptos weak point already.

IF this was any normal crypto I would agree with you, but the fact that a company "owns" it is the entire reason I would even suggest this.

Cryptos are for the people (beyond the stupid catchphrase they use "The people's money", and I firmly believe this.

BUT.......I do understand where you are coming from. And again I do agree with your sentiments if this were any other normal crypto coin. But it is not, and has some "special circumstances" surrounding it. Any changes that I suggested were to get GAW out of the picture (the easiest way possible without crossing that line you mentioned earlier about who decides which coins to burn, because that can be very difficult to track and determine) and help those who actually hold Paycoin.

Here is the issue, we have a community of folks that regardless of what you or anyone else thinks is still part of the larger crypto community. I also believe that a lot of these folks are first time crypto users and this is their first experience. Sure, its easy to sit back and say "let them burn in hell for their stupidity", but stepping back and looking at the larger picture here that causes some issues.

Mary just got scammed by GAW via paycoin and its community, and this is Mary's first time crypto experience. She was interested in it for both monetary reasons and non monetary reasons (maybe she hates the FED and really understands how much a dollar is really worth). But now her experience has left a bad taste in her mouth.

Mary also has a friend Jake at work who is interested in Bitcoin. Mary explains to Jake what had happened to her, and the poor experiences she had with cryptos. All of a sudden, her story resonates with him and he not only decides not to get into it, but actively tells others not to get involved as well. Now compound that with a few thousand people (I'm just throwing darts here at a number, but its not unreasonable).

This is why I do what I do. I can give two shits less about the coin itself, im more concerned with the community. Even if these people ultimately decide its not worth it they can still join one of the many other communities within cryptos and become contributors to help spread education and awareness. Hell most of the people who own paycoin arent even on GAW forums anymore, they are over in other mediums.

First, prove to me that GAW owns Paycoin. Tell me how much, and where it is stored and why you believe it belongs to them, and then explain why taking property from a corporation is different than taking it from an individual. Secondly, explain why you think it is ok to take property away from either GAW or Josh Garza. What is the EXACT criteria by which you conclude that it is fair, just and legal, to take property from someone else. You either respect property rights or you don't. The fact of the matter is that Crypto currency is legally considered property, and neither you or the group of fucking criminals that you suggest should be able to pull off this fix (scam), have the right to take property from anyone else. It is that simple.

The minute that a company is able to produce money out of thin air and assign themselves that money is the moment where I believe its fair to take it away from them. Especially since they can continue printing money out of thin air. The FED is a private institution and has done this for decades, so do you believe that is fair of them? This is literally the EXACT reason why cryptos was created! To get away from this BS.

Lets agree to disagree and be done with it. Obviously we aren't going to agree to each others for a lack of a better term morals (maybe ideas? I'm having difficulty trying to place a word here). I think at this point we are arguing philosophy more than anything else, which is fine, but if you want to lets just state that up front.

I would argue that the reverse is true as well: When a group or company is able to eliminate the money held by others , you have the same situation. Your position is hypocritical, illogical and morally indefensible.

I dont understand your logic.

Jonny Q public buys shares in a company and gets scammed.

Jonny Q public has the ability to take over said company and potentially turn profits around for themselves, outside of said company.

The company being Paycoin. How can you say this is illogical or morally indefensible?

What in the world are you talking about? Paycoin is NOT a company, it is a cryptocurrency, and the coins are not shares. This is the absurd non-sense that the spiderman unperpants clad clowns on Hashtalk think. You stated that GAW owns Paycoin, and I asked you to prove this and you flat out refused to even try. Some debater. I do not personally see any legal difference in taking someone else's property, regardless of whether that entity is a person or corporation, and the law agrees. In reality, corporations have stronger legal ownership rights than individuals here in the USA. Even if Paycoin were a company, shareholders do not have the legal or moral right to hold a majority shareholder meeting and vote to eliminate the other 49% of shares. If that were the case, shareholders would do this over and over until just one person owned all of the shares- the idea is completely absurd. The people who bought into Paycoin and got scammed got scammed. It happened. It is a travesty. You pretending to have the power of court, judge, and jury will not change this. Again, your position is hypocritical, illogical, and morally indefensible.

I just saw this additional reply from Crestington to this same debate, so I will add my reply here to try to reduce the Wall-O-Text that is developing.

Quote from: Crestington on April 21, 2015, 10:44:56 AM

So you are saying that a company has never outed it's CEO for the things they've done and money they've cost the company?

It can be viewed as being received through illegitimate means since the money came from uncle stu to make the appearance of a floor and the $20 floor and compensation etc. only really served to increase the floor that could be sold into. What is the compensation for creating a Cryptocurrency out of thin air, seems like a few million to me so if none of Josh's funds were used to buy those Coins and no money used to back the assets and everything sold into the market then it should be just fine if the community should want to eliminate the liability. Do you think that Josh is suddenly going to do a 180 and get all legit after a year of scamming literally everyone he came across? The moment things get comfy it's going to be back to old scam muggler. Josh having the Coins will always put a negative hold over the Coin no matter what and it's very likely he would end up using existing investor funds to pay off all his pre-existing debt (which was the reason it was made). Even if Josh does go to Jail, it still means that those Coins are accumulating interest and can later on be sold and will hurt all new investors.

You said before that Cryptsy should delist, that would hurt everyone and Josh. There is also no way that people won't set any buy orders since if it's on the exchange then people would set orders. If PayCoin holders want to see any increase in the value of their Coin, they should want this to happen. If you wanted to meet halfway, you could always just take away the ability for his increased Stake percentage and let him keep the Coins (although I think he gave up that right with the $20 floor)

Quote

So you are saying that a company has never outed it's CEO for the things they've done and money they've cost the company?

No, I did not say that. We are not talking about a company here, we are talking about a crypto currency called Paycoin.

Quote

It can be viewed as being received through illegitimate means since the money came from uncle stu to make the appearance of a floor and the $20 floor and compensation etc. only really served to increase the floor that could be sold into.

Paycoin was created. It is what it is. People have various amounts in their wallets. It is legal property. If fraud was perpetrated by GAW (And I do believe it was), this does not suddenly make it legal to take someone elses property because you have decided that you think someone else did something wrong. If there was wrongdoing, that is for a court to decide, not some self proclaimed crypto do gooder or the gang of criminals (ALL associated with the same criminal from whom you and Mage say it is ok to steal from, no less) who you and Mage say should take property from other people. If a court orders property to be seized from either GAW or Josh, that is legal. A group of people deciding they will do that is criminal. Fact. There is simply no way around this fact.

I do not recall saying that Cryptsy should delist Paycoin. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't, but at any rate I do not see the relevance to this discussion about whether it is legal and moral to decide that it is ok to take someone else's property.

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 01:35:07 PM

Quote from: Phildo on April 21, 2015, 01:12:44 PM

I understand why people want to take away Josh's coins and end the staking, but can't you see how that will kill the coin? If you can do that to him, or change something so fundamental (remember, the only reason most people have these coins is because they thought they would make money via staking) why would anyone invest in the coin when it can be taken away from them or something else can be changed?

It sucks that these people got conned, it's nice that people want to help, but it happened. Don't waste your/their time and energy on something that won't work.

There is also the issue of determining exactly which coins belong to Josh and or GAW, and then how do you prove, and I mean PROVE, that coins belong to someone else? It would be a simple matter to fake identities and move coins through exchanges and such, I will not list what I think would be best and easiest ways, but I am sure that some (HUGE) amount of this has already been going on. Then there is the issue of whether or not the gang of criminals that helped create Paycoin and run this scam are now "Not Josh". I for one do not buy that part at all. I think all or most of them are still just Josh's stooges. The best way I see for Josh to get his due is to let Paycoin go where it is already heading. Salvaging it for him would at the very least be a public image victory, and most likely a huge financial win as well.

Fuck that asshole Hashking, Fuck GAW, and Fuck Paycoin. (been catching up on Game of Thrones- saw the Blackwater Siege episode last night) Cheesy

Quote from: eightcylinders on April 21, 2015, 02:02:50 PM

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 12:46:42 PM

[SNIP]
Paycoin was created. It is what it is. People have various amounts in their wallets. It is legal property. If fraud was perpetrated by GAW (And I do believe it was), this does not suddenly make it legal to take someone elses property because you have decided that you think someone else did something wrong.

You keep saying that blacklisting coins through a hard fork, or blacklisting addresses (same thing in your analysis I think) is "taking someone elses property".

Aside from the merits or demerits of whether such is a good idea (and I am on the fence on that), I strongly disagree with your legal analysis. In order to make the claim that you make, you would have to be able to show that U.S. law would allow you to sue for fork that disenfranchised [GAWCEO's] coins. What would your legal theory be?

Theft/Conversion? What property was taken from [GAWCEO]? You still have the old coins in the original blockchain before the fork. No one "took" anything. Its just that the majority decided to proceed down a different blockchain that excluded you from participating. Hard to see any property conversion on those facts, absent an act of destruction of the original blockchain or coins.

Breach of contract? First off, you would have to demonstrate a contract. Who were the parties? Who would you sue? Everyone participating in the new blockchain? Every wallet that decided to follow the new fork?

The fact is, crypto is a consensus currency. If the consensus changes, so does the coin. If the consensus changes so as to exclude one party or their coins in an old blockchain, then the new consensus forms a new "contract" (if you want to use that theory). The old "contract" consensus doesn't go away (there is no breach of contract, because the old block can continue), but the coins in the old consensus likely lose all their value as a result of lack of interest/support. The new fork creates a new consensus, new contract.

I fail to see any legal problem with this. That is not to say I don't see the practical problems and the precedential problems (e.g., it might set a bad precedent and decrease confidence in crypto generally if people think their coins can be "taken" like that). But I don't think a legal claim of conversion of "property rights" or breach of contract would lie.

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 02:06:07 PM

Quote from: eightcylinders on April 21, 2015, 02:02:50 PM

Quote from: Paul Revere on April 21, 2015, 12:46:42 PM

[SNIP]
Paycoin was created. It is what it is. People have various amounts in their wallets. It is legal property. If fraud was perpetrated by GAW (And I do believe it was), this does not suddenly make it legal to take someone elses property because you have decided that you think someone else did something wrong.

You keep saying that blacklisting coins through a hard fork, or blacklisting addresses (same thing in your analysis I think) is "taking someone elses property".

Aside from the merits or demerits of whether such is a good idea (and I am on the fence on that), I strongly disagree with your legal analysis. In order to make the claim that you make, you would have to be able to show that U.S. law would allow you to sue for fork that disenfranchised [GAWCEO's] coins. What would your legal theory be?

Theft/Conversion? What property was taken from [GAWCEO]? You still have the old coins in the original blockchain before the fork. No one "took" anything. Its just that the majority decided to proceed down a different blockchain that excluded you from participating. Hard to see any property conversion on those facts, absent an act of destruction of the original blockchain or coins.

Breach of contract? First off, you would have to demonstrate a contract. Who were the parties? Who would you sue? Everyone participating in the new blockchain? Every wallet that decided to follow the new fork?

The fact is, crypto is a consensus currency. If the consensus changes, so does the coin. If the consensus changes so as to exclude one party or their coins in an old blockchain, then the new consensus forms a new "contract" (if you want to use that theory). The old "contract" consensus doesn't go away (there is no breach of contract, because the old block can continue), but the coins in the old consensus likely lose all their value as a result of lack of interest/support. The new fork creates a new consensus, new contract.

I fail to see any legal problem with this. That is not to say I don't see the practical problems and the precedential problems (e.g., it might set a bad precedent and decrease confidence in crypto generally if people think their coins can be "taken" like that). But I don't think a legal claim of conversion of "property rights" or breach of contract would lie.

Crypto currency is considered property by the United States Federal Government. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a criminal act.

I am well aware that forking to remove coins can and has been done, but this does not make it legal or morally right.