Here is what I know:

A: You have a deep knowledge of crypto and have been intimately involved with it for a long time, particularly Litecoin.
B: The suggestions you have for "fixing" Paycoin are completely absurd and will without a doubt inflict massive damage to crypto, which is what you claim to be trying to prevent.
C: You say that you have no monetary interest in "fixing" Paycoin.

Those three things do not add up, plain and simple. I think you are trying to play me for a fool by saying that they do.

Fair enough, we can discuss this.

1. You are correct on this, although I've never hid the fact that im not a dev (I've even mentioned this here). I started Nov/Dec 2013, with what was called the second wave of adoption.
2. I dont see it this way at all, can you please explain to me (and im being very serious here) what is wrong with blacklisting prime controllers? The damage that I talk about is purely from a sociological standpoint, and I can even elaborate on this if you want me too. I did a podcast last night and even talked about this specifically.
3. I don't, whats hard to believe in that? Again I ask very seriously what do you think I am going to do beyond what I have done/suggested? Do you think im going to fix the code for them? Because im not (nor do I have the proper skill set to do so).

I dont play anyone for a fool.

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?