i dont agree with that view Paul. isnt this staking change already theft then? because Garza wont be getting 350% anymore just 100% (he didnt agree to this)

he can still use his 350% staking blockchain. people just decided that those are now funny money he can sell to his kids   heres your allowance kids!

It is considered "property" only in a very limited way - for tax purposes.  That does not mean that you could maintain a claim for conversion or theft if your coins were blacklisted. 

If someone broke into your wallet and transferred your XPY, **that** would be conversion.  if you sell your XPY for a loss or profit, the IRS will require you to recognize the sale as income or loss.  All true.

Blacklisting a coin in a forked blockchain is not the same thing.  You still have your wallet, still have your coins.  Its just that no one is supporting that old blockchain anymore so the XPY you have in the old wallet becomes worthless.

You would have to somehow argue that U.S. law would protect not just the coins as property, but also your interest in continuing to be able to use the coins on any blockchain.  I don't see how this argument could be made.

Just because something can be done or has been done does not automatically make it legal or morally right.

Crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone else's property is a crime. End of story.

oh i agree about that. theres no inherent morality. its just consensus which can be immoral depending on your view of the world
i dont know about legality issue its so different in each country

the whole thing is a total shit show thanks to Mr. Garbozo

I agree. What Mage and Crestington are suggesting is that Garza's coins should be identified and destroyed because they are "illegitimate", and that the fucking criminals who actually created Paycoin and helped run the entire scam and are now "Not associated with Garza and are therefore now the goodguys" should be entitled to keep their coins. The entire notion is complete fucking absurdity.

That is way too simplistic (and wrong).  I am not going to argue the moral/ethical issue, just the legal point.

1) First, nothing would be "taken" from the possession of GAWCEO.  Conversion (which is the legal cause of action for theft), whether civil or criminal, requires that the wrongdoer take from the rightful owner possession of the property.  The loss of a possessory right is central to a claim of "theft"/conversion.  A fork in the blockchain would certainly interfere with GAWCEO's ability to use that which he possesses, but would not deprive him of possession of anything.  Comparing GAWCEO's possession of XPY and wallets a microsecond before and after the blockchain fork, there is no loss of any possession. 

2) You are really making an expectations argument (estoppel) or an implied contract argument (breach) I think, but that is not a theft or conversion issue.  And I think any claim by Josh on an estoppel theory would fail (he cannot assert an equitable argument because he has "unclean hands"), and an implied contract claim would fail for the reasons previously stated (new contract, new consensus does not breach old contract).

Consider this:  If instead of hard forking, the same folks get together and create a new coin called Paycoin Redux (PAX).  They do an ICO in which any holder of XPY can obtain equivalent value pro rata percentage of PAX coin by exhanging their XPY for PAX; except Josh and any person or entity that can be identified with Josh as an affiliate or family member is banned from ICO participation.  The XPY exchanged is destroyed.  The result of this would be exactly the same as a hard fork, but you cannot possibly claim anything morally, ethically or legally wrong with that.

If the community decided to move onto a new chain where Josh's coins were blocked or stake rates changed in any way there is nothing he can do about it regardless of whether you say it's about property rights or not, morally right or wrong. A Cryptocurrency is never forever, it changes all the time and can be changed based on consensus, he would have to sue every single person who owned the PayCoin for deciding that they want to exclude him.

Eggzackry. Then there is the issue of whether these crooks are actually independant from Garza or not. I think not, and that people like Mage and Crestington are willingly or unwillingly being used to try to wipe some of the stench of scam and the criminal Garza off of Paycoin so that the scam can continue.

@ eightcylinders: . The fact is the crypto currency is property. Taking or destroying someone elses's property is definitely a crime. I am not saying that destroying someone's crypto currency can be successfully argued in court. We live in a world where it is successfully argued that brazen and obvious criminals are innocent and that innocent people are criminals all day every day. By your logic murder is legal because the glove did not fit.


What is "the community"? If by community you mean those that have at least 51% of the coins or have ownership and/or influence over other owners of the majoirty of the Prime Controllers, you mean Josh&Co. He is playing you and Mage for fucking fools and doing a damned good job of it. He has you trying to fix his fucking scam coin to try to make it appear less scammy , so he can continue scamming. Fuck that, and if you help him then fuck you too.

Edit to add from the next post by Crestington below: "If you don't like the rules of the game then change the rules."

You simply do not get it. The rules favor Josh & Co., and he is playing you and Mage for fools. You and Mage have both bought into the fucking lie that the pack of criminals now currently said to be "Not Josh" and are supposedly in control of Paycoin are somehow goodguys now. Bullshit.  They are the same fucking pack of criminals that have been running the Paycoin scam all along. Of COURSE they are lying to you for fuck's sake, figure it the fuck out out already.

It's not up to me to decide whether to trust them, I personally don't trust them since if they really wanted to be head of it then they would have proven their Coins and relationships. No transparency, no-go

My point was only that if you want to exclude him or anyone else and make changes then just do it, and figure out how it can be done.

If you don't like the rules of the game then change the rules.

problem is you cannot do that kind of wealth transfer with out creating some real victims (bag holders), maybe it was their fault of investing in or not. not really the point. if there is consensus that xpy community doesnt want to create bag holders they can try what TheMage and miavitor are saying. if you calculate how much money Mr. Garbozo has put in + he didnt fulfill his part of the "contract" by implementing the whitepaper, it disqualifies him (in my opinion) from the "profits". its fraud so why is he entitled to keep these monster inflation sources

this 100% stake is as much BS as 350%


ps:
im pretty sure the only way to extract any real wealth out of this is to cash it out in btc like some of you are saying at great losses but at least its something. but we cant really dictate what those who are stuck with it can do

the dreams of it being anything else than tarnished coin with a decent name are long gone