Quote from: Liquid71 on May 31, 2015, 10:32:19 PM

Quote from: Morton Bitcoin Management on May 31, 2015, 08:06:13 PM

Quote from: EvilDave on May 28, 2015, 09:24:35 PM

SuperNET isn't NXT, and SN distribution has absolutely sod all to do with NXT distribution. So, nope, that doesn't fly.
And as for SN having anon devs, there are plenty of non-anon thieves around, so that argument doesn't work either.

My argument wasn't that there aren't any non-anon thieves. I'm just wondering why somebody would trust a fintech system that does not give any of the devs names? If their project is so legit why would they not take credit for it? I can understand Satoshi's anonymity in exposing revolutionary blockchain technology but cats already out of the bag so why wouldn't devs stand by their creation and stake their reputation if their product is really that legit?

yeah I don't trust Bitcoin because Satoshi valued his privacy and we don't know his identity Tongue

Ripple labs just got fined by the government for $750,000, so privacy does have value.

Literally just said I understand Satoshi's anonymity because of safety reasons. If I created a program that could undermined the federal reserve I would fear for my life as well. Ripple isn't the best example because how it functions is different than most cryptocurrencies and they started off as a company.

I don't need to start a company to write a piece of code that others can choose to support or not. It would be incredibly difficult for any government to prosecute a couple coders who decided to create software that anyone could run and technically be a part of. Furthermore, I really don't like the anonymous unfair distribution of NXT which basically is the backbone of the superNET. In reality, there's no way of determining the integrity of the anonymous creators who also control the distribution of their cryptocurrency. With bitcoin it was impossible to control the distribution therefore the only thing that really matters is the code.