Re: [ANN][NOXT] - NobleNXT Proposal/Whitepaper

You are confusing noxt token which is decentralized with noxt project which is centralized...

edit: please don't put words in my mouth, I just said noxt is not a decentralized project.

what words did i put in your mouth?

i just disagree that noxt project is centralised coz there's no legal entity involved afaik

Having a legal entity is not a requirement for a project in order to be centralized, centralized means it being controlled by a centralized identity/group - jason in this case.

"Peer-to-peer payment system dabbler, Noble (www.noblemovement.com) founder/director (centralized distributed ledger service and consultancy business), decentralized cryptocurrency NobleCoin (NOBL) founder, alternative cryptocurrency advocate, outspoken industry and manipulation critic, digital currency investment advisor, web/API/payment developer/designer"

Anyway I think this discussion is just spamming the thread, I will be happy to explain why noxt is centralized in private in case you still wonder.
I did read the whitepaper few times...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralisation

Let's agree to disagree

Also, it's not spam, but a critical discussion topic for ALL crypto. Just because particular individuals are at the center does not make the project centralized. Tim Berners-Lee is/was at the 'center' of WWW development for many years but WWW is definitely decentralised, same with bitcoin dev too (we know who the current core devs are doing all the work, but they're not legally responsible for bitcoin).

We need to separate common sense view of 'who is doing the work' with legal reality of 'who is responsible to whom, and for what'.

These issues aren't spam, but key philosophical points of interest.

IMO NOXT is not a legal security, and rofo is almost a sole trader from a business point of view. That's what the law would say (hopefully), otherwise rofo could be in deep trouble for securities violations. If you bought NOXT you didn't buy a 'share' in anything. What you bought is something different, new, and decentralised, and it might be valuable one day, but there isn't a legal contract anywhere to be seen, and that's why I think NOXT is still decentralised.

Quote

During the time spent researching and preparing these proposals to move forward into 2015, as well as through a surprisingly extensive professional network outside of bitcointalk I very quickly came to know of the impending SEC crackdown on downright fraudulent misrepresentations regarding securities, equity, dividends and investment. My Twitter began warning about the growing problem before news started surfacing but unfortunately I am considered quite the 'negative Nancy' until things came to a head. I am approaching this project very slowly to make sure members understand what it represents and what it does not. I am also being careful to make sure that nothing I am presenting still 'quacks like a duck (security)' even though it isn't called a 'duck' (security). There are grey areas still for me and some risks which while I am uneasy about seem acceptable, however I will be very proactive here as the scene matures rather than hide in loopholes. In short, I am crowd funding the idea and rewarding supporters with 'tokens' (colored coins) that give them exclusive access to the infrastructure & services and many perks/rewards for helping me realise this. These are not securities, do not currently represent a stake in a company, nor do they guarantee profit-sharing or a return. I want to provide legal value to the coins, I want to build the systems around them and promote the technology, and I want to license and regulate myself to grow this project to full potential for everyone involved for many years - I do not want to end up in trouble with the law. So there are things I can and am happy to promise, and there are things I will not guarantee. The legalities section of the whitepaper heavily expands on this paragraph with a lot of referenced material, but please ask away.

from OP