Quote from: Spoetnik on June 24, 2016, 04:41:25 AM

EDIT:
I sure as hell don't think clandestine sub-groups of the US Govt or NWO "MADE" Bitcoin.

So who in hell had the $millions it cost to develop Bitcoin to risk on some unproven decentralized concept?

Take yourself back to 2007 or 2008 when the first stages of development likely began. Not many investors would have had any confidence that an electronic money scheme could work. Chaum's ecash had failed.

Heck even years later after Bitcoin was launched, 10,000 BTC was only exchangeable for a pizza. Hindsight is 20/20 vision. Try to really put yourself back 8 years and think who would've invested $millions in creating Bitcoin?

And look at what Bitcoin is designed to disrupt economically. And look how Bitcoin's economics was intentionally designed to become centralized on mining farms. And don't tell me that Satoshi didn't know that because not only did he write that he expected that, but Nick Szabo had also written years before that ASICs would take over any such scheme.

This is the same as when I got banned for speaking out against Ethereum (wonder who paid off the mods for that one?). The capacity for delusion and ignoring basic facts possessed by the guys on BCT knows no boundaries.

Yet according to Charles I am "batshit crazy". Yet he is one of the founders of this Ethereum debacle. He claims (in his recent video) he got kicked out of Ethereum because of he wanted stronger governance, stricter budgets, and more regulatory complaint ICO, yet no where has he admitted that I told him frankly that Turing-complete scripting would be a clusterfuck (in spite of gas limitations on how long a script can run).

Honestly back in those days I politely told Charles that I couldn't start a project with him at that time. Because frankly speaking I could see he was going to stuff any project with too many mouths to feed instead of hunkering down and focusing on the work to be done. So I kindly told him, "I am not ready to do some big ICO thing, go forth without me". So now Charles is this big TedTALK personality and I am batshit crazy. Ain't it nice how it works out that way. We also learned in Charles' recent video that he is the one who hooked up the Chinese money with the ProtoShares ICO.

Let's not forget that recently kushti (and Charles' company) were trying to re-start my proof-of-diskspace concept that I had invented in 2013 and had abandoned because I realized it was insolubly flawed. Perhaps they are pissed off because I explained to them again that was a flawed direction for them to not pursue. Maybe they intended to raise a lot of money again with a flawed technology.

Charles, so who is "bat shit crazy" here?

Be careful with your mouth Charles. I've respected the confidence of other things you've told me. Don't push me. I empathized with you. I never thought you were like this. Now I know.

Are you pissed off because I criticized Russian scammers in the thread you started about how WAVES was using your company assets without your permission? (and no it doesn't mean I discriminate any ethnicity, cripes!) Cripes I supported you in that thread also. And now we see that maybe WAVES has already scammed.

Quote from: iamnotback on June 24, 2016, 02:25:04 AM

Quote from: coinbiz on June 23, 2016, 11:46:28 AM

40% of Waves ICO BTC Withdrawn! For What?

I didn't read the thread. I am just responding to the Subject title quoted above in bold text. I am NOT accusing anyone of anything. I am speaking hypothetically below.

The problem with ICOs is the developers can take out a loan, buy the ICO from themselves, thus creating the illusion that they raised more money than they did. But of course they need to pay the loan back. So tracking the BTC raised from an ICO is apparently a necessary condition for ICOs, but it still doesn't resolve the issues below.

Buying the ICO from themselves allows manipulation:

1. They own a large % of the supply which they can withhold from the float to drive the price up. They use this as margin so they can take out options contracts to apply highly leveraged price manipulation.

2. If this buying is visible during the ICO process, this can drive up demand for the ICO.

And then you posted this in thread I started about the potential legal quagmire for Vitalik and Tual, which sure seemed like another attack on me:

Quote from: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 08:15:07 PM

Quote from: charleshoskinson on June 18, 2016, 07:28:03 PM

Nothing to do with US laws. Hahaha hahaha, God you're funny. Best joke I've heard all day. Look up US Securities treaties

Who are you addressing this to? Is this addressed to bathrobehero or to me or to the person I quoted in the OP?

I have not made reference specifically to USA law. I am quoting in the OP about common law as it pertains to contracts. There are many common law countries on earth.

The point I am making is that when class action lawsuits are pressed (in the case of the potential security), that is often when securities regulators are compelled to become involved (at least in the USA and I don't know about other countries but I presume they have some securities regulation also).

Ethereum and the DAO I presume are held by people in many nations on earth, so laws can filed in any of those nations.

...snip...

But again, I wasn't focusing solely on the USA jurisdiction.

And it was hilarious when you subsequently a day later used my legality thoughts (from entire thread quoted) in your "Thoughts on the DAO" blog post.

So then maybe you were pissed off, because I responded to that thread you started by disagreeing with talk about needing governance and all that jizz and stated the real issue is "NO FORKS!":

Quote from: iamnotback on June 23, 2016, 04:55:13 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 21, 2016, 06:38:05 PM

Charles, I don't think you sufficiently emphasized Bruce Fenton's points. You provided a link that seems lost in a sea of the mix of historical storytelling with a smidgen of your self-aggrandizing verbiage, so I doubt most readers even read what Bruce wrote.

Crypto is Not Politics

I keep reading arguments about how The Will of The People should decide. And how this is the only fair and equitable way. And I am here to say this is 100% retarded bullshit and any one who repeats it (and nonchalantly dismisses this!), is retarded.

What distinguishes the intention of Satoshi's block chain invention from the world we had before it, is that it eliminates politics. The technical reason is because due to the Nash equilibrium, then no one (not even mining nodes) have any fucking control.

If we destroy the Nash equilibrium with a 51% attack (aka fork) by not honoring the decentralized protocol, then we fall into a no-man's land of ambiguous interpretation and the brutality of the majority.

It is as simple as that. Either we choose to honor the code and protocol, or we go back to the depressing clusterfucked world we have before Satoshi.

Now the other problem is that BitCON is also becoming centralized because of economies-of-scale in mining. We haven't yet perfected Satoshi's invention. But that should not deter us from our ideals.

If you support forks, you violate everything Satoshi tried to do for the world.

No forks! No Blockstream forks either! Offer proof-of-burn if you want to propose new features on a new block chain, so that people are autonomous with their money.

And any arguments about empathy and intent in contract law are up against moral hazard which leads to the aforementioned clusterfuck of brutality. Don't reward retarded speculators for not doing due diligence and their derelict incapable developer idols, because they carry the mental affliction of those who want the clusterfucked world that existed prior to Satoshi's invention.

No forks!

Quote from: http://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-response-dao-kill/

Another argument made in favor of forking is that consensus is created "by the community", that "the miners can vote". This is even more subtle and misleading. Miners are not meant to be the final arbiters of transactions and contracts. By design, they are supposed to be dumb slaves of the protocol rules. A dumb lottery validating transactions according to deterministic rules.

If they need to employ good judgment, we are at the mercy of their good sense.

It comes down to is this. If smart contracts must be interpreted by humans for their "intent" instead of by code for their programming, then smart contracts cannot be autonomous and automatic, and instead can be retroactively reversed by the community, the courts or governments.

If this is the case, it's hard to see what value smart contracts actually have, which means that it's hard to see that ethereum should have any value at all.

The only way for ethereum to be able to recover from this event and thrive in the future is for it to stick to its principles.