Quote from: Heutenamos on August 29, 2016, 12:17:14 PM

Quote from: massnetwork on August 28, 2016, 11:42:39 AM

Quote from: Heutenamos on August 28, 2016, 10:57:11 AM

Quote from: pianist on August 26, 2016, 09:59:04 PM

◆ May 2017 Cricical mass reached

are you guys sure that "Cricical mass reached" is not a typo in the OP and as well as the whitepaper ?

It's also amazing to see the thread is self-moderated.

yeah, typo(

You guys are being so precautions about the legal stuff, everywhere 'we are not responsible' ,'you get no share in company' etc... and cannot even proof read the white paper with more than 20 members in the team ?

the image in the OP loll...If you think the value will increase thousands of times then why don't you people keep some coins for yourselves ?

If you don't hold any coins for the team then what forces you guys to work for better network or price/value ? You already got the benefits or the money/btc.

*** You guys are being so precautions about the legal stuff, everywhere 'we are not responsible' ,'you get no share in company' etc stuff... ***

Should there be a workable btc/crypto regulation in place, we use it. So far, we all lack it. According to Jared Marx, who is an attorney at Washington, DC law firm Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, "the development of this business practice in America has spawned yet another area of regulatory uncertainty in an industry where legal ambiguity is the norm: American federal securities regulation. While there are better and worse practices for making the case that a companys particular token is not a security, predictability and a general resolution of this issue is unlikely in the near term. The reason for persistent uncertainty on this question is that unlike other areas of law where legal ambiguity stems primarily from the novelty of cryptocurrency, here more generic questions of law remain open to debate. First, the fundamental federal laws regulating securities were passed during the Great Depression, so not only did Congress write the relevant rules in a paper-and-pencil world, but Congress wrote them with the belief that broad government control of markets was necessary to avoid another disaster like the 1929 crash. The statute is, therefore, expansive rather than carefully tailored. Second and this is what innovators looking for clarity should be understanding more deeply United States courts have created a system for identifying whether something is a security that is impressionistic rather than rule-bound. This means that barring clarification from the SEC; it is very difficult to predict with certainty how a court would rule on cryptographic token sales."