Quote from: tokeweed on June 05, 2017, 03:20:28 AM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2017, 05:14:52 AM

Quote from: tokeweed on June 03, 2017, 03:54:57 AM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 02, 2017, 04:33:22 AM

Quote from: tokeweed on June 02, 2017, 02:47:42 AM

Anyway, thinking about it more, yes we know the SEC will come down and get somebody arrested, yes some new regulation to define what an ICO will come for sure, but is regulation in crypto what really want? I mean I like Chris DeRose, I think he's great and he's someone to be listened to in the space, but did he really have to try and stir up the hornet's nest?

I think having a community that is against scammy use cases of cryptocurrency is a good thing. But we don't even have to argue about whether regulation of ICOs "in crypto" is what we really want -- securities law already exists and applies here. There's nothing magical in blockchain technology that is going to stop a scammy, ICO-creating CEO from being arrested for committing securities fraud. It's *going* to happen. Do we want to be associated with scammers, or do we want our community to self police, educate, and put more of a distance between the good uses for cryptocurrency and the bad uses for cryptocurrency, and do it on the front end?

Crypto will always be associated with illegal activities and nefarious endeavors, nothing will change that. Even without any ICO, Bitcoin is already associated with illegal drugs, ransomware, pedophilia, illegal gambling (probably mostly under aged gambling too) and lots of other stuff. So what's a another questionable use case like ICO investing/gambling? It's nothing... Just another one of those things you can do with Bitcoin.

All of that *is* associated with Bitcoin (well, ICOs more with Ethereum at the moment), but it doesn't mean that as Bitcoiners, we are somehow obligated to be *against* the government working to find ways to stop things such as ransomware, pedophilia (well, child porn), or ICO scams.

That's true, and I know he means well. But his bias against Ethereum and ICO's is showing here. If he wants to write an open letter to the SEC then I would like to see him to write an open letter to the FBI asking them to put a halt on all the drug trafficking going on in the darknet. Those same Bitcoins used in the ICO's are also used on drugs and it puts minors at risk in hurting themselves.

Do you get the point of what I'm trying to say here?

Not necessarily. I think he is against ICOs being built on top of Bitcoin, too. He's also fully allowed to not be in agreement with the government on everything, without being a hypocrite. In other words, he may believe that drug trafficking on the darknet is largely good for the world, but ICOs are largely bad for the world. And, I suspect he *would* be supportive of the government trying to find ways for minors to not buy drugs on the dark net. But he's also allowed to pick the issues where he feels he can make the most impact. He's not obligated to come out with a public statement on every potential problematic effect of Bitcoin for him to remain consistent.