Good job Tom. Easycoin is going to be great!

Exactly. They don't want stability, but some might want low risk investments. Low risk =| artificial stability. I love the irony of trying to make something low risk in Bitcoin, considering Bitcoin's current nature of being through-the-roof-high-risk. Mastercoin at it's current state is not economically viable and would be doomed from the start as bytemaster and others painfully have tried to explain over ten folds of posts.

Combined with the above mentioned vital faults in the white paper, the funds being funneled directly into his "private" Bitcoin address and how the project was rushed along spawned the initial scam accusations.

Seems overvalued at $15m as a startup. Unless some oversight over market research, company valuation reasoning, budget and other operational details are shared I can't see it's even worth half of current claimed value.

You could also get in trouble selling currency...... Either way your personal 'situation' is irrelevant and unprofessional to use as a bargaining chip.

Anyway, I've voiced my criticism and you've made it clear that you see no problem proceeding as is and have no intention of addressing the serious issues raised in a reasonable way.

I think that goes without saying.

No, they most certainly don't . You're using your wife as a bargaining chip. You seem to forget that you're not dealing with experienced investors. You've set up a system where there's no accountability for MasterCoin's finances and you've rushed the fundraising along before a proper detailed plan is explained. No investor worth one's salt would touch this.

I still think you're under-qualified. When this falls apart either because you can't put it together in the first place or the house of cards falls your reputation is ruined.

You're negotiating against your own wife?? Do you even realize how insanely mixed your role is in this? I honestly find it hard to take you or MasterCoin seriously if you paid yourself any salary at all.

You point out that you'd lose equally as much as other "investors" (purchasers would be a more fitting term). You're essentially controlling expenses and your own salary which you "withdraw" from the exodus address. If you work on this for 6 months and return 50 % of all funds you have not lost  anything because those funds are withdrawn for your own personal use, claimed as "salary".

Just because you say a speculative attack wont happen does not make this an economically sound protocol. You're either knowingly or ignorant to the fact that you're setting up a game of musical chairs for everyone involved, with a twist where you've guaranteed yourself a chair.

I think you're economically under-qualified to lead this project. You've mixed your role on every side of the project which means this is de facto a premined-equivalent altcoin, leeching off the Bitcoin network. You still dodge the hard questions and appeal to greed in half of your posts.

That's not exactly true though. Sent coins could be returned and relaunch MasterCoin later.

I'm not sure if you were initially referring to my point 1, but he could also relinquish control over the exodus address to someone overseeing the development and integrity of MasterCoin. This wouldn't necessarily change anything you mention. I would assume if that was the case developers should be hired and I'm not entirely sure he wants to put his entire bitcoin wealth at the same risk as everyone else who already sent.

This obviously disregards any other controversial claims in his white paper.

It doesn't add to the conversation because it's basically the same points I've written elsewhere, only more way more confrontational. I was probably lumped with spiral_mind and he has not deleted my later posts so I see no point in trying to fault him for that now. I would rather that the discussion went on with what's already in the thread.

The reddit thread says "[removed]", does it not? There's a possibility that a moderator removed it, but I assumed he did. I don't know. I think part of the problem is that it suddenly "launched" and asked for funds that he might have got a bit overwhelmed.

I've had 2 of my posts deleted from this thread and I made no claims of scam, but I admit one was a tad harsh. I first read the reddit post and his white paper, then went on to read this thread. The "cesspool of ignorance" remark combined with everything else raised the red flags for me. I think he wanted maximum exposure and I think it's fair to expect him to respond appropriately and address the issues raised.

That's the main of several issues I have against his project.

1) He controls the "exodus" address which means any bitcoins he sends is still in his own control and not at risk of being lost even if MasterCoin fails.
2) There's no explanation of what the expected expenses are. Is it salary for developer(s)?
3) In his white paper, he tries to appeal to greed and how important it is to get in "early". He wants investments/donations (don't know what to actually call it) to be sent quickly and rewards early bitcoins with more "MasterCoins". Why? Seems like cheap sales tactics to me. Let the product sell on its own merits.
4) Even if this turned out to work properly at all, he controls majority of the MasterCoins (so far).
5) He refutes all above mentioned criticism as "anti-capitalism" and "egalitarian". Which is misdirection from the actual criticism. It's the warped risk/reward ratio and circumstances of this being handled and misrepresentation under "project development".


It seems very rushed and he claims to have been working on this for a long time. It really doesn't matter if he initially had this idea in 2009 or 2013. Provided content or any proof of concept seems ... lacking. He went on to disregard reddit users because it's a "cesspool of ignorance" and deleted his own thread. He did not provide any insightful information to the criticism he met there. He danced around every reply. He's essentially giving himself a free pass if this fail because he has written a "disclaimer" and that he promises the return what funds remain at the point of the failure. So he could essentially give this a go for a 6 months period and return half of the funds and keep the rest? He would still keep 100 % of what he put in and 50 % of everyone else's.

I disregard the escrow issues raised, as there are other people more suited than me to address it. I don't expect him to quit his job, but I just don't understand why he's in such hurry to get funds sent to him. Or why he thinks it's necessary to use, what I consider, cheap sales tactics. He posted this in "Project Development", but in reality he's raising funds before any proof of concept.

Personally this raises huge red flags. This whole thing seems out of touch of reality. But maybe that's just me. I think this will inevitably be the downfall of this project before it even starts.

Good job. I wish every customer was as precise and calm in their correspondence with customer support / or any company in direct contact with customers.

I'm wondering if Paypal is starting to see a pattern and getting ready to sever ties with BFL. Even though Paypal gets a lot of flak by the Bitcoin community, it's nice to see them follow through on a case like this.

I agree that I doubt he's outright scamming. I think he genuinely wants to make this work.  He's gonna have to realize that when he go on a mass delete spree he will agitate people. His own money he's putting up is safe. There's virtually no risk for him to outright lose money and he expects the same return for his money.

I wish he had presented his ideas and gone back to the drawing board as opposed to launching it. He's even saying that he thinks he #1 reason this might not work is if someone puts something out before him. Someone pointed out that he went from v.0.7 to v.1.0 without much change in the paper.

It's very rushed because he's afraid he wont be first, and all other concerns are ignored or downplayed. 

I agree, but it starts to add up on everything else.

While I personally don't care about the sock puppet account accusations, it's quite clear that you're removing any criticism from your own thread. You've "launched" (put up an address for people to send you bitcoins) a severely flawed and rigged project.

Hopefully more people will see this and not send you any more bitcoins. EVEN if you're trying to make this at the best of your abilities the whole thing is useless because you control the "exodus" address and you used it to buy with your own bitcoins at zero risk. At the very least you should put up the same risk as anyone else when you're asking us to "trust" you based on a short written paper. And how about some transparency?

And calling your paper "the second bitcoin whitepaper" That's quite the hubris.

You claim to be running a crowdfunder, but what I fail to understand is what you expect to use these funds on. You try to calm down concerned people by saying you're also buying a lot of mastercoins, but you do realize I too can send a lot of bitcoins to another wallet which I control, and still maintain control?

There seems to be a rush in getting people to send you money and several flaws in your paper. I'm gonna have to sit this one out. I wish you had waited and developed something beforehand.

This is going to be great for my imaginary asic, Serraz. I support this pool.

- Bogart

4.2 mhash (scrypt)

Yes, and they will probably sort out licensing in the US somehow.

I wouldnt sit on all this altcoins. I recommend dumping