Clif High's prediction for a high VERI price on July 24th isn't looking so good, perhaps the web bot data actually suggested a strong drop. Sucks for me, I put a lot into VERI this past week.

People who have been buying the VERI tokens that a "hacker" sold on EtherDelta should consider that Reggie may have just lost his financial incentive to continue the project. Then again, what else would Reggie actually do after investing so much into this? We'll soon see the core of his passions by whether he endures.

Hmm, what kind of organization would have the ability to hack 2FA twice? Who would have the incentive to slam VERI just a day before high price expectations set by Clif? It seems an individual hacker would have waited a day in case of higher prices (assuming that he/she follows Clif High). It seems a corporate or government agency would have the most incentive to slam VERI a day before high expectations. I do not presume that any government actually works for our interests, neither collective nor individual. May this be designed as yet another excuse for our masters to crack the whip for more regulation of our affairs "for our own good"?

Another possibility should also be considered. Do we know if Reggie actually had more than hopes and dreams to sell us? We might not know because only people that signed an NDA were allowed to know the details. A scenario that investigators must consider is that Reggie invented a hacker story for a token liquidation, tax write off, and reasonable excuse to exit the project. Which erc20 wallets use 2FA? Why wasn't Reggie using a hardware wallet for amounts so great? Hopefully Reggie didn't pull a Danny Brewster (NEOBEE) on us as he joins his relatives in Jamaica with couple million worth of crypto. Such concerns come from painful experience.

Andreas Antonopoulos is one of a couple advocates of NEOBEE that lost some credibility when Danny Brewster had lied and disappeared. I wonder if Clif High, Bix Weir, and Joe (jsnip4) will likewise lose followers from this. The Populous token already lost a lot of value along with VERI. The elevated prices of many markets could be affected by this theft. Confidence has been shaken.

I suppose one positive is that more VERI would actually circulate if the project endures.

I wouldn't give progressives credit for hindsight. Collectivists always give the excuse "Socialism would have only worked if...". The only thing they seem capable of is seeing a better life and then slowly conforming it to their image (which of course destroys what grew the prosperity). Once it is obvious that they've consumed all the seed-crops then they blame a production deficiency and consume production rights too. It doesn't end until people see an opportunity to abandon the system entirely.

So it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government is responsible for defining who is a sophisticated investor? I question if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a security that government assumed the authority to regulate. Video game credits would probably fit their definition. It invites a question of why regulations are not being equally enforced. The consent of the governed authorizes government to apply force to provide for the defense of their rights. Read the third sentence of the Declaration of Independence to understand the rights that people retain and how to address grievances.

Much of government authority comes from defining the game. If you trade USD then you must... If you want to be listed as a security then you must... If you want X then you must Y... Bitcoin is special because it is an entirely new game.

Interesting, so it is clear then that the security of US citizens is being violated by the SEC and the SEC is willing to violate even national sovereignty to force their will--because they can.
 

If having options is a litigation risk then just have ONE option. Nobody will want to open two accounts just to have the ability to adjust their risk. People don't open a brokerage account for each security they own. Customers would find it inconvenient to pay bills from a balance that is split. If someone considers it simpler then consider you are solving what is likely to be a common issue by asking your customer to have two checkbooks, two ATM cards, two statements, two ledgers, etc.

Build your technology from the start so that an account has an allocation percentage. Make it as easy to adjust that percentage as is practical for you to implement. Consider that what your are providing is commodity-guaranteed banking and that every customer will have a different idea about which commodities are safer at the moment. You are providing a traditional bank as an alternative to risks from fractional reserve banking. Bitcoin shouldn't even need to be relevant; it is just one of the commodity choices.

The default should be an Euro-guaranteed account. You guarantee balances according to the commodity choices. You back that guarantee with bank choices. It is like how my bank holds gold reserves or bonds to back customer deposits. Customers need not see any more options than they'd be comfortable with, but the point of using your bank is that they have a choice to have their money fixed to something other than fiat.

The risk is in investing your BTC in a business that you don't control. Use your BTC to start your own business related to bitcoin. Provide a solution. Satoshi showed how to implement a decentralized currency that can be used to limit organized theft. The need now is for a decentralized exchange. I'd hope that the closure of BTCT.co would inspire a dozen projects to address that problem.

You can track progress by address 14yTynjmSe5bsRGykDaaCL5bm2pxiEfcqE. On 9/24 there were 3,101,203 shares added to the previous balance of 2,831. The balance has been worked down to 1,917,088. The transfers appear 38% complete. 9/24 transfers were from 17:20 to 18:00. 9/25 transfers were all day from 10:27 to 18:24 (unknown TZ diff). There was only one transfer 9/26 at 19:12. It is possible that some of the remaining shares are his, so it may be more than 38% complete.

There are mature industries that specialize in building hardware. It had always seemed odd to me that three people could design a chip and mount that chip to a custom board in a way that somehow gives an advantage over the efforts of the experienced companies. If you meet Ken you realize that he has an unorthodox genius with a honest determination. Gerald brings a diverse technical understanding that far exceeds normal. It seemed plausible that these guys could somehow grab this opportunity before experienced companies realized the potential.

The experienced competition had enough capital to keep their efforts private. Two companies are showing better delivery odds now. ActM suddenly became a laggard on costs, marketing, and performance. ActM's following comes from it being a company that small investors can easily buy into. ActM investors can buy into both hardware and at-cost mining at the same time. There may be a timing advantage too, but that could easily disappear when difficulties are encountered. Fortunately eASIC's technology can speed ActM though some of the design flaws. ActM still has a chance to come out stronger than the competition, but I judge those as long odds now.

LABCOIN and BFL have soured the market with undelivered promises. I recall Ken anticipating that BFL would repeat their past delivery failures. LABCOIN looked like it would beat ActM on timing but technical difficulties turned into prolonged silence. It is a predictable cultural reaction, but it was a silence that was too similar to that of ActM's after NRE was raised. ActM has not reached the development stage that LABCOIN claimed. Difficulties are to be expected in anything so technical. A concern is that Ken's silence would allow the market price to crumble much as LABCOIN currently leaves investors with undue levels of risk with investments subject to inference from a series of vague updates that each come too late. My intuition tells me that Ken would be more open about delays and flaws than LABCOIN is, but I also perceive he cares enough about investors that trolls affect him personally. He went quiet when attacks and threats became personal, and yet he still allows known trolls to post to his new thread. Ken is a nice guy, and that is being used against him.

Investors don't leave because there are technical difficulties or reasonable delays, they leave when behavior appears unpredictable and better opportunities emerge. Leaving ActM is more about finding a better portfolio balance. I still hope for ActM to succeed, but these are markets with little liquidity and I'm not likely to rebalance to again favor ActM.

Ken,

Glad to see you back on the forum responding to questions. For me it was too late though. I've met you and the rest of your team too. I talked with you for a couple hours and saw your excitement just prior to the eASIC announcement. I looked you in the eye and trusted you. I probably know you more than most of your investors. At one time I was one of the top five shareholders (on BF at least). It seemed like as soon as you got the NRE there was no need to keep people informed--and NDA was a poor excuse. The only time you spoke up was just after whales dumped shares. I knew ActM was not a scam, but I could not explain the silence. Watching the stress on the forum was irritating. AM hadn't given updates that I'd ever read and that was fine because it was a predictable pattern. ActM showed an inconsistent pattern, and that became a concern. At some point I finally decided that I'd had enough, and it no longer mattered to me what you'd return to say. Good news just became an opportunity to sell. I'm just a small ActM shareholder now and will likely hold here. NEOBEE looks more interesting. Very likely they won't have a forum presence or respond to every troll inspired fear. What they appear ready to offer is the predictability that markets value most. If you want to live by your motto of helping investors then start with being predictably honest and work toward profitability. The trolls weren't effective until (perhaps) they had gotten to you. Moderate their posts with a passion. We've all seen what happens when they get the run of the place.

Best of Luck

Jay Shore has a physical address somewhere around San Diego. I don't recall the city name anymore, but the only clue he'd left was a PO box that is likely disassociated with him. As someone posted, you can get the CA license plate number from the video. Jay was seen at the Bitcoin2013 conference giving a talk something about offshore hiding places, so expect that he is proud of his ability to elude you. He warned me about the quality of the law firm he has on call. The Wyoming address you'll find has thousands of businesses registered there, it is meant to shield him.

My experience with him was that he first stole about 90 bitcoins from me and after months he finally refunded all but about 15 BTC. I spoke with him a few times on the phone (he seemed to want to avoid having an email record). The numbers he called from were 949-951-3023 and 760-282-4529. Those numbers may no longer be his, so be polite until you can confirm. He'll stop taking your calls once he recognizes your number, so be prepared to just deliver a simple and polite message that will keep him wondering when justice will find him. You might have a lawyer make that call.

Jay is a slimy thief. Avoid doing business with Coinabul. If you are lucky then you'll get your coins within a month or two of ordering. It was about four months before I received some of the coins that I ordered, and by that time I was seeking to bring federal charges. He satisfied the obligation enough to limit my legal options. You can still get him on racketeering charges since he has done this to so many people. In my case he was taking currency conversion chances with the payment and it took him a while to make up his losses enough to refund most. I doubt his books would balance. He had wanted me to settle for half my money just a few weeks after my order, and fighting for more was difficult. He knows how much you'd have to spend on lawyers to pursue him and that he could pay just enough in the last moment to make you go way. The funny thing was that Jay acted like he was doing a favor by giving any money back, because the "terms of service" basically say that your only option is to bend over.

Since then I've purchased metals from Amagimetals.com and have never had a problem.

The interesting part of the graphs you showed is that on second look you notice that the bitcoin price is actually a predictor of what comes next for the NASDAQ chart. The bitcoin chart shows a downtrend of red before recovering, and the NASDAQ chart hasn't yet reached that downtrend. Compare each rise and fall one by one to see what I mean.

A currency with no current is a store of value just as an atom that sheds no electrons is still potential energy. Bitcoin is money, not a currency traded for a single commodity at the highest market price on a universal exchange. Bitcoin is not more or less dead whether a bitcoin can be sold for $4 USD or $265 USD. People tend to hoard coins as prices move up and they tend to spend coins as prices move down. Bitcoins are commonly exchanged for values that are unrelated to a fiat currency. The market would have "current" as it finds a balance between hoarding and spending.

To worship the devil involves denying the existence of God. It is kind of hard to worship the fallen angel Lucifer while at the same denying that angels and all of His creation was by evolution.

The US is in a post-Constitutional era. The rules are subjective now and easily redefined for expediency. No impeachment will happen because the next president will bend the rules like the current one. A precedent has stood for too long, and is not likely to change. Half the voters care more about what they'll get from a candidate becoming president than his character, integrity, or consistency. The other party does no better.

Why do you ask, are you intending to take my coins? If so, I guess you'll find out if I'm an unarmed fool. 

Code is not created all at once. He would have been determining the best rules to use by testing them. He likely had a computer crunching away for months to prove the difficulty that he later decided was best. His computer would have kept the lowest hash, and that was the best one to use for the genesis block.

We already have a viable currency. What we lack is respectful government. There is no need to modify bitcoin so that governments can infringe on people's rights. If having government intrusion has value then the government can launch their own cryptocurrency and see how many people they can force to use it. We don't need to help them.

You had an interesting idea about getting there first as perhaps a way to strengthen anonymity, but understand that an unjust government will take what they want once you've done the work for them.

The Mycelium Wallet for Android allows you to spend all or some amount from a private key (cold storage) to another public address. No need to waste the time associating the money with your normal accounts. It is an extremely useful feature that I wish all bitcoin wallets included.

Bitcoin is superior to fiat in every way, and that will be demonstrated over time. In that future situation it is seems unlikely that anyone would still be converting bitcoins to fiat to purchase things. Car owners would wish to convert their cars directly to bitcoin.

Then bitcoin traffic would be concealed within unrestricted traffic. Bitcoin transactions are small. Blockchain changes could be broadcast on ham radio.