watchtowers all by themselves have always been considered insanity. now, layering on an altcoin? geez, devs gotta dev (and get paid for it even if it means an altcoin) in full force.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Does Amaury Sechet cause everything to slowly collapse around him by destroying relationships?
People honestly still think he can direct a ledger's development to become global money?
This is Bitcoin Unlimited's benevolent dictator?
People honestly still think he can direct a ledger's development to become global money?
This is Bitcoin Unlimited's benevolent dictator?
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
He may want to keep them for himself. Or dump it on Coinex. Hard to tell.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
layering on an anon altcoin. some people are not paying attention.
can't find many reasons . . .
the threats against BTC are credible. in spite of the opportunity cost, prudent, "loyal" BTC miners ought to be testing how much hash is prepared to defend the BSV chain. they should be concerned with determining what proportion of the ~92% SHA256 hashrate currently mining BTC is a fifth column. the original game theory according to which it is not in the interest of a miner to control majority hash of a given network is not presently in force.
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
Regarding CSW's lastest blog post: https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/monetary-law-and-blockchains/
He accuses Coincenter to misquote FinCEN's guidance, to prove his point he refers to Section 4.5.1 (a) about anonymizing services provider.
But the Coincenter's article is about 4.5.1 (b) Anonymizing software provider.
https://coincenter.org/link/non-custodial-cryptocurrency-mixer-developers-are-not-subject-to-u-s-regulation
For reference, FinCEN's guidance :
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN CVC Guidance FINAL.pdf
CoinCenter's article is factually correct. CSW is attacking them wrongly.
FinCEN's guidance doesn't support his claim about developers being at risk, quite the contrary.
Is this dishonesty or a mistake?
He accuses Coincenter to misquote FinCEN's guidance, to prove his point he refers to Section 4.5.1 (a) about anonymizing services provider.
But the Coincenter's article is about 4.5.1 (b) Anonymizing software provider.
https://coincenter.org/link/non-custodial-cryptocurrency-mixer-developers-are-not-subject-to-u-s-regulation
For reference, FinCEN's guidance :
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN CVC Guidance FINAL.pdf
CoinCenter's article is factually correct. CSW is attacking them wrongly.
FinCEN's guidance doesn't support his claim about developers being at risk, quite the contrary.
Is this dishonesty or a mistake?
Last edited:
>CoinCenter's article is factually correct. CSW is attacking them wrongly.
FinCEN's guidance doesn't support his claim about developers being at risk, quite the contrary.
i agree with your analysis.
FinCEN's guidance doesn't support his claim about developers being at risk, quite the contrary.
i agree with your analysis.
It's reached the point where it is actually safer to keep your coins on a trustable exchange than in your own wallet. On an exchange you have instant liquidity, but coins in your wallet could be trapped and have limited liquidity. The market is definitely not pricing in liquidity risk here as it usually does for other assets, but this is likely due to the fact that most of the BTC market consists of speculators who do not actually use Bitcoin.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Is the bitcoin.com wallet a software of a software provider or a service of a service provider?
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Not really.
What fincen says: developers of software which is used for mixing are no money transmitter.
What coincenter says: wallet developers of wassabi or samurai are legal. This would be OK, if the devs just provide pure software. But imho - I don't know exactly - the devs of wassabi and / or samurai earn from mixing, participate / provide service for it.
Now coincenter days 'non custodial' services are exempt, which is a bit far of from 'developers are free' , especially when you read the part about dapps in the fincen paper (are non custodial interface provider, but fall under regulation).
Things like cash shuffle or join market are in between .. I guess permanently providing mixing liquidity with electron is not safe to be exempt.
Bte: I wonder if moneybutton will need a licence and do kyc ..
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
One of main CSW's leitmotiv is that Anoncoins such as Monero will be banned and that their developpers will be prosecuted.
CSW try to rely on this guidance to defend his point about "nothing but BSV is legal" but this doesn't work well since FinCEN guidance doesn't support this standpoint at all.
And the fact that CSW is angry at people who argue based on the FinCEN guidance reflects poorly on CSW.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Yes, he sometimes says that being part of a distributed community of developers doesn't protect from law. I can't remember him saying that monero devs will get into trouble, though.
CSW is angry on everybody, so no wonder that he is angry on CoinCenter too. He also seems not to have to time to read everything penibly, I guess he mostly flies over the things and pushed most toward where his theories / ideas are.
I also guess he is not pedantic with the words legal and illegal. For him its a high-level, abstract concept, in which things which are legal today are illegal, because in the past conceptually similar things have become illegal.
Also he doesn't seem to sharply discriminate between "illegal" and "regulated to death". For example, it seems that Monero or other privacy coins will not be made illegal in the west - at least not as long as the nation states keep control over financial systems - but there are indications that it will be regulated to a level which makes it impossible for many exchanges to handle it. The small number of exchanges left will be forced to closely watch customers with XMR in and outflow, they will be perfect honeypots, and the monero users will face a growing scrutinity to proof exchanges where they have their funds from. CSW mentioned this when he said that using monero doesn't protect, but violates your privacy ...
You should also note that he wrote this blog post at a time in which his kleiman lawsuit becomes increasingly uncomfortable (at least this is what's my impression). I wonder how he finds the time (and nerves) to write such blog posts. I would be somehow ironic, if CSW ends up with refusing to accept US law, after all that "law is law, we are friendly to law and government" talk. Would confirm my good old thesis that you are best in doing something when you demand the oposite (like the German SPD decreasing welfare states and so on).
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@Christoph Bergmann
See Richard Schultz' analysis;
https://www.yours.org/content/dr-craig-wright-confirms-he-mined-the-first-70-bitcoin-blocks-6d06fdd34fca#
Law is not US law.
I don't think CSW want to settle the Ira Kleiman dispute out of court in a mediation. And I don't think he will accept USA as jurisdiction.
See Richard Schultz' analysis;
Source:
https://www.yours.org/content/dr-craig-wright-confirms-he-mined-the-first-70-bitcoin-blocks-6d06fdd34fca#
Law is not US law.
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
In hus penultimate blog post ( https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/feign-madness-but-keep-your-balance/ ) :
What developers fail to see is that being part of a social network or an open-source project does not exempt you from law. All it does is remove the protections of a corporate structure. As a developer, you can be liable for the actions of other developers in the group. The same has occurred before, and actions on distributed developer groups including criminal cases date to the 1990s.
As per 4.5.1 (b) Anonymizing software provider, this seems pretty clearly not the case concerning developers.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Well, my thinking is that the last rally died out before real pain could be felt so there are a lot of people who don't really understand (and given the censorship on Theymos controlled forums, that's understandable) what's actually at issue here. Until it really starts hurting, the usual speculation pressures and FOMO still apply.