You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: How to get your free BEOS

in #bitshares3 years ago

Interesting idea, but after the AriseBank scandal (which, if I remember correctly, you promoted), I'm hesitant to ever send my tokens anywhere. How does someone retain full control if they have to send them to a gateway? Is it some kind of smart contract or something where only the owner controls the private keys? Where can this be audited? Can you describe exactly how the private key control of these assets works?

Sort:  

You don't remember correctly. i argued for a fair hearing against AriseBank fudsters and the lynch mob. It turns out they were all wrong as as i suspected. the SEC dropped all charges because there was no fraud or wrong doing of any kind. Now the FBI is shamefully pursuing a few lame charges about mis-statements (deliberate misunderstandings of every day expressions) that would normally involve a slap on t he wrist. You clearly haven't followed the case and continue to spread guilt by association FUD.

i have another article in the works, delving into the details, Stay tuned.

I look forward to reading more. The write ups I saw seemed pretty straight forward with evidence, not just FUD. Hearing the main charges were dropped certainly changes the story. Based on all the things I read and saw, I’d be quite surprised to find out the project was completely legitimate. I’m always keeping an open mind, so I look forward to hearing the whole story from your perspective.

Have you considered that there was going to be enormous political, and other, pressure brought to bear to halt the release of a financial system and uncensorceable distributed internet not under the control of entrenched regulators? Has the evidence that you say you saw in write ups been tested by you and/or courts for truthfulness? Even your using the word "evidence" rather than allegations is, in its own small way, adding to the enormous FUD that was brought to bear on the project.

I've been in the space for more than 5 and a half years. I've seen quite a few scams come and go. I've also seen my share of false accusations. And yes, I also appreciate how those trying to disrupt the current system will come under attack. When you've seen as many scams defended as I have (and the number of people hurt by them), then the skepticism has to go both ways. I came to my conclusions based on the posts I read and the responses to them I saw. The posts included facts and information, not just fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

allegations: a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It would not be accurate for me to describe the things I read as without any proof at all. That said, it's also quite possible the evidence brought forth was either incorrect or inconclusive. I look forward to hearing more details from those closer to the story.

I also have been in the space for a long time - since well before the first alts came out - approaching 8 years now. I have not only seen many scams come and go, I have personally been burned by some of them. I have also seen good projects flounder because of unproven accusations.

Let's face it, Dan Larimer is still widely being accused of being a scammer. Plenty of accusations even of bitcoin being a scam are still floating around. Although it was an early technology and probably cannot scale or do what newer technologies can do that does not mean that it was or is a scam (that being said, there are many ways to use it in a scam).

And I have most definitely seen people (some of whom you probably will have heard of) make false accusations and spread innuendo to take out a competitor or for other reasons . Just because we are in crypto, it does not stand to reason that the human foibles in the legacy spaces have been left behind.

So what I think Stan has asked all along is that the presumption of innocence, unless allegations have been proved in court, apply equally for everyone. I think that is a reasonable request. This is important because even stipulated "facts" can fit into several different theories and it is up to a court to decide which fits the hypothesis best (beyond a reasonable doubt).

That's fair enough, but what about if those involved have criminal records (Rice is mentioned as being "on probation for felony theft and tampering with government records" in the SEC report)? At what point does previous behavior predict future behavior? Stan is telling me "the SEC dropped all charges", but this post from 10 days ago says Rice is facing 120 years in prison.

When they claim to have a trading AI that can distribute "daily profits," you're telling me your bullshit meter doesn't go through the roof? So many scams in this space have claimed this exact thing and fooled and harmed so many people. There is no magic trading AI bot that can guarantee profits and, according to point 5 in the SEC summary document, no FDIC-insured bank either. If someone who was convicted previously is caught in what looks like a lie, at what point should we drop the presumption of innocence?

I'm trying to find what's real here. We all have to take responsibility for protecting this industry or the government thugs will try to justify their own violence and destructive regulation as a way to "protect us from ourselves." We have to be responsible to ask tough questions and not promote things which have a high potential to harm people.

If AriseBank is really what they claim to be, that would be amazing and I would love to see them provide services outside of the existing Central Banking cartel. Based on what I've seen from them and the way they've responded to criticisms, I'm not convinced they are trustworthy at this point. Again though, I'm keeping an open mind.

Check this out and read between the lines
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@stan/dallas-returns-who-framed-jr

I'm not trying to spread FUD because I'm bored. I'm trying to have a serious discussion about all of us in this industry regulating ourselves and protecting people from fraud. I won't repeat my reply to @onceuponatime here, but you can read it yourself.

My intention is not to attack you. My intention is to understand what is real and what is bogus and better understand the level of due diligence you personally do before promoting something. It seems to me, if AriseBank didn't lie, they certainly made some outrageous claims and stretched the truth to a worrying degree (API integrations are not partnerships, there is no way to guarantee daily profits via an AI trading bot, the SEC claims they had no FDIC cover ever, etc, etc).

My understanding of your principles indicates we're on the same page as to not wanting government involved in regulating any of this. That means we all have to take responsibility for regulating ourselves, disclosing our own involvement in projects, and addressing valid concerns openly without hostility.

If you read the ACTUAL evidence in PACER for the SEC case, rather than the news media drivel, you would never have even went down this line of questioning with the assumptions you have. Because, the real evidence introduced into court refutes nearly every media article and FUD that was passed around here and propogated by BTS community members.

If you have more complete information, can you please provide some links? I linked to a document from the SEC website itself. Why discourage me asking questions about things that don’t add up? As a community we have to self regulate. Please don’t assume what I would or would not have done based on the sources I’ve researched since Arise first came on the scene that you don’t know about. The promises made from day one didn’t seem plausible to me. I will not put my support behind anything which bends the truth or lies. Again, if there’s a better understanding of reality, please provide it so I can be better informed. If what Arise is doing really does follow through on the claims made and really can be an alternative to the corrupt violent legacy system, then I want to support it. That’s why I even care about this while many others have just moved on and written it off as a scam never to be heard of again.

Stan, I respect you and I believe you have the best interests of the community in mind, but this space is all about trust. When you say things like

"the SEC dropped all charges because there was no fraud or wrong doing of any kind"

but articles like this come out, it hurts trust:

AriseBank CEO Pleads Guilty to $4.2 Million Securities Fraud Involving ICO

When I tried to ask you questions about this, you resorted to attacking me personally with

"You clearly haven't followed the case and continue to spread guilt by association FUD."

I don't think this is how we should move forward to discover truth and build trust as a community. I'm still open to the possibility that they are completely innocent and this is yet another example of violent government locking up peaceful people. Again, I'm open to that. But to leave statements that the SEC dropped all charges when they clearly didn't seems to create more sense of distrust which helps no one.

Let's focus on ideas and build trustworthy reputations to support projects which will provide the most freedom and prosperity to the world.

No, he can't. Neither can I find any information on terradacs or any sensible white paper. To make it complete, you turn over your voting rights to michaelx.

And yes, if you voice your concern, they ban you from the official channels. Just like Arise and later on bitcoin latina.

People with Your attitude, funkit, will simply miss out due to natural selection We''ll be left with an ownership distribution of only fair minded people who like what we are doing. This is bY design.

Voting rights are exercised by trustees, not michaelx. If you want free tokens, we are presuming that you want deep integration with bitshares and will support a proxy to support our agenda. the true cost of your free tokens is support for that agenda.

i've never banned anyone. JOHN GOTTS behavior is reprehensible. Associating him with me is just more funkit FUD.

Would you say that many are called, but few are (self)chosen? Oh, wait, you already have :-)

lol, indeed.

Well, that was not a very nice thing to say. Natural selection has served me the opportunity to spot bullshit whenever I come across it. And the bullshit detector goes off every time I hear a fictous or non-fictious piece signed by you.

Even satoshi managed to put his vision in clear text in a whitepaper. Easy for anyone to reference and form an opinion on. But not so for the Jesus chain. Where hallelujah is the consensus.

Regarding the proxy thing, you are not clear on it and want to avoid it:

IMG_1250.PNG

So they "rely" on one man?

And who the fuck are the trustees? Are they elected? Hired? Appointed by god?

The problem here is that when the SEC wants to clamp down on anything blockchain, this is what they will look for.

My reaction is stay clear of this shenanigans. It smells power play long way and I fear it will harm my bts holdings.

Of course you don't ban anyone. When others do it for you. I never claimed it anyway.

Funkit, some of your statements were uncalled for. Plus Stan's not the kind of guy that would BS anyone. They mentioned it's a privately funded blockchain with more details to come. Just don't send your BTS if you don't like the sound of it. @stan, what's the deal with the proxy/voting thing?

Lol... have you ever heard of arise bank?

If you muttered a word of the numerous inconsistencies that sold that project, you were condemned to hell by none other than @stan himself.

Have you ever heard of the adventure bitcoin latina? Gods gift to blockchain and spearheaded by, yes you guessed it: @stan. Until it backfired.

The thing is, this is a cheap way to control substantial voting rights in bitshares. Probably a controlling interest is the goal.

My statements are designed to make you and others think. And since you obviously have not understood the real goal, it is about time you open your eyes.

This isn't a private chain, it is a theft of your voice in bitshares. If it was a clean fork, I would not have bothered.

By the way, I don't even think @stan wants to elaborate on who your vote goes to. Hence the "fictional" theme.

Glad you bring up these points. You are right, they ban people from the channels if they do not share their vision. (Note: who specifically does the banning I don't know. Multiple people have that right, but it does happen.) After BitCoin Latina and after Arise a very healthy dose of skepticism in due here. All the evidence of involvement is on on the blockchain. And that evidence speaks volumes.