6 ms·

The whole thing is just a ball of insanity. I'm not sure what it is about cryptocurrency and ICOs, but it seems the representation is heavily populated with ins

• beager 9y ago
  I suppose that if cryptocurrency/ICOs have democratized investing, they have also democratized morally (and legally) ambivalent greed.
  • KGIII 9y ago
    Greed I can understand, the seeming insanity I can't. I'm not sure how many times I've seen stuff like, "They can't stop me!" That's pretty crazy, because it's well known that they can, and will, stop someone who gets their negative attention. They may not be able to fully prevent an activity, but they sure as hell can stop a person. Maybe the greed makes them insane? I dunno, psychiatry is not really my domain. I find it curious behavior.
    • beager 9y ago
      I can't speak to the psychology of it, but I imagine the same sort of invincibility complex exists for big movers in traditional business/finance/politics. We're just being made aware of it here now because of the democratization of the entire system.
      • sillysaurus3 9y ago
        For what it's worth, KGIII is mischaracterizing their position. In no way do they feel invincible. They're keenly aware of how vulnerable they are and are hyper-vigilant about their opsec. I'm pretty sure their #1 fear is to make a dumb mistake that gives away their identity. The idea that they think they're untouchable or that "They think that being nice is going to keep them from going to prison" is just flat-out a blatant misrepresentation of their words and persona. Also, this is amusing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15371053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15371053 >> It may sound crazy ... > I don't offer an opinion on your business methods, recovery methods, or even the morality. Followed by I'm no psychiatrist and a few Internet posts aren't enough to diagnose someone, but I'm pretty sure they are crazy. Not 'so crazy they might just get away with it' crazy, but 'should seek professional care' crazy. I suspect people are simply bothered by the idea that his venture could actually succeed, which manifests itself as "He's crazy." Yes, obviously you have to be a little nuts to go up against the full weight of the law. But there is method underpinning the madness, and he seems to be holding up his end of the bargain so far. He could've disappeared with the money and no one could trace him. We'll see if that happens, but until then it's worth keeping an open mind. It all depends whether he can execute and actually deliver the app.
        • KGIII 9y ago
          Their comment about how they won't get complaints and will be ignored by the SEC says they do believe they are invincible with regards to the SEC. They, themselves said it. That's not my mischaracterization, that's was in their reply. The SEC isn't going to care that people were happy with their sex purchases. No, they aren't even going to care a little bit. If he follows through on this, he's almost certainly going to prison. It's not sane. That's not rational thinking that causes harm to the individual. I may not know their diagnosis, but I can tell you that's not sane.
          • sillysaurus3 9y ago
            But it's not in their reply. That's not at all what they said: It's our view that the SEC part won't be what pushes us over the edge. 100% what we're doing is not legal, it's in our business plan. SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes. But if investors are OK, they won't be filing complaints and there will be less pressure to go after us. Not a defense! Just a delaying factor. Prosecution isn't free. Far easier to shut down ICOs that aren't operating as proper anonymous extrajurisdictional companies. They can go after us, but it's a terrible ROI for them. It's important to represent your opponent accurately. He's saying his biggest threat is law enforcement, not the SEC. And that makes sense: once he starts making headlines, which government entity will be the most motivated to catch him? The SEC, or the FBI? At no point did he insinuate that he could avoid SEC scrutiny by being nice.
    • csomar 9y ago
      It'll be an entertaining thing to watch, though. Natural Selection! The Feds/Sec will hammer the guys they can hammer. But with Natural Selection, is it possible that some guy out there escapes all the Feds?
• sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Ah yes, that guy. I've been following him for a little while. Lurk his slack channel. If you think he's going to jail, you may be underestimating him: https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-anonymity-and-other-techniques-815ee21c6da4 https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano... Do I think he is in it for the money? Oh yes. There's no doubt. But he clearly has the energy and drive to be creating something new. It's either a new kind of scam or a fundamentally-new type of enterprise, but either way, it's new. Very few people have used tor to forge a public persona that they use to influence a ton of people and spark debate about a central issue. Satoshi and maybe gwern. I am holding out hope that he's genuine, because as far as I know he's already received a ~crapton of money with his ICO and yet he's still here, still risking his neck. And at the end of it, maybe sex workers will end up with protection. Maybe the system will become regulated. I don't know whether it's a good thing or bad thing, but my point is that it could change things. And that, I think, is worth watching for. If he's genuine, his business model is the first public execution of the cyberpunk dreams presented in Snowcrash. Hopefully he doesn't get himself publicly executed, ha. On the other hand, yes, there is a high probability he's outright scamming everybody. If so, then I'll be a bit sad, but scams have existed since the beginning of time. The interesting thing here is that there's nothing fundamentally preventing this idea from being real the next time. It's theoretically possible! It wasn't possible before, and ICOs are the reason. If you think any of this is a defense of either ICOs in general or his actions in particular, you're misreading me. It's important to look objectively about what's going on and notice any new trends in the world. Especially when they're due to shifts in technology. EDIT: Interesting that no one is addressing the argument. Quite a radioactive idea.
  • KGIII 9y ago
    I make no comment about the morality. If you read the linked thread, you will see that I make absolutely no judgment about the morality of the business in question. In fact, morality hasn't anything to do with my statement. It's not an argument that I need to make, nor is it one I'm interested in making. In fact, it dilutes the conversation at hand. I believe that's colloquially known as a 'red herring.' No, my comment is that he is going to go to prison. My comment is that he has already opted to violate the law AND that he intends to break additional laws. My comment is that he not only is going to go to prison, he openly discusses his plans in public, completely ruining every possible legal defense he might have. My comment is that he is openly conspiring and mocking the legal system. My comment is that he is going to have his comments submitted in a court of law, or that there is a good probability that those comments will be read aloud and submitted into evidence at his trial. My comment is that he is very likely to find out how angry a judge gets when one mocks the legal system and announces intent to violate the law - and then carries through with it. My comment is that it isn't a very sane position to hold and that he should hire a lawyer. Your reply completely chooses to ignore this and, for some reason, tries to change the topic to a morality conversation. I am not sure why you'd do such a thing? I'm not sure why you think it matters. I'm not sure why you think it needs to be addressed when it is, quite pointedly, not the topic. I don't care who is having sex with whom, nor do I care if it is paid for - so long as there is consent. Even if I did care, it is not relevant to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is that they are going to go to prison and that they do not appear to be sane. I don't know you but, if you think his actions are reasonable, then I'd suggest you consider seeking council from a qualified mental health professional. That's not pejorative. Mental health issues are real and should be addressed before harm occurs. If you think they are reasonable, look at their replies where they insist they will commit more crimes and where they believe they are impervious to the law. Seriously, this is not meant to be derogatory. If you think they are reasonable and exhibiting rational behavior, you may wish to see a mental health professional. There is nothing good that can come from you ending up in prison beside them. You will not like prison. My last years as a Marine were spent working at a detention facility. Prison is not a nice place. That's kind of by design. Buying sex and intentionally defying the SEC are not good reasons to go to prison.
• the_stc 9y ago
  We are not doing an ICO. We are offering shares like any well-meaning enterprise should do. Anything less is disrespectful to investors. We are using blockchain fundraising because tech is good enough to give us enough privacy to operate. That's all. We are not some guys in a basement thinking blockchain & Javascript will fix sex worker problems.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• cavisne 9y ago
  I think its because they have unique beliefs, and a lot of positive reinforcement for these beliefs. Along the lines of what Naval Ravikant said recently, even the craziest ideas in crypto which failed completely would still be a net win for people at this point if they got paid in bitcoin/had enough of an interest in it to buy some a few years ago. Unlike the tech crash where the shares employees got in dud companies become worthless. The crypto community has a lot of people with (at least on paper) f*ck you money, and in a form where they arent really tied the legal system of any country.