A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
LOL
Dude, are you serious? You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t. NOT ONLY THAT, your last link is for a post you made where you essentially claim no changes to FTC are being thought of [which is partially true, but semantical in nature] and that you believe the community isn’t important. I want you to scroll up on this page and take a look at the TOPIC TITLE and then tell me again what it is we’re discussing.
I’m really glad you gave me that amazing breakdown of your qualifications for an ICO - but an IPO, and ICO are two VERY different things. Kickstarter/IndieGoGo is not the same as an IPO or an ICO. Why? Well, the reason is because donors do not gain share in any of the crowdfunding projects. This is how Kickstarter and similar sites can continue to function outside of regulatory framework [for now]. ICO’s are different than IPO’s primarily because they are not regulated, and hence often end up falling into a legal grey area. The “shares” are also not clearly defined, but I can see regulators seeing tokens/coins/shares of currency as essentially being the same as traditional shares. This is a new concept that hasn’t been clarified yet - but for heaven’s sake Kevlar, don’t [removed profanity] belittle me with your bullshit.
Finally, you must have missed the point of the plan entirely.
There is no plan. Please stop with the trolling.
Which is it dude? Is there a plan? Is there no plan? What the hell are we even talking about?!
-
Kevlar, you’re editing your posts to add new information after I’ve replied. Which makes things confusing. The final link you provided is a good start at basic explanations but still doesn’t really explain what exactly it is you guys are planning. I know it’s really clear in your head, and sometimes it’s hard to get it out - but you’re just going to have to listen to me when I say that I actually, honestly, really still don’t know what exactly it is you guys are thinking. I don’t think it’s a me problem - I think it’s a you problem.
-
I’m not pro or con any specific thing until I get an idea of what exactly it is that’s being proposed and **WHY - HOW - WHEN. **Until we get something that resembles and actual plan of action, especially the ICO, none of the insults being thrown around are worth their weight. And I’m not speaking of you. I am clearly speaking about anyone who insults intelligence on here and calls people liars and bad actors when they themselves have failed to provide the right information.
Kevlar, you’re editing your posts to add new information after I’ve replied. Which makes things confusing, the final link you provided is a good start at basic explanations but still doesn’t really explain what exactly it is you guys are planning. I know it’s really clear in your head, and sometimes it’s hard to get it out - but you’re just going to have to listen to me when I say that I actually, honestly, really still don’t know what exactly it is you guys are thinking. I don’t think it’s a me problem - I think it’s a you problem.
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding stems from.
Let me clarify once and for all: We’re NOT PLANNING ANYTHING.
We REALLY don’t care at all if your pro or con anything in this discussion. Your personal feelings only detract from the conversation we’re trying to have. We’re not looking for your acceptance, we’re not asking your permission, and we’re not trying to convince you of anything. We’re not interested in the slightest if you hate one idea and love another, that’s on you to figure out for yourself.
We are here discussing the merits and shortcomings of a specific solution. We can do that free of opinions, and rely entirely on facts. We can point at the numbers, and draw relevant conclusions from them free from anyone’s feelings getting involved. We can construct models and debate their merits all without anyone’s approval or disapproval. We can compare conclusions and reach new ones all without resorting to relying on anyone’s personal feelings about anything. We can answer any questions you may have about the solutions being proposed without anyone derailing the conversation to make it about how they feel.
And when it comes time to actually make a plan? I still won’t be including you in the decision making process. Design by committee is death to a project. We don’t need your approval, and we don’t need you to sign off on anything we do.
There is no need for you to demand anything of us. We’re simply the messengers of a new idea, and all this discussion was ever supposed to be was a questions and answers opportunity for that idea.
-
LOL
Dude, are you serious? You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t. NOT ONLY THAT, your last link is for a post you made where you essentially claim no changes to FTC are being thought of [which is partially true, but semantical in nature] and that you believe the community isn’t important. I want you to scroll up on this page and take a look at the TOPIC TITLE and then tell me again what it is we’re discussing.
I’m really glad you gave me that amazing breakdown of your qualifications for an ICO - but an IPO, and ICO are two VERY different things. Kickstarter/IndieGoGo is not the same as an IPO or an ICO. Why? Well, the reason is because donors do not gain share in any of the crowdfunding projects. This is how Kickstarter and similar sites can continue to function outside of regulatory framework [for now]. ICO’s are different than IPO’s primarily because they are not regulated, and hence often end up falling into a legal grey area. The “shares” are also not clearly defined, but I can see regulators seeing tokens/coins/shares of currency as essentially being the same as traditional shares. This is a new concept that hasn’t been clarified yet - but for heaven’s sake Kevlar, don’t fucking belittle me with your bullshit.
We’re discussing an idea for the future of Feathercoin. Nothing more. Please stop trying to make it out into more than that.
Yes, of course I believe the community isn’t important in the decision making process. It NEVER has been. Never in the history of FTC has anything ever gotten done because the community agreed upon it. The only time anything EVER got done is when one person wrote the damn code and the market chose to adopt it, or didn’t. That’s how this works. It doesn’t work by a bunch of non-coders all trying to reach a consensus on a forum, and failing.
No, an ICO and an IPO are not two very different things, they’re exactly the same thing. They are the initial sale of shares in a corporation which enable you with voting rights within that corporations decision making process. This is a well tested and well established way to fund the development of a corporation. They do not fall into a legal gray area, DAC’s are intentionally unregulated which makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR which side of the law the fall on (the perfectly legal side). The ‘shares’ are VERY clearly defined in a proper IPO. There’s been no [profanity] here. Just your lack of understanding.
-
I’d love to hear your solution - and I also want to hear what you think the problems are. That’s all. No need to wrangle my words to try and make it seem like I’ve any weight on this issue in any way, because I think it’s apparent that that isn’t the case.
I’m also curious to know your plan for the ICO. What will the corporation be called? What state/country are you thinking of registering it? Who will sit on its board? Would love a prospectus too. Do you guys have underwriters retained? Legal counsel?
Yup - ICO = IPO.
-
You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t.
No, I didn’t.
I linked you to posts where we explained that under no uncertain terms should this be considered a ‘plan’. I guess you didn’t read the posts I linked you to?
-
We’re discussing an idea for the future of Feathercoin.
Just wanted to add - because of what you are discussing - I, and everyone else on this forum, has the right to give their opinion on it. Which basically means - just so we’re clear - that as long as FTC is attached to your ideas in any way, shape or form, I do have say. As for what those ideas are outside of an FTC bubble - my opinions don’t matter - as you said. You are free to fork the coin and start KevlarCoin, have a KevlarCoin ICO, and try to build it from the ground up. And don’t worry - I won’t be part of the decision making process because I have no interest in it.
But as long as the FTC “brand” is attached to it, I can say whatever I want on here. And elsewhere. Because you will still need a consensus on the changes/new blockchain. And that’s an uphill battle you will have to take.
-
I’d love to hear your solution - and I also want to hear what you think the problems are. That’s all. No need to wrangle my words to try and make it seem like I’ve any weight on this issue in any way, because I think it’s apparent that that isn’t the case.
I’m also curious to know your plan for the ICO. What will the corporation be called? What state/country are you thinking of registering it? Who will sit on its board? Would love a prospectus too. Do you guys have underwriters retained? Legal counsel?
Yup - ICO = IPO.
We’ve been discussing it. What questions do you have about it?
We don’t have a plan for the ICO. The DAC hasn’t yet been named. DACs are borderless and regionless. The board is elected by the shareholders in real time. A prospectus will be provided with the ICO. Underwriters are not required in the model we’re considering. DAC’s have built in protection from those who would seek to regulate it so do not require legal council.
ICO is to IPO, as DAC is to LLC.
-
Just wanted to add - because of what you are discussing - I, and everyone else on this forum, has the right to give their opinion on it. Which basically means - just so we’re clear - that as long as FTC is attached to your ideas in any way, shape or form, I do have say. As for what those ideas are outside of an FTC bubble - my opinions don’t matter - as you said. You are free to fork the coin and start KevlarCoin, have a KevlarCoin ICO, and try to build it from the ground up. And don’t worry - I won’t be part of the decision making process because I have no interest in it.
But as long as the FTC “brand” is attached to it, I can say whatever I want on here. And elsewhere. Because you will still need a consensus on the changes/new blockchain. And that’s an uphill battle you will have to take.
Yes, you absolutely do have the right to give your opinion on it.
Your opinion does not entitle you to any specific rights, or powers. You do not, for instance, get to dictate to me or anyone else what code we write, what projects we peruse, or what solutions we explore.
You are drastically mistaken if you believe we need a consensus to do anything with the brand: We don’t. Anyone can launch a new wallet and call it Feathercoin. The market will decide on if that’s Feathercoin or not. We don’t need a consensus to do an ICO, we don’t need a consensus to launch a new blockchain, and we don’t’ need consensus of the community to make changes to the existing one either.
And if you don’t believe me, I’d ask you, kindly and respectfully, to demonstrate why I’m wrong without resorting to personal attacks. I’d ask that you demonstrate that you can stop me from doing anything at all, writing whatever code I want, calling it whatever I want, and that you can then stop the market from adopting that code and force them to not run it. I’d like you to demonstrate that the community has any power over the code I write, and the code the market runs and buys into. I would submit to you that while they may have a voice, they do not make decisions for the market, and that the market of millions that we’re expecting to reach with the service offering will be much louder and more vocal than anything anyone on these forums can muster. And at that point, the market will call it what it wants to, and you’re whole argument will have been made entirely pointless.
And once you’ve realized that what I’m saying is entirely true, I’d like to to go back and carefully re-read the part where I’ve stated over and over and over that I personally am not interested in doing ANY OF IT. Of all the possibilities I’ve just listed? I’m exploring exactly ZERO of them.
-
Bush patented Feathercoin name.
-
Well at least we agree on the same thing. When I say consensus, I mean adoption, because it’s pretty interchangeable when it comes to crypto. You’re absolutely right - you can do whatever you want and the market decides.
But I disagree with you about the brand consensus - if Mirrax is correct in the patent comment, you have some big issues.
The other issue is that as a community, we do have power when it comes to the brand - in ways you may not even imagine.
Your final sentence makes zero sense to me. Why discuss an ICO if you’re apparently not doing anything? I am seriously confused.
-
Bush patented Feathercoin name.
Show me the patent filing.
Do you know what a patent is? Do you know what’s required to enforce a patent?
Do you know what a trademark is? Do you know what’s required to enforce a trademark? Do you have any idea the legal costs of doing so? Do you understand you have to first prove damages in terms of lost revenue? Do you understand that you can’t enforce jurisdiction on a DAC using the legal system?
Seriously… When does the trolling end?
-
Well at least we agree on the same thing. When I say consensus, I mean adoption, because it’s pretty interchangeable when it comes to crypto. You’re absolutely right - you can do whatever you want and the market decides.
But I disagree with you about the brand consensus - if Mirrax is correct in the patent comment, you have some big issues.
The other issue is that as a community, we do have power when it comes to the brand - in ways you may not even imagine.
Your final sentence makes zero sense to me. Why discuss an ICO if you’re apparently not doing anything? I am seriously confused.
I too mean adoption, and when it comes to adoption, this community is a drop in the mist hanging over the bucket that we’re going to be spraying into with a fire hose.
Mirrax isn’t correct, [removed personal attack]
As a community, I’d LOVE to see you ACTUALLY exercise that power when it comes to that brand, since you’ve done SUCH a fantastic job so far… As a member of said community since the very first week of it’s inception I’d say I’ve got about as good an imagination as you.
Your final sentence makes zero sense to me. Why NOT discuss solutions to the problems the community is facing, regardless of what my personal plans are?
-
-
Ah, good. I just love it when you’re willing to go out of your way to make my point for me.
So, first question answered: No, there is no patent filing. No you don’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark.
How about the rest of my questions? Do you know what’s required to enforce a trademark? Do you understand the legal costs in doing so? Do you understand you have to first prove damages in terms of lost revenue? Do you understand that you can’t enforce jurisdiction on a DAC using the legal system?
Because if the answer is “No” then you’re merely ignorant and you should go do some more research before wasting my time again. But if it’s “Yes” then you’re a troll because you already know that none of it is applicable when dealing with DACs. Either way, this entire conversation is a gigantic waste of everyone’s time.
-
Ah, good. I just love it when you’re willing to go out of your way to make my point for me.
So, first question answered: No, there is no patent filing. No you don’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark.
How about the rest of my questions? Do you know what’s required to enforce a trademark? Do you understand the legal costs in doing so? Do you understand you have to first prove damages in terms of lost revenue? Do you understand that you can’t enforce jurisdiction on a DAC using the legal system?
Because if the answer is “No” then you’re merely ignorant and you should go do some more research before wasting my time again. But if it’s “Yes” then you’re a troll because you already know that none of it is applicable when dealing with DACs. Either way, this entire conversation is a gigantic waste of everyone’s time.
I do understand there is trademark theft going on and I will not stand by and observe.
-
Roger that! Fight that fight! Spin those wheels!!!
It’s not theft if there’s no damages [removed insult]
-
Roger that! Fight that fight! Spin those wheels!!!
It’s not theft if there’s no damages [removed insult]
bending terminology again?
-
Hey Kevlar, I know it’s nice to feel superior to everyone - but once in a while it’s also good to do a bit of double-checking on what it is you’re actually saying.
https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement
Cheers Mate!
-
No, [removed personal attack]
To have trademark theft, you have to prove that someone else was doing business using your trademark, and that it resulted in a loss of revenue for your company. Since Peter doesn’t have any revenue from FTC, this is a non-starter since anything we do will not result in financial loss.
What’s more is you have to prove that you have constantly defended that trademark against use dillution, which means that every single time a new product that mentions “Feathercoin” comes out, you have to get them to respect that little ™, or else lose your right to enforce it.
You see, you have NO idea how trademark law works. I do. I’ve been doing trademarks for corporations all my career.