[sillysaurus3]

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-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]

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.

[sillysaurus3]

Hmm? I think we're just talking past each other. I didn't mean to imply it was about morals -- it seems inherently amoral.

His motive is clearly money. He wants to get rich. That's a fine motive and he's not killing anyone or defrauding anybody (yet).

Why is it only ok to tap into a market when the legal system says it's ok? He's not even a drug dealer; drug dealers really do ruin lives.

Your argument here appears to boil down to "If you think it's sane to climb Mt. Everest, I suggest you rethink your actions. You'll probably die."

Except it's more along the lines of climbing a mountain no one has ever climbed before. Yes, you certainly have a point. He'll probably get caught and probably go to prison. But... So? It's his life to risk.

In the meantime, you've got to respect the raw determination. We'll see if he delivers. If not, then it's just a bunch of hot air. But he's onto something. The legal system is going to have to adapt to something it has never had to deal with before outside of cartels: the ability to operate a full business completely anonymously.

Even if he fails, someone else will come along and do the same thing. You want ten million dollars? Heck yeah you do. Tap into that feeling and amplify it by 100x, and that's the drive that pushes people to do this kind of thing.

Really though, as long as he's not hurting anybody I don't understand why we have a right to trash on him. He hasn't stolen anyone's money yet, and he's trying to build something new. I'd like to interview him, to be honest.

(I agree you weren't really trashing on him, just pointing out how crazy his plan is. That's true, but he's not a run-of-the-mill lunatic, which is sort of what your comments imply.)

[KGIII]

No, my argument boils down to he is willfully breaking the law while openly stating his plans and that the judges aren't going to appreciate that, the SEC isn't going to find it funny, and the prosecuting attorney is going to submit it as evidence. He is doing this while he is fully aware that prison is the likely outcome.

That's not rational. That is irrational thinking that is likely to result in harm coming to the actor.

That's pretty much the definition of mental illness.

They aren't even alone. They are just one example. Watch the comments about ICOs and cryptocurrency. You'll see comments that are saying the government can't stop them, them the individual.

No, the government can't necessarily stop an idea. They can't even really prevent cryptocurrency. What they can do, and do very efficiently, is stop the individual.

That is irrational thinking. It is how people end up in prison. I'd like it if, you know, HN visitors didn't end up in prison. I'm kind of fond of some of you. Prison is not a nice place, I've worked at one.

When you start mucking about with things with real-world implications, it's no longer a game. It's no longer something you can talk your way out of. It has real-world penalties. There are negative consequences.

The government can, and will, stop those who draw negative attention. They really, really hate it when you negatively impact the economy, as a general rule.

However, you're right. It is their life to risk. That doesn't actually make it sane.

It's not like they are going to go to prison rich. No, the government is going to issue fines to go along with their prison sentences. Do not taunt the men with guns. Taunting men with guns only works in video games and movies.

[neuro_imager]

Please stop talking about mental health in this context.

You may or may not be correct in your prediction about the legal ramifications of this person's actions actions but making comments about their mental health is completely erroneous.

[the_stc]

KGill if you have a specific criticism that we're being irrational, please contact us. Info in profile.

This country was founded on taunting men with guns and winning. Every bit of social progress does too. I am a small actor in comparison but the ideas are what matters.

[jaekwon]

Aye,

When there's nothing left to believe in,

It's time to make believe something better.

[sillysaurus3]

It's not like they are going to go to prison rich.

Well, this is the most interesting part: They will. If they go to prison at all, they'll go to prison rich, and no one will be able to take their money. Once they're out, if their opsec is half-decent, they'll still have it.

[crooked-v]

Having money in a third-party-inaccessible form just means that when the government decides to confiscate it, you sit in jail indefinitely for contempt of court until you make it accessible.

[sillysaurus3]

Well, yes. But that means your opsec has failed. If they know how much Monero you have, you've messed up.

It's quite easy to mess up, of course. But that's beside the point. The idea is to reveal a small sum of money while obscuring most of your proceeds.