Who wants to Learn about Cryptocurrencies First Hand?

[psionl0]

I should have thought it was obvious, what I meant? No?

No, it's not obvious. None of the points that you list indicate any sort of "scam" or "fraud" or "deception".

This is just a crypto that had a security flaw (probably the reason it isn't worth anything now). Other cryptos might also have security flaws. The digital asset world is still pretty much the wild wild west. If you are going to risk money on them then remember that "risk" is the operative word.

That said, cryptos like bitcoin or ethereum seem to have stood the test of time and similar security flaws don't appear to have manifested in them. That doesn't mean that they are guaranteed to be secure forever (imagine if somebody managed to reverse engineer the SHA256 algorithm).

So cryptos aren't "evil" or "witchcrafty" or any of the other horrible sounding words that you want to apply. They are just digital assets with no guaranteed value whatsoever.

 

[Chanakya]

No, it's not obvious. None of the points that you list indicate any sort of "scam" or "fraud" or "deception".

That's a surprising POV. Clearly the people who'd invested (invested time, effort, infrastructure, perhaps money) in ROI-coins did not, initially, know about what the developers had done. That it was deception, there can be no doubt about that, at all. That is why OP was referring to those developers having gone "rogue".

Whether that legally qualifies as "fraud" is something I was wondering. That legal question is an interesting one, which is why I brought it up in my last post. And regardless of the legality, that it was, loosely speaking (like a said in that post) a fraud on the investors in ROI-coin who, clearly, had not known about this, again seems pretty much straightforward.


And, regardless of whether this issue is "obvious" or not, the question that I'd asked in very brief earlier, and that I've clearly spelt out and even enumerated in my last post, I'm sure they'd be of importance to people who are interested in crypto. It is to me, even though I'm only casually interested; and I'm sure the answers to those questions would be even more important to people who are more invested than I am in cryptocurrencies in general and ROI in particular.

This is just a crypto that had a security flaw (probably the reason it isn't worth anything now). Other cryptos might also have security flaws. The digital asset world is still pretty much the wild wild west. If you are going to risk money on them then remember that "risk" is the operative word.

That's right. Those questions of mine were an attempt to probe deeper into that particular flaw, and to better understand the nature of that risk.

That said, cryptos like bitcoin or ethereum seem to have stood the test of time and similar security flaws don't appear to have manifested in them. That doesn't mean that they are guaranteed to be secure forever (imagine if somebody managed to reverse engineer the SHA256 algorithm).

Thus far, yes. Whether we can understand the probability of what happened to ROI happening to other cryptos, like BTC and ethereum, et al, and indeed all over again to ROI itself, is what I wanted to understand.

So cryptos aren't "evil" or "witchcrafty" or any of the other horrible sounding words that you want to apply.

Eh what? I want to apply horrible sounding words like "evil" and "witchcrafty" to cryptos? Really? Are you sure you're feeling quite well?

They are just digital assets with no guaranteed value whatsoever.

Obviously.

That observation is something of a non sequitur, though. Because their value derives from the value others would put in them. And that latter can be deeply influenced by the possibility of their developers pulling a ROI-style scam / stunt / fraud / deception / call-it-what-you-will on them. And to that extent, understanding the nature of that ROI stunt, and therefore the probability of another such stunt in ROI itself or in some other crypto becomes important, and interesting, to those of us who are interested in cryptos (whether casually, like me, or for those with greater involvement in them than just a casual and purely academic interest).

 

[psionl0]

That's right. Those questions of mine were an attempt to probe deeper into that particular flaw, and to better understand the nature of that risk.

If you couch your queries in terms of "fraud" and "deception" then you are doing more than just asking questions, you are pushing an agenda. This is especially so if you try to rope in bitcoin to ROI even though the bitcoin software is open source and all of the evidence indicates that the software is NOT fraudulent.

Sure, anything can happen with a new startup crypto and one would be well advised to not sink any money into it especially if the software is not open source. But tarring all cryptos with the same brush reeks of paranoia.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

All of you who're doing this ROI thing, if you're treating this purely and wholly as a learning exercise, with not even the slightest possibility, in your minds, of this actually amounting to any real worth, then that's fine. But otherwise, I would imagine that it becomes imperative that you figure out the exact nature of the fraud --- would it be even illegal, incidentally, is there an actual contract in that thing? --- perpetrated by the developers that went rogue, so that you can in turn figure out whether the expectation of future gains is merely a very long shot or an impossible pipe dream.

ChrisBFRPKY, would you know the technicalities of that deception, or have links to people writing about or discussing it? For instance, can you be sure it was a one-time thing, or might another such discovery be made some time in the future, about another stash of ROI-coins pilfered away?

-------

It seems to me that whether a new crypto, or for that matter an already-in-use crypto, might be open to this kind of fraud, should be an over-ridingly important factor for people investing in them. (I'm using the word "fraud", and for that matter "pilfer", very loosely here, because like I said I'm not sure if this actually amounts to illegality.)

What about BTC, for instance? Is it at all possible that people find out one fine day that something like this might have happened with BTC?

I should have thought it was obvious, what I meant? No? Okay, let me spell it out then:

ChrisBFRKY said, in this post, that "One of the developers for this coin encoded a way to receive millions of coins he should not have been able to receive. I believe they're still trying to determine a way to save the project by using a hard fork, and getting rid of the ill-gotten coins but it does not look promising at this time. However that could change."

In that context :

(1) Given that that kind of thing happened once, and at the outset went undetected, might something like that happen yet again (or be found yet again to have already happened), for this particular coin?

(2) Ditto for other cryptocurrencies, including BTC.

(3) For those who are equipped to understand the technicalities of this kind of thing, is there any way to study the code and make sure that there is no such risk for some particular crypto?

(4) The OP himself, who's walking you all through this, while clearly he's using this as a learning tool, has himself said that he sees some possibility, even if small, of ROI again being worth something. It seemed to me that for him, and for those of you who might share with him a hope, however small, of ROI being worth something someday, a detailed investigation and a detailed understanding of this would be important.

(5) Ditto those who invest time and money on any other cryptocurrency, including BTC. ("Investing", by buying for speculating, and/or hodling, and/or investing time and money and infrastructure in mining).

(6) I was also wondering if what the "rogue" developers did here, might actually amount to illegality? And if developers of one or more other cryptos, BTC included, are found to have done something like this, might that also actually amount to any actual illegality? It would, if there's any contractual understanding here, if only implicit, that might hold up in a court of law: otherwise, if no such contract can be established, then there's nothing the law can do to these rogue developers, or any other rogue developers of any other crypto. This too should, I would imagine, be a factor that people who are investing time and energy, not to mention money, in cryptos, would want to ascertain clearly.


-------


Incidentally, why the suddenly and inexplicably aggressive tone? Are you feeling quite well?

Sorry for the delay I'm away for a few days but wanted to pop in to check on the thread.

To answer what went wrong with this coin: The ROI coin had a design team in the beginning and some premined coins. This is not unusual for any coin. There was a wallet that was considered excessive for a premine and they announced that wallet would not be allowed to stake and the coins in it would be given out for promotions or burned.

It ended up the wallet WAS allowed to stake. It was term deposited for a year at the original 561% interest. Turning millions of coins into billions.

The team member responsible was relieved from the project but still had control over the coins. The current task has been figuring out how to nullify those coins without hurting everyone else. I noticed recently there was a new wallet version available which may have solved the issue.


NEWS: It looks like there is some activity with ROI coin. According to the website here: https://roi-coin.com/

ROI coin has been added to a couple of coinmarket sites and one trading exchange.

Looks like the second wind WILL happen. Congrats to all who participated and keep an eye on the ROI coin website for updates.

 

[Chanakya]

If you couch your queries in terms of "fraud" and "deception" then you are doing more than just asking questions, you are pushing an agenda.

What on earth are you rambling on about? What those rogue developers did was, quite literally, deception. And it also was, quite literally, fraud -- in essence, if not necessarily per legality. (Although it may have been that as well, I don’t know. Whether it was illegal, or not, is a valid question, and an interesting one.)

This is especially so if you try to rope in bitcoin to ROI even though the bitcoin software is open source and all of the evidence indicates that the software is NOT fraudulent.

What utter nonsense. Why on earth would one not want to examine whether BTC might be susceptible to the same kind of thing?

If the evidence indicates that what happened with ROI could not happen with BTC, fine. That’s the answer I’m looking for, then, along with a description of that evidence.

It’s totally weird that you should equate my asking about BTC with my demonizing BTC. And it is equally weird that that should get you all butthurt, as if you were the sworn protector of the fair name of BTC. Stop acting weird.

Sure, anything can happen with a new startup crypto and one would be well advised to not sink any money into it especially if the software is not open source. But tarring all cryptos with the same brush reeks of paranoia.

No one’s tarring and feathering either you or your precious cryptos. This thread is about understanding cryptos, and I’m trying to do just that here. There’s a great deal I don’t know about cryptos, that it is possible you do: but it is precisely because I don’t know some things, and because I know that I don’t know those things, that I’m asking what I’m asking. That seems pretty much straightforward, and it’s bizarre that this should need to be spelt out like this.

If you have answers, and are willing to furnish them, then that will be appreciated, absolutely. But spare me your hallucinations about what you imagine is my nefarious agenda, would you? This apparent protectiveness of yours over any questioning of cryptocurrencies, it’s bizarre, and not particularly entertaining.

 

[Chanakya]

Sorry for the delay I'm away for a few days but wanted to pop in to check on the thread.

Whenever convenient, Chris. No rush.

To answer what went wrong with this coin: The ROI coin had a design team in the beginning and some premined coins. This is not unusual for any coin. There was a wallet that was considered excessive for a premine and they announced that wallet would not be allowed to stake and the coins in it would be given out for promotions or burned.

It ended up the wallet WAS allowed to stake. It was term deposited for a year at the original 561% interest. Turning millions of coins into billions.

The team member responsible was relieved from the project but still had control over the coins. The current task has been figuring out how to nullify those coins without hurting everyone else. I noticed recently there was a new wallet version available which may have solved the issue.

And might this kind of thing be an issue, potentially, with other cryptocurrencies, that you know of? What about BTC, for instance?


Also, does this sort of thing constitute an actual illegality? Or are the rogue developers safe from the law? Because if the law is not part of the picture here, then that’s one less deterrent for anyone else who might have a mind to try this sort of thing.

NEWS: It looks like there is some activity with ROI coin. According to the website here: https://roi-coin.com/

ROI coin has been added to a couple of coinmarket sites and one trading exchange.

Looks like the second wind WILL happen. Congrats to all who participated and keep an eye on the ROI coin website for updates.

Good for you, if that happens. And for the rest of you who’re doing this thing. Good luck!

 

[psionl0]

No one’s tarring and feathering either you or your precious cryptos.

A clear sign of an untenable position is when you have to accuse an arguer of an emotional investment instead of dealing with their argument.

You have been told several times that bitcoin can't have the same security flaw as ROI coint (or as you call it, "fraud"). You have also been told why. For one thing there are no pre-mined bitcoins.

Marketing issues are far more likely to see the demise of a startup crypto (or even an established crypto) than purposefully built in security flaws.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Looks like the Wallet App won't let you mine anymore if you have accumulated 12,000 unverified coins.
at least for me.

 

[Chanakya]

A clear sign of an untenable position is when you have to accuse an arguer of an emotional investment instead of dealing with their argument.

Good, congratulations, I'm glad self-realization has finally dawned on you. It is you who've been accusing others, who've simply been raising entirely valid issues and questions, and accusing them entirely inexplicably and context-free, of things like "paranoia", as well as such unbelievable and literally crazy mind-reading, like ... let's go back and see, what was it? ... yes, claiming that they want to apply horrible sounding words like "evil" and "witchcrafty" to cryptos. Seriously, do you think those are the comments of someone who is 100% in control of their faculties?

You have been told several times that bitcoin can't have the same security flaw as ROI coint (or as you call it, "fraud"). You have also been told why. For one thing there are no pre-mined bitcoins.

Okay, so there are no pre-mined BTC, and therefore BTC is not susceptible to that particular stunt. That sounds reasonable.

This is the first time you've said this. Assuming you're right, and no one corrects you on this, then sure, that is indeed the answer to one of the questions I'd asked, and that you could well have factually given directly, instead of your leveling those borderline insane accusations at me of wanting to demonize cryptos. But hey, thanks for that input, absolutely, despite the cocktail of entirely inexplicable craziness that that input came mixed with.

Marketing issues are far more likely to see the demise of a startup crypto (or even an established crypto) than purposefully built in security flaws.

Depends on the crypto.

Take ROI. ROI was done in not by marketing issues, but by technical flaws (firstly, in having these pre-mined thingies; secondly, having those developer dudes declare that they wouldn't be be "staked", and others seemingly not having the wherewithal to themselves ascertain, by directly studying the code, whether that is actually the case, that is, whether they actually have been staked or not; and thirdly, and following on the above two, by the developers having gone rogue, and pulled a fraud on the rest by actually "staking" those pre-mined coins after all.)

It is clear that any other cryptocurrencies, that also might have pre-mined coins, might also be open to this kind of fraud. So that knowing whether some particular crypto does have pre-mined coins probably is a very important piece of information for investors. Further, if there are indeed pre-mined coins for some crypto, then is it possible to look at the code and ascertain directly whether or not they've been "staked"? That too seems to be a valid question for investors. And finally, is the kind of fraud pulled by the ROI rogue developers legally actionable? That also would be an important question to answer, I should think, because if it is legally actionable, then that provides another layer of deterrence (not an impenetrable one, though, obviously) that will go some way in deterring other developers of other cryptos from pulling the same kind of stunt.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Whenever convenient, Chris. No rush.





And might this kind of thing be an issue, potentially, with other cryptocurrencies, that you know of? What about BTC, for instance?


Also, does this sort of thing constitute an actual illegality? Or are the rogue developers safe from the law? Because if the law is not part of the picture here, then that’s one less deterrent for anyone else who might have a mind to try this sort of thing.





Good for you, if that happens. And for the rest of you who’re doing this thing. Good luck!

Dishonesty is always an issue with any investment. There will always be risks no matter what you choose to invest into, either Cryptocurrencies or the Stock Market. Trust is not a part of investing in my view. My first question is always "OK, how could I be screwed out of my investment?" Unfortunately one has to entertain paranoid thoughts and concerns as a routine. I have been and continue to be mostly as a hobby a Crypto miner. My investment into new coins was usually mining time and electricity without a direct investment of cash into their projects. The reason being is that most fail. Mining new coins at startup I would acquire a small bag of each coin. Some failed some did not.

There have been multitudes of new Crypto startups that were designed as money making schemes. Because of these there are several questions many enthusiasts now insist upon. "Is this coin mineable?" , "Was there a pre-mine of this coin?", "If so, how many and what is the wallet address?" "Show me." Even then sometimes it doesn't work out to your advantage as was the case with ROI coin as dishonest people tend to lie.

Could this happen with Bitcoin? No. Different coin with different features. The worst case scenario for Bitcoin would be if Satoshi Nakamoto decided to sell all his/her Bitcoin at one time. That would likely crash the market for a time. But even then the market would eventually recover.

I don't know if ROI coin will be revived or not. There have been a few recent developments and I do hope it gets a second wind but hope is a fragile thing.

 

[psionl0]

Good, congratulations, I'm glad self-realization has finally dawned on you.

It's a pity it hasn't dawned on you. One case of theft of one crypto and you haven't stopped using the word "fraud" ever since. Suddenly all cryptos have fraud built in to them.

 

[Tippit]

It's a pity it hasn't dawned on you. One case of theft of one crypto and you haven't stopped using the word "fraud" ever since. Suddenly all cryptos have fraud built in to them.

Wait until he finds out that they can be stolen by exchanges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chanakya]

It's a pity it hasn't dawned on you. One case of theft of one crypto and you haven't stopped using the word "fraud" ever since. Suddenly all cryptos have fraud built in to them.

What hasn't dawned on me? It's you that has been talking drivel here all through.

As for using the word "fraud", I'd used it just to bring up my original question/concern/issue. It was when you started posting your weird protests, claiming not to know what kind of fraud and deception I was referring to, and imagining that I'm out defame and demonize all cryptos --- and not to forget that literally demented rant about how you hysterically imagine that I apparently want to use horrible sounding words like "witchcrafty" and "evil" for all cryptos! --- in fact that bit was so jaw-dropping a comment that if I did signatures, which I don't, then I'd have surely put it in, as example of the random craziness that one is liable to encounter on the internet --- it was only then that I pointed out you the obvious, that fraud and deception were facts in this case. You wouldn't stop protesting, so that I had to point this out to you more than once. That isn't "haven't stopped using the word "fraud" ever since" to anyone who might be able to think coherently, which clearly you aren't able to when it comes to this.

As for the highlighted, that's some pretty weird straw that you keep drawing out, non-stop, from within your backside.

This particular flaw, this particular, yes, fraud, that has happened with ROI, to ask whether whether and which other cryptos might also be susceptible to that kind of thing, and to ask whether there is some way to look at the code to directly ascertain if pre-mined coins may have been staked or not, and to ask if any of this admits of legal redress, are clearly entirely reasonable, even important, questions. That you should parse this clearly worded question/position, which incidentally I'm now having to repeat for the second or third time for you, as my apparently having said that, as you put it, "Suddenly all cryptos have fraud built in to them", speaks to how entirely lacking in reading comprehension you appear to be, and how entirely fogged and entirely lacking in coherence your own thinking is, at least when it comes to this issue.

Now, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to stop exchanging these surreal inanities with you. You seem to revel in this sort of thing, but it wasn't particularly fun for me even to begin with, and it's starting to actually jar on me now.

 

[Chanakya]

Wait until he finds out that they can be stolen by exchanges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shhh, don't you say anything remotely critical of cryptocurrencies in his presence, or he'll have yet another fit, and we'll all be treated to another parade of wild strawmen.

 

[Chanakya]

Dishonesty is always an issue with any investment. There will always be risks no matter what you choose to invest into, either Cryptocurrencies or the Stock Market. Trust is not a part of investing in my view. My first question is always "OK, how could I be screwed out of my investment?" Unfortunately one has to entertain paranoid thoughts and concerns as a routine. I have been and continue to be mostly as a hobby a Crypto miner. My investment into new coins was usually mining time and electricity without a direct investment of cash into their projects. The reason being is that most fail. Mining new coins at startup I would acquire a small bag of each coin. Some failed some did not.

There have been multitudes of new Crypto startups that were designed as money making schemes. Because of these there are several questions many enthusiasts now insist upon. "Is this coin mineable?" , "Was there a pre-mine of this coin?", "If so, how many and what is the wallet address?" "Show me." Even then sometimes it doesn't work out to your advantage as was the case with ROI coin as dishonest people tend to lie.

Could this happen with Bitcoin? No. Different coin with different features. The worst case scenario for Bitcoin would be if Satoshi Nakamoto decided to sell all his/her Bitcoin at one time. That would likely crash the market for a time. But even then the market would eventually recover.

I don't know if ROI coin will be revived or not. There have been a few recent developments and I do hope it gets a second wind but hope is a fragile thing.

OK, I understand. psionl0 clarified this a few posts up: BTC did not come with pre-mined coins, so no question of this particular screw-up being replicated there. That much seems straightforward, and reasonable.

---

Incidentally, is there any technical and entirely innocent reason why a developer might have pre-mined coins of some crypto? Because if there isn't, then the very presence of pre-mined coins is a clear red flag.

---

As for ROI reviving, one part of it is clearly the investor sentiment thing. But that apart, has the technical part of it actually been resolved? The developers had pre-mined those coins, then earned humongous returns on them despite promising not to. So what happens to those coins now?

I mean, I guess you need to figure out if the technical issue is over and done with now. Because if it is, then it is just a question of investor sentiment. So that, while obviously there's no guarantee, but if luck's one your side, then it may well revive. But that's only provided the premined coins are no longer a factor, not otherwise.

 

[psionl0]

OK, I understand. psionl0 clarified this a few posts up: BTC did not come with pre-mined coins, so no question of this particular screw-up being replicated there. That much seems straightforward, and reasonable.

I also pointed out earlier that cryptos like bitcoin are open source software. That means that anybody can examine the code. If there were any flaws/backdoors in the code then they would have been discovered/exploited long ago. Any suspicious activity would also be recorded in the blockchain (that is how we know that Satoshi Nakamoto mined a lot of the coins for himself while the mining was cheap).

You really need to stop this soapboxing. You haven't come across some blinding revelation. It is always possible that the designer of a new crypto might include some nefarious code or inadvertently write flaws that others can exploit (I have already said as much). That is why the code should be open source and you should avoid investing money into it at least during the initial phases when security flaws might manifest themselves.

As for pre-mining, that is not an automatic disqualifier for a crypto. You need to do your homework though. You need to know how many coins have been pre-mined, what the policy is for their release and be able to assess the risk and consequences of a policy breach.

 

[psionl0]

Some final thoughts.

Looks like mining is no longer working.

Looks like the Wallet App won't let you mine anymore if you have accumulated 12,000 unverified coins.
at least for me.

I just successfully mined 3 blocks and mined another couple a few days ago. I guess that having a computer that is powerful enough to cope with Windows 10 helps.

This makes 4 cryptocurrencies that I have toyed with: Bitcoin, NXT, Ripple and ROI coin. Unfortunately, my early attempts to mine bitcoin were unsuccessful and NXT being a proof of stake algorithm was also unsuccessful since I didn't have any NXT coins to stake. I have acquired some XRP and ROI has proved to be an easy coin to mine.

I'm not all that impressed with the ROI interface. It is not particularly intuitive and it took me a while to learn how to drive it. I especially don't like that it doesn't have an activity statement. The transaction list should read like a bank statement but it doesn't.

ROI has the same drawbacks as most cryptos. It uses proof of work which is a real energy killer and it is designed to be hoarded rather than spent. This is doubly so because you can lock up your currency and receive interest on it.

Proof of stake seems to be proven to the extent that Ethereum has decided to switch over to it. This is a much better way to run a mining/validation process.

I believe that demurrage should replace transaction fees. This would give an incentive to spend the currency. Of course one should be able to deposit some currency into a "holding" wallet (for a fee) to avoid the demurrage. If the block reward is constant then eventually when enough currency has been mined, the demurrage would be the same as the block reward and the supply of the crypto would be in a steady state. If any cryptos were lost (due to loss of wallet) then that wouldn't have a long term impact on the supply since demurrage would devalue the loss.

 

[Chanakya]

I also pointed out earlier that cryptos like bitcoin are open source software. That means that anybody can examine the code. If there were any flaws/backdoors in the code then they would have been discovered/exploited long ago. Any suspicious activity would also be recorded in the blockchain (that is how we know that Satoshi Nakamoto mined a lot of the coins for himself while the mining was cheap).

Right, agreed. Investing in open-source cryptos is safe, in this sense, provided one has (or one knows for a fact that others have) fully examined the code for any such flaws and backdoors, as you call them.

You really need to stop this soapboxing. You haven't come across some blinding revelation.

Ah. Trying our hand at some gaslighting, are we now? There has been no soapboxing, at all, from me. The only weirdness here is wholly and fully to your account, and what I’ve done is clearly called you out every time, not letting you get away with your hysterical misrepresentations and strawmanning.

You’ve birthed some fantastic strawmen from within your backside in this thread, for reasons best known to you. There’s been a whole parade of them in this thread, and I’ve pointed these out clearly. Your straw-baby that you must be proudest of surely be the one about my wanting to call cryptos horrible names like “evil” and “witchcrafty”. That one was positively eye-wateringly hilarious, wouldn’t you agree?

And right here we have another strawman from you, where you tell me that “(I) haven’t come across some blinding revelation”. Of course I haven’t, and nor have I claimed, or at all implied, that I have. In a thread meant specifically for learning about cryptos, what I have done is raised some entirely valid questions, the answers to some of which have been forthcoming here, including from you. Where is the question of “blinding revelations”?

Clearly you’re seeing nefarious agendas — you’ve clearly accused me more than once of such — where there are none at all, and no rational reason for suspecting such. Why is that, do you think? What makes you so weirdly defensive, when it comes to cryptos?

It is always possible that the designer of a new crypto might include some nefarious code or inadvertently write flaws that others can exploit (I have already said as much). That is why the code should be open source and you should avoid investing money into it at least during the initial phases when security flaws might manifest themselves.

Yep, going only for open source cryptos is sound advice, agreed.

Incidentally, when you say, “the code should be open source”, are you saying that people should stay away from cryptos that are not based on open source, is that your view? (And, as far as that, are all the major cryptos out in the market now open source, do you know?)

When the code isn’t open source, then that appears to me analogous with investing in privately held equity, where the due diligence required is greater, and of a somewhat different nature than when audited quarterly and annual accounts are freely available. Greater risks, but if you know your way around, then potentially greater returns. Would this analogy apply to cryptos in practice, do you think? If no, then that's the end of it; but if yes, then what might be the equivalent here, of the kind of (generally institutional) due diligence we exercise with private equity?

As for pre-mining, that is not an automatic disqualifier for a crypto. You need to do your homework though. You need to know how many coins have been pre-mined, what the policy is for their release and be able to assess the risk and consequences of a policy breach.

There, see the whole series of very sound advice, and solutions, that’s coming in now, now that you’re applying yourself to actually addressing the points I’d raised, rather than imagining that I’m out to malign your precious cryptos (which, for the record, I’m absolutely not)? Chris has furnished most of those answers in this thread, naturally, but quite a few of them have now come from you too. Thanks for those inputs, absolutely, psionl0! One wishes you’d got to these factual answers directly without that unnecessary strawmanning and inexplicable weirdness.

As far as ascertaining the consequences of a policy breach, to repeat what I'd asked earlier: What are the consequences of a policy breach, in practice? The ROI developers, were they held accountable in any way? Does this kind of thing admit of legal redress?

 

[psionl0]

As far as ascertaining the consequences of a policy breach, to repeat what I'd asked earlier: What are the consequences of a policy breach, in practice? The ROI developers, were they held accountable in any way? Does this kind of thing admit of legal redress?

I'm pretty sure that there are no legal consequences that would flow from any untoward design features of a crypto. They are basically unregulated (unregulatable?) software. Anything goes. I have even heard (contrary to the claims of the designer) of a crypto that had no blockchain of any sort. It was just centralized software that ran on an SQL server - the exact opposite of a decentralized cryptocurrency. AFAIK there were no legal ramifications since there are no laws about this type of thing (only potential laws on the USE of cryptocurrency).

If any consequences befall a rogue developer then it would have to come from the other developers. But ultimately, the market is the final arbiter of any cryptocurrency. It it doesn't pass the sniff test then they will stay away from it in droves.

 

[Chanakya]

I'm pretty sure that there are no legal consequences that would flow from any untoward design features of a crypto. They are basically unregulated (unregulatable?) software. Anything goes. I have even heard (contrary to the claims of the designer) of a crypto that had no blockchain of any sort. It was just centralized software that ran on an SQL server - the exact opposite of a decentralized cryptocurrency. AFAIK there were no legal ramifications since there are no laws about this type of thing (only potential laws on the USE of cryptocurrency).

If any consequences befall a rogue developer then it would have to come from the other developers. But ultimately, the market is the final arbiter of any cryptocurrency. It it doesn't pass the sniff test then they will stay away from it in droves.

Right. So it’s caveat emptor all the way! But then that’s kind of the entire point of cryptocurrencies, I suppose. As you say, unregulated and unregulabatable, by design. Thanks for those inputs, psionl0.


(Incidentally, I did look around, myself, to see if I could find anything about the legality of this kind of thing. There's heaps of reports available, but nothing that specifically touches on this specific kind of legal question. At least nothing that 15-20 minutes of clicking around could throw up.)