SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the It-would-be-a-shame-if-something-happened-to-your-ICO dept.
Ethereum 'ICO architect' arrested over alleged $12M cryptocurrency extortion
Two individuals in the US, including a former advisor to various blockchain projects including Ethereum, ETH have been arrested for their alleged role in a series of multi-million dollar cryptocurrency extortion.
According to a Department of Justice statement, former Ethereum advisor Steven Nerayoff and Michael Hlady were arrested after supposedly threatening to "destroy a startup cryptocurrency company if they were not paid millions of dollars" worth of Ethereum.
"As alleged, Nerayoff and Hlady carried out an old-fashioned shakedown, to be paid off with 21st century cryptocurrency," United States Attorney Richard Donoghue said in the statement.
The targeted company was an unnamed Seattle-based startup that uses cryptocurrency to reward customer loyalty. The unnamed company makes blockchain-based products for those looking to generate and reward user traffic.
The allegations are being lodged against Maple Ventures, an offshoot of Alchemist LLC, a blockchain consultancy founded and headed-up by Nerayoff, CNBC reports.
It's also worth noting that Nerayoff was pivotal in constructing the legal architecture behind Ethereum token offerings. On his own website he claims to have been called the "Architect of the ICO." One of his most recent ventures, – which he co-founded – CasperLabs, debuted its scalable, proof-of-stake blockchain on its testnet earlier this year.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Monday September 30 2019, @04:13PM (9 children)
What is this "intrinsic value" you speak of? Does fiat money have it? If not, sounds like a fair trade (based only on the statement you made). If so, on what grounds?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:50AM (8 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:42AM (7 children)
Why did you attempt to switch the terminology being discussed without explicitly mentioning it, and what's the difference between "intrinsic" and "concrete" in this context?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @12:40PM (6 children)
How can I "switch the terminology" without "explicitly mentioning it"? I used new terminology, you noticed it, theoretically communication seems to have succeeded. I used a different term because I didn't want to use the previous term, isn't that obvious? You are supposed to work out which of your questions was being answered, and extrapolate the answers to the other ones such that the answer makes sense, I don't like having to spoonfeed people with tautologies.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:57PM (5 children)
I feel like an intellectually open and honest response would have included something along the lines of "I recognose that fiat currency does not have intrinsic value, but I feel like it's still superior to crypto because..." before going into your bit about concrete value. As is, this exchange reads like a bait-and-switch fallacy to me. You've laid down a standard for one currency that you're unwilling to apply to your own currency of choice, and you haven't even owned up to being unwilling to apply the standard consistently; that part was implicit, not explicit. If I had simply gone along with your new terminology without calling you out on this it wouldn't necessarily have been clear to a casual reader that you had just moved the goalpost for your chosen horse while leaving the goalpost for the other horse where it was.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:47PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:37AM (3 children)
Nope, (presumably fiat) money was mentioned in your original post:
I was simply pointing out that the input had just as little intrinsic value as the output, meaning the issue you raised as originally stated had no merit.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:00AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:37PM (1 child)
Amazing. When confronted by obvious evidence that your last comment was entirely wrong, you just ignore it completely and roll on through to a totally different argument. It's like you're engaging in dialogue to win rather than honestly communicate. The most impressive part is that you still have yet to admit that fiat momey does not have intrinsic value, preferring instead to dance around avoiding any direct statements on the subject. It's like watching a ballerina preform on a minefield.
Of course I understand the value of having a currency backed by a government's threat of force. I think there are other things that make money useful, like the ability to store it, uniform value across standardised units, making it hard to forge, etc., and I think a currency can exist and have value just because it has these qualities. Wampum beads (which used to be legal tender in New Amsterdam) and the gold dinar (which is currently used for trading in parts of the Middle East and North Africa) are two examples of tangible currencies with decentralised production. Of these two examples, the gold dinar has obvious "intrinsic value," but unless you want to argue that shell jewelry has intrinsic value cuz it makes you look pretty, it's pretty obvious that wampum beads were used as currency because of other properties; the blue shells were kinda uncommon, but the material wasn't useful for anything other shells weren't. The hard-to-find material plus proof of human work making a bead from it both contributed to the value of wampum beads and made them a viable currency.
See what I just did there, where I recognised the validity of your point before making my own? That's how you know that I'm capable of even a shred of intellectual honest. There's not much point continuing a dialogue with a wall.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 02 2019, @05:38PM
Yes, I stop reading as soon as I see a flaw in your post, which is normally the first sentence. Same applies to this one.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves