Only if someone raises a concern are they bound by “Swiss law” (if they become a regulated entity). Still requires people like myself to hold Maidsafe to their contractual obligations.
Was a question. Just wondering what he determines who is ill informed. How he is making such a informed separation of the individuals.
Learn about foundations and the laws that govern them and then you will realise your error.
We all knew what he was saying. It was an obvious attempt at discrediting his statement and straight out of the troll handbook
I don’t know what he is saying, therefore I am asking the question. Is that okay neo? can I ask questions?
You know you can, and so does others. But using the troll handbook to discredit is not asking questions is it, its attempting to discredit. The same as your little statement statement/question trying to act the victim being silenced.
Everyone knows ill informed does not equal different view. The same as everyone knows you can ask sensible questions here even if the answer does not suit you.
Both those posts were attempts at discrediting people. But of course you know this already.
Still fails to answer the question of how he determines if someone is “informed” or “ill informed”. The fact his statement ends with “makes this worse” seems to me (in my opinion) to aim the statement at those that do not agree with this RFC. So for the sake of clarity I asked a question.
Feel tree to discredit me as a troll for asking for clarity, it’s fine I don’t mine.
You can’t discredit someone for asking a question so that clarify their point. Lets be honest his statement is rather vague.
Just dropped an interesting topic in Meta
I share it here since many don’t have that category on their home page for the forum.
If the shoe fits …
Now I think that is an accurate post and well-timed.
Asking one question is not persistent. What an interesting interoperation of this situation you have.
The rest of my comments have been answering question upon my views.
@dirvine Is my concern being looked into within maidsafe, or is the intent to pursue this RFC? I would like professional response.
As a neutral party, no dog in this fight whatsoever, I see two parties looking at the same facts with different opinions.
An RFC was submitted, which is literally a “request for comment”. Yet I see very little if any will by the author(s) to take feedback into account and actually consider changing the wording of the RFC. If I missed such, sorry.
Frustrated by this, certain party(ies) have become more strident in their efforts to be heard and have their concerns addressed.
The addressing has been patient at first but later substantially of the form of “go away”, “you are trolliing” and the latest “you are sealioning”. I find these responses more akin to namecalling than anything else. I believe all parties to be acting in good faith and desiring the best outcome for the project.
I think that a serious concerns have been raised about:
In particular, I have seen point (2) raised in a couple different forms in this thread, and I don’t believe I’ve seen it addressed head-on by anyone from the “keep RFC as-is” camp.
To me, it seems cleanest and fairest to keep max supply 2^32 as promised, keep existing hodlers percentages unchanged, and only alter percentages for newcomers with no skin in the game.
At the least, I would like to see the “keep RFC as-is” camp address if this is an approach they would consider, or if not, why not?
I am not deeply immersed in the details, so I may well have missed something important. Just calling it as I see it. and again, I have no dog in this fight, don’t care much either way, just giving my perspective as a neutral party.
You entered into a contract with the crowdsale participants to deliver 10% of “all safe coin” in exchange for 429,496,729 MaidSafeCoin. You were happy to enter the contract at this point.
Let’s be clear, its business, not personal, not a game, not magic internet money, this is the real world. The title of the property of “10% of all safecoin”, were created at the moment the ICO took place. Delivery of such property can be postponed, but it still belongs to the owners of MaidSafeCoin. Is this situation being addressed in-house as we speak, or do you intend to breach contract with holders of MaidSafeCoin?
@danda That is spot on.
Of course, says one from the keep camp. It is a worthy solution. But we could debate this ad infinitum. At some point you have to cut bait. Go with one or the other. They both have merits. I, for one, am glad one has been submitted. Let’s see how that flies with the relevant authorities. If need be, we can shift gears later.
Of course, other factors such as the distribution algorithm are more relevant. But the problem is that it is not technical aspects that are being raised, but legal ones.
And the big problem I see is here:
The crowd sale will be operated as follows:
- A fixed number of MaidSafeCoin will be issued during the crowd sale
- The sale will last until all coins have been purchased (circa $8million) or 30 days has passed, whatever happens first > * Within that period, public funds in the form of bitcoin and mastercoin can be sent to exodus bitcoin address via www.BuySafeCoins.com
- Each participant will purchase an intermediary coin, MaidSafeCoin
- A quantity of 429,496,729 coins will be available for purchase, this equates to 10% of all safecoins
- Early buyer incentives are in place to reward early participation (see chart below) > * It is estimated that participants will purchase 17,000 MaidSafeCoins for 1 bitcoin
- All purchases and transctions will be recorded on the Bitcoin block chain via the Mastercoin protocol
- The deposit of funds in the exodus address will auto generate the appropriate level of MaidSafeCoins, they will be reciepted in the participants mastercoin wallet
- Once the full network is launched these will be traded on a 1:1 basis for safecoin
- Each participants safecoin wallet will be credited as the full network is launched and they create their SAFE network accounts
- In the event that not all coins are sold, the remaining coins will be burned
- All details are available at www.safecoin.io
Seems like the first time it was an RFC, the majority was happy, some issues were raised, a few things changed. Then it was submitted and announced and there is no clear end to the RFC process because a minority are still not satisfied.
The balls is rolling, RFC over.
This is fine, if they make their intention clear, I will contact such relevant authorities and explain the issue in-detail.
The Majority can still be wrong. a.k.a Brexit 
Is this a case of right or wrong, or merely preference? Sounds like it’s personal for you.
Was a joke.
I believe they’ve already been contacted. If it flies, it flies. No need to start a crusade re a simple business decision.
How much would you be out, personally, if this solution were adopted? How many safecoins? I would be happy to make up some of the perceived shortage if that would help. If others feel the same maybe we could set up some kind of pool to compensate those who feel aggrieved.
I think they might be interested in an attempt to breach contract with the original ICO investors. I simply need @dirvine to answer my question, so that I can move forward. Theres no point in me doing anything if they are going to address the issue in a reasonable manner.
So true BUT we had and have a majority on board it seems and what is a decentralized network or community without consensus!
I just think it was a mistake to keep calling it an RFC after the legal ball is rolling. The changes were made and most happy and satisfied with the changes, for the better. So RFC process involving the community worked, up to this point.
Anyways, it was just a mistake to call it an RFC after no more changes can be made without a delay. Mistakes happen. Let’s all just move on and see what comes of it naturally without intervention, eh?
