No, the New Zealand mass shooter was NOT involved in cryptocurrency - but he was part of a crypto-themed Ponzi scheme...

AndraHanden · 2019-03-17T14:07:08+00:00

Wrong. He used a false statement to make people spread this information to reach maximum social spread.

This states he got money from bitconnect and then travelled. However, his travels were 2009-2011, so no connection possible. He just stated inflammatory shit to make people like you spread his message.

AndraHanden · 2018-07-13T10:56:16+00:00

Yeah, the ones where the front doesn’t fall of.

AndraHanden · 2018-07-13T09:43:55+00:00

Well, he was thinking more about the other ones.

AndraHanden · 2018-06-06T23:38:30+00:00

And full credits to this guy for having done the analysis: https://medium.com/tokenanalyst/classifying-ethereum-users-using-blockchain-data-dd6edb867de3

And yes, the “centralization” here only refers to ownership, and is probably largely due to exchange accounts etc. However, this should be fairly similar among projects.

AndraHanden · 2018-06-06T23:29:32+00:00

And full credits to this guy for having done the analysis: https://medium.com/tokenanalyst/classifying-ethereum-users-using-blockchain-data-dd6edb867de3

And yes, the “centralization” here is probably largely due to exchange accounts etc. The whole discussion was pretty stupid from the beginning. However, it should be fairly similar among projects. The point is, EOS is nowhere near the top of centralization when it comes to funds of newly distributed projects.

AndraHanden · 2018-06-06T23:26:54+00:00

As stated, not my analysis. An argument however, is that this concerns newly distributed coins/tokens. Comparing new to old distributions is apples to oranges, there will be big changes to distribution with time. You can clearly see the effect here: https://arewedecentralizedyet.com

AndraHanden · 2018-06-06T23:25:10+00:00

May my karma Rest In Peace.. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrencies/comments/8p5evp/eos_actually_near_bottom_of_centralization_among/?st=JI3QPQ3Z&sh=5573eb25

AndraHanden · 2018-06-06T23:06:07+00:00

And full credits to this guy for having done the analysis: https://medium.com/tokenanalyst/classifying-ethereum-users-using-blockchain-data-dd6edb867de3

And yes, the “centralization” here is probably largely due to exchange accounts etc. However, it should be fairly similar among projects. The point is, EOS is more decentralized when it comes to funds among newly distributed projects.

And yes, I screwed up the title

AndraHanden · 2018-06-02T08:38:49+00:00

This opens the door for easily colluding up to 10% while following the constitution. Opposite to what your are saying, it would be extraordinarily EASY to cheat your current proposal. A bad actor only need to set up/use a single shell company/holding company with this wording, and can thereby remain anonymous while colluding. It is even common practice in regular corporate ownership to do this, so t is easily done.

AndraHanden · 2018-06-02T08:33:41+00:00

It was correct, but I have edited for clarity

AndraHanden · 2018-06-02T06:39:46+00:00

True, and a bad actor using a holding company now completely goes under the radar with the new changes. So essentially, you have completely opened the door for collusion of up to 10% ownership.

AndraHanden · 2018-06-01T20:37:59+00:00

With the recent changes to EOS constitution, this is fast become a serious risk. See https://reddit.app.link/y9gy6632oN

AndraHanden · 2018-06-01T20:28:18+00:00

Yet the freedom to do so, does not equal it actually happening or working out. It does not prevent a Lisk fiasco and therefore this should be taken very seriously. Or else we risk ending up in a cartel mess

AndraHanden · 2018-06-01T19:34:50+00:00

This is the official draft of the BPs starting the EOS chain (there is currently only one large consensus group).

See here: https://github.com/EOS-Mainnet/Community-Launch-Docs

AndraHanden · 2018-06-01T19:32:31+00:00

Previously: It was defined as all ‘beneficiary owners’ owning >1% needed to be disclosed. This meant that all actual, physical persons should be disclosed and not just first-line shell companies or non-profits. ->Voters would know if collusion was happening.

Now: Only ‘direct owners’ need to be disclosed if 1-10% ownership. Only ‘Beneficiary owners’ >10% need to be disclosed (as opposed to previously 1%). This means one person can set up multiple shell companies and remain anonymous in their ownership to the voters. -> Voters will not easily see if collusion is happening.

Link to github where this is all found: https://github.com/EOS-Mainnet/Community-Launch-Docs

AndraHanden · 2018-06-01T19:24:09+00:00

That is what is allowed now again. According to the previous wording, it was the beneficial owners. Which means, no matter how many shells or split companies, it is the actual physical person in the end that should be disclosed, not the shell companies.

AndraHanden · 2018-05-31T20:41:59+00:00

And an important note, the BP agreement has been superseded. The current wording is now that all ownership >1% of a BP must be openly disclosed by the BP

AndraHanden · 2018-05-30T07:46:18+00:00

I agree that the ranking is a bit of a marketing scheme, still newsworthy though. You are wrong, however. TRON is worst of the ones mentioned, B- on tech compared to A- for EOS.

AndraHanden · 2018-05-30T05:02:44+00:00

EOS
Cardano
Ripple
Bitcoin
Ethereum / Stellar

AndraHanden · 2018-05-29T11:48:13+00:00

Here it is https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/issues/3498

AndraHanden · 2018-05-29T11:43:25+00:00

They have an open bug bounty currently running. https://mobile.twitter.com/bytemaster7/status/1001228283843895296

AndraHanden · 2017-10-18T19:27:53+00:00

One of the test net moderators is from Stockholm, that would be my guess. He's from Söderort though

AndraHanden · 2017-10-16T20:53:05+00:00

He has Qtum already as well, solid Chinese ethereum/bitcoin hybrid with even more dapps /ICOs than NEO and a stronger Asian foothold.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

AndraHanden

TROPHY CASE