On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com wrote:
2017-12-29 14:53 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
+1 to Julie, and to the other people who expressed doubts about the wisdom to go down this path.
the decision was already made. and couldn't really be properly assessed without having the information of someone *who* had made the decision to invest. i've now _got_ that information and it's nowhere near as good an opportunity as i initially thought... but i have enough to know that it is NOT a ponzi scheme.
If anything, the whole coin-mining rush and the resources devoted to it (not only computational, also human resources and the amount of press/attention that is given to it) compared to many of the other world problems, look to me anything but sensible, and much less "eco-conscious" or "ethical".
dude: it's the first time in human history where third parties are neither required for contracts to be ATOMICALLY binding. i'm not sure if you grasp the full significance of that.
prior to blockchain and hashgraph and so on the only way to guarantee that a contract was honoured is to (a) trust each party in the contract and (b) if there is a dispute trust a THIRD PARTY.
entire power structures have built up over millenia based around that and THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE POWER TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS IS TRULY DECENTRALISED.
i... i can't... i can't emphasise enough how mind-bogglingly significant that truly is for the whole of humanity.
So I am not going to start arguing about this, I hope to not reply to any other email in the thread, but just to express that I also feel that this new adventure is quite far from the general idea of the EOMA (which I backed as part of the campaign and also a few years before that), and the campaign, which I contributed to echo in many places while it ran, which now I kind of regret after the latest developments.
there is nothing that i can say here. as in, i am not permitted, under my own ethical operating framework, to say anything that would interfere with your right to make assessments and conclusions for yourself.
(2) if you're part of the 1st batch, that's much more complex: as i've outlined many many times, the reputation of the factory is harmed if the suppliers do not get the orders that they've been promised; the factory workers are harmed because they don't the get jobs that they've been promised; it also does harm to the project if the funds are below the critical threshold (that they're already at) for buying components and much more. i therefore have to do an analysis to see if there is any harm that you intend to do to the project. it would help in my assessment if you make it absolutely clear if it is your intention to *actively* do harm to the project.
I find that the language that you use is completely inappropriate to treat backers of the idea.
ok, let's look first at the facts, then we go over them, then you can let me know how i *should* have presented it, so that i can learn how to make it clear.
but in doing so i am going to ask you one very simple thing: that you accept the facts AS the facts, ok?
the facts are that removing money from the first batch *actively* does harm. i'll go over them again below.
Julie and others, including me, *do not actively intend to harm the EOMA project*. They, or we, just don't feel comfortable with the turn of the story that you are going to make, or just made, so they lost confidence that it's a project worth backing. At most we want to *actively* remove us from the equation, not *actively* harm EOMA.
unfortunately, it does *active* harm if the money from the first batch is removed. i have made this clear a number of times.
* the amount of money available is only sufficient to pay components, shipping etc. (i.e. not living expenses) * therefore if an amount is SUBTRACTED from that total, it must, logically, mean that the total number of units manufactured is REDUCED * in many cases i have ALREADY PURCHASED COMPONENTS. 1500 JAE DC3 connectors. 2000 PCMCIA cases. 2000 PCMCIA sockets * if i talk to the factory and say "i'm sorry, the numbers to be manufactured are now 800 not 1000" their reaction will be as follows:
(1) they will never trust me to place an order with them ever again (2) as a knock-on effect all the contracts that THEY have arranged will also have to be re-negotiated (to LOWER values) (3) the factory's reputation with those suppliers will be IRREPARABLY HARMED as a result (4) the workers on the factory's assembly line will also be harmed.
It's you who is *actively* changing the rules
of course! i'll change anything that's needed - without sacrificing any of the underlying ethical principles - trying and testing out absolutely anything that stands a chance of working towards the goal.
that's *how* you succeed.
again, can i refer to Simon Sinek's talk and invite you to go back, fundamentally, to the WHY.
please answer for me: WHY do you think am i doing what i am doing?
i do mean, actually answer that question as best you can. don't treat it as "rhetorical" in any way.
and making EOMA conditional on coin-mining operations rather than rethink the project and deliver less than promised, or do it in a different way, or run another campaign.
i have been talking in ... have you been *reading* the updates at all over the past year??? fer fuck's sake manuel i've been planning *multiple* avenues here! *including* already delivering less! *including* planning multiple campaigns!
These suggestions were given by people in this thread, perhaps not the best, perhaps not enough, but that's what many people in the "EOMA community" expressed. If you disregard these opinions, well, it's you who is going to be the only actor *actively* harming or *boosting* the project, whatever end result is going to be.
pretty much every single update, i clearly state, "this project succeeds or fails based on your feedback and support". if you come back to the "WHY" as Simon Sinek advises that everyone first and foremost do, and you BELIEVE in that "WHY", then it is ALL our responsibility to keep an eye on the project and to give feedback.
i think you are losing sight of that... and also forgetting that the BTC i mined over 5 years ago - using MY personal money WELL before this Crowdfunding campaign started - was put in 32 days ago.
It's maybe nobody's fault that things went this way, but in any case, it's not Julie's fault in any way what happend so far and that the money is insufficient now, so treating backers in this appalling way is not OK.
tell me: what is "appalling" about describing - truthfully - the direct consequences of removing money from the first batch?
if you are part of the first batch, do you intend to do *active* harm to this project if your request for a refund is not met; please kindly answer yes or no, if yes, please outline the extent of the damage that would be your intent to carry out, if any,, and i will be able to make a fully-informed assessment.
If you go down this path, not only linking EOMA to the success of a coin-mining operation, but blaming people who backed and trusted you, I don't think that Julie is the only person who is going to ask for a refund.
i'm not quotes linking EOMA to the success of a coin mining operation quotes jaezuss, manuel, where did you get the impression that i'm that fucking stupid _come_ on man.
i *don't have* full-time jobs like everyone else in the techie field, i'm too much of a threat to companies for them to employ me. and, not to mention, there's the fact that if i *have* a full-time job i CAN'T FOCUS ON THIS TASK.
wake up for goodness sake, people. i've been trying for EIGHTEEN YEARS to gain full financial independence so that i can focus a hundred percent on ethical business and people KEEP FUCKING TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY GENEROSITY.
hearing how jeremy allison managed to get his *brother* in on that VA Linux IPO when he'd *ASSUMED* that the founders would have contacted me... the list of times where people have either blatantly exploited my work for significant personal financial gain or blatant outright embezzled it in one case... i won't go into details because it would shock you too much.
so i'm going to ask you a very, very direct question: do you want me to give up? do you want me to quit? go back to the UK and get some fucking stupid job in walmart or tesco's? because i can do that if you prefer.
or do you want me to continue to try to succeed at the goals i've set?
sorry for being blunt, i feel it's best to be absolutely up-front about these things.
Ditto.
_great_! genuinely and absolutely honestly _great_. that way, misunderstandings get cleared up.
l.