Author Topic: What are we creating?  (Read 7035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
can we realize international money transfer immediately with almost no fee?
This is a really good use case, and that is why ripple rise high these days. We need one or several clear use case, and the way to realize it.
the BIG difference bitween ripple and bitshares is that ripple does ONLY have gateway IOUs while bitshares has a decentralized market to exchange IOUs into a network-wide bitUSD .. in bitshares, gatways are actually USED as gateways in that they are on/off ramps towards the bitUSD .. and not "money transmitters" (not to be taken legally) in ripple

Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
can we realize international money transfer immediately with almost no fee?
This is a really good use case, and that is why ripple rise high these days. We need one or several clear use case, and the way to realize it.

Offline theoretical

How would this work?  This would be an important and useful feature which would help us capture really big markets.

My idea for this would be basically zero lines of code.  We'd just make it a separate asset with its own feed, defined to be feed_new_asset = pow(feed_underliyng, k) for a k times leveraged bet.  Changes in the feed make wins or losses in the same direction for the new asset and the underlying, but the new asset wins or loses k times harder because it responds k times more to changes in the feed.

If there's a black swan, at the blockchain level it's a separate asset with a separate feed, so the BitUSD market would be totally unaffected by people trading Leveraged30xBitUSD (well of course there would be economic effects from traders who try to maintain some kind of portfolio of positions in both markets).  In other words, the only people who have to worry about the possibility of black swans caused by the leveraged bets are themselves making equally leveraged bets in the opposite direction.

There's no technical obstacle stopping the delegates from publishing this kind of feed today.  But I'd discourage it right now.  I want to make sure the infrastructure for handling black swans is rock-solid before we encourage creation of assets that are more likely to trigger it.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2015, 10:06:12 pm by theoretical »
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
When you invent the internet, you do not work alongside existing alternates; you replace them.
Excellent analogy: the hypertext technology that we now call the web was in fact really invented by Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project but they failed to be the first to market because they couldn't compromise on their ideals and release something simply good enough. Tim Berners Lee picked the idea and ran with it and his stripped down version of Xanadu became what we know today as the web. Actually it's lucky that Tim Berners Lee was level headed because as it turns out Xanadu never managed to distance itself from its unrealistic ideals and are still vaporware 30 years later. Without Tim Berners Lee the web would probably be the private property of Xerox and IBM.

Powerful stuff. Ted Nelson seems like a cool guy from the Satoshi "reaveal" video, but it really is sad that some of the most passionate, idealistic people are so hard on themselves and so square on principles that they give up chances to claim the power they deserve, that will let them flourish, and will benefit the world.

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile

From my point of view, Ripple is doing the wisest thing by pursuing progressive change instead of disruption.
No. Ripple is taking the easiest path to a quick profit. Its lazy and that is not the better route to progress.
That post looks like a bed time story for Ripple execs.. it's nonsense.
Ripple is a company. Generating value for its equity holders is the main goal of a company, but you know that already. In that perspective, homing on the steepest growth gradiant isn't lazy but effective. I'm not saying that I support that from a philosophical perspective, but I'm not here to discuss philosophical ideals but practical down-to-earth matters such as first-mover advantage and opportunities.

I agree with a lot of what have been said above about ideals, but ideals are just that: ideals. They are what the perfect world would be if it wasn't the way it really is. Unfortunately, the world is the way it is, and only things that take into account the reality of our world and come up with realistic solutions can have an actual impact on it. Had Ripple been following libertarian ideals, it wouldn't have seized the oppotunity to partner with banks, and it's about another firm we would be discussing instead.

It's not like the world has to choose a project exclusively among libertarian cryptocurrencies, and adapt itself to the project and its philosophical ideals. It doesn't work like that. The way it works is that there are opportunities that are reflecting the practical reality of the world in its current paradigm, and the project that will success to adapt to the requirements will prevail. Other projects will remain irrelevant for an undefined amount of time until the paradigm has changed enough to make them relevant.

The point of my post is down to earth: Ripple has smelt an opportunity with the banking sector, has managed to gain a strong foothold in the place and is creating some in-draft for other complementary projects. Bitshares is a good candidate to jump on the bandwagon.

The question is: will Bitshares act as the company it is and seize the profit opportunity, or will it act as a libertarian community and wait for future hypothetical opportunities that match better it's ideals?

Let's not put the cart before the horses: the finance industry and the state are not dying yet and they show interest in blockchain technology out of curiosity rather than actual need; they will laugh at technologies that pretend to replace them and pick the projects that make the effort to fit their requirements. There are opportunities now to be seized and they will be seized no matter what. I would prefer to see projects from the current crypto community seizing opportunities in the real economy and entering the current power stucture even if they have to tone down a bit on their ideals until the time is ripe. If no one steps up and seize the opportunities, the old guard will react and close the opportunity window and you'll see the same old Paypal, Visa, Master, Amex, Bloomberg, Reuters, Swift, Tibco, NYSE technologies and the like stepping in the cryptospace. What do you prefer? Wouldn't Bitshares have a stronger impact on the world and more influence to shift the paradigm if it's an established brand on the Street rather than some obscure group of libertarian philosphers on the Internet waiting for the perfect opportunity to come?

When you invent the internet, you do not work alongside existing alternates; you replace them.
Excellent analogy: the hypertext technology that we now call the web was in fact really invented by Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project but they failed to be the first to market because they couldn't compromise on their ideals and release something simply good enough. Tim Berners Lee picked the idea and ran with it and his stripped down version of Xanadu became what we know today as the web. Actually it's lucky that Tim Berners Lee was level headed because as it turns out Xanadu never managed to distance itself from its unrealistic ideals and are still vaporware 30 years later. Without Tim Berners Lee the web would probably be the private property of Xerox and IBM.

When you invent blockchain technology, you do not work alongside existing alternate trust mechanisms; you replace them.
Well maybe that's what you do when you are called David P Brown, but when you are a developer at Swift and your boss asks you to create some crypto-based middleware for the banks, you just clone the latest crypto and you crank up some closed source thing that will be good enough to handle realtime transfers and settlements among banks while keeoing your firm as a necessary middleman. For all its defaults Ripple is open-source, freeish and it's public infrastructure. So really at this stage it's a question of whether you prefer opensource initiatives like Ripple and Bitshares to become the new financial standard or some proprietary stuff from the old guard. Maybe 10 years down the line if the financial system collapses you'll get better opportunities at your own terms but by then the market will be saturated by competing solutions that may not embarass themselves with too much ideals either.

I would say this is the most significant from Klosure which to be honest I agree with everything you say but I like this the most

"Excellent analogy: the hypertext technology that we now call the web was in fact really invented by Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project but they failed to be the first to market because they couldn't compromise on their ideals and release something simply good enough. Tim Berners Lee picked the idea and ran with it and his stripped down version of Xanadu became what we know today as the web. Actually it's lucky that Tim Berners Lee was level headed because as it turns out Xanadu never managed to distance itself from its unrealistic ideals and are still vaporware 30 years later. Without Tim Berners Lee the web would probably be the private property of Xerox and IBM."

And if bytemaster doesnt become more than 8 bits and doesnt become mega bytemaster then we are screwed.  We cant align ourselves being Libertarians we have to be like Stellar and be looked at as Utilitarians. (mostly the second definition)

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism
yo͞oˌtiləˈterēəˌnizəm/
noun
the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.


We cant just have our ins as college profs, we need to be business people who are pragmatic.  Mega bytemaster has proven hes pragmatic, he must not solidify his views.  He may outcast more people, but more people will come.  If you build it, they will come,

The real question is who would want to hold bitUSD at this point, you cant have leverage that is more than 30x like a futures contract, people wont trade for pennies, and you cant spend it yet at walmart.

We need to make the apps as easy as possible, Apple style.  The key to the iPod was only becomes it did not need drivers to sync into your computer, your computer automatically recognized it, it was also useful and easy friendly, but I want through 4 Apple iPod like devices (not iPods, other companies) because I hated Apple at the time for making the gay colored macs we had in highschool.  But once I came across the iPod, I was in heaven, it was just that easy, no driver needed.  This was back in 2004 I believe.

We need to find honest uses for bitshares and the bitassets.

As a note I would consider my ideology utilitarian not anything else.

I agree.  Once the additional wallets come out we need to go utilititarian full bore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
30x leverage is coming provided someone is willing to loan with collateral of just 103% and carry the risk of default.   

The network will not bear the 30x leverage risk, but will allow individuals within the network to take opposite sides of a 30x leverage bet.

How would this work?  This would be an important and useful feature which would help us capture really big markets.

Would it work like this, using OKCoin and 20x BTC leverage as an example:

OKCoin has a Bitshares account with $X worth of Bitshares in it. 
OKCoin uses this as collateral to short (create) $X/3 worth of bitBTC.

OKCoin allows its pool of bitBTC to allow you to open short or long futures contracts on bitBTC at 20x leverage, just as they do now with bitcoin. 

When any individual trader makes a profit, OKCoin pays them.
When the internal trader goes bust, OKCoin is on the hook to the bitshares blockchain for the loss, and uses a system of socialized losses to cover this, just as they do now.

OKCoin cannot go completely bust, because its bitBTC are backed by 300% collateral in BTS.  (Or at least, them going bust would require the ame level of black swan event that destroys all bitAssets).



Is something like that correct?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

30x leverage is coming provided someone is willing to loan with collateral of just 103% and carry the risk of default.   

The network will not bear the 30x leverage risk, but will allow individuals within the network to take opposite sides of a 30x leverage bet. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline eagleeye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
From my point of view, Ripple is doing the wisest thing by pursuing progressive change instead of disruption.
No. Ripple is taking the easiest path to a quick profit. Its lazy and that is not the better route to progress.
That post looks like a bed time story for Ripple execs.. it's nonsense.
Ripple is a company. Generating value for its equity holders is the main goal of a company, but you know that already. In that perspective, homing on the steepest growth gradiant isn't lazy but effective. I'm not saying that I support that from a philosophical perspective, but I'm not here to discuss philosophical ideals but practical down-to-earth matters such as first-mover advantage and opportunities.

I agree with a lot of what have been said above about ideals, but ideals are just that: ideals. They are what the perfect world would be if it wasn't the way it really is. Unfortunately, the world is the way it is, and only things that take into account the reality of our world and come up with realistic solutions can have an actual impact on it. Had Ripple been following libertarian ideals, it wouldn't have seized the oppotunity to partner with banks, and it's about another firm we would be discussing instead.

It's not like the world has to choose a project exclusively among libertarian cryptocurrencies, and adapt itself to the project and its philosophical ideals. It doesn't work like that. The way it works is that there are opportunities that are reflecting the practical reality of the world in its current paradigm, and the project that will success to adapt to the requirements will prevail. Other projects will remain irrelevant for an undefined amount of time until the paradigm has changed enough to make them relevant.

The point of my post is down to earth: Ripple has smelt an opportunity with the banking sector, has managed to gain a strong foothold in the place and is creating some in-draft for other complementary projects. Bitshares is a good candidate to jump on the bandwagon.

The question is: will Bitshares act as the company it is and seize the profit opportunity, or will it act as a libertarian community and wait for future hypothetical opportunities that match better it's ideals?

Let's not put the cart before the horses: the finance industry and the state are not dying yet and they show interest in blockchain technology out of curiosity rather than actual need; they will laugh at technologies that pretend to replace them and pick the projects that make the effort to fit their requirements. There are opportunities now to be seized and they will be seized no matter what. I would prefer to see projects from the current crypto community seizing opportunities in the real economy and entering the current power stucture even if they have to tone down a bit on their ideals until the time is ripe. If no one steps up and seize the opportunities, the old guard will react and close the opportunity window and you'll see the same old Paypal, Visa, Master, Amex, Bloomberg, Reuters, Swift, Tibco, NYSE technologies and the like stepping in the cryptospace. What do you prefer? Wouldn't Bitshares have a stronger impact on the world and more influence to shift the paradigm if it's an established brand on the Street rather than some obscure group of libertarian philosphers on the Internet waiting for the perfect opportunity to come?

When you invent the internet, you do not work alongside existing alternates; you replace them.
Excellent analogy: the hypertext technology that we now call the web was in fact really invented by Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project but they failed to be the first to market because they couldn't compromise on their ideals and release something simply good enough. Tim Berners Lee picked the idea and ran with it and his stripped down version of Xanadu became what we know today as the web. Actually it's lucky that Tim Berners Lee was level headed because as it turns out Xanadu never managed to distance itself from its unrealistic ideals and are still vaporware 30 years later. Without Tim Berners Lee the web would probably be the private property of Xerox and IBM.

When you invent blockchain technology, you do not work alongside existing alternate trust mechanisms; you replace them.
Well maybe that's what you do when you are called David P Brown, but when you are a developer at Swift and your boss asks you to create some crypto-based middleware for the banks, you just clone the latest crypto and you crank up some closed source thing that will be good enough to handle realtime transfers and settlements among banks while keeoing your firm as a necessary middleman. For all its defaults Ripple is open-source, freeish and it's public infrastructure. So really at this stage it's a question of whether you prefer opensource initiatives like Ripple and Bitshares to become the new financial standard or some proprietary stuff from the old guard. Maybe 10 years down the line if the financial system collapses you'll get better opportunities at your own terms but by then the market will be saturated by competing solutions that may not embarass themselves with too much ideals either.

I would say this is the most significant from Klosure which to be honest I agree with everything you say but I like this the most

"Excellent analogy: the hypertext technology that we now call the web was in fact really invented by Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project but they failed to be the first to market because they couldn't compromise on their ideals and release something simply good enough. Tim Berners Lee picked the idea and ran with it and his stripped down version of Xanadu became what we know today as the web. Actually it's lucky that Tim Berners Lee was level headed because as it turns out Xanadu never managed to distance itself from its unrealistic ideals and are still vaporware 30 years later. Without Tim Berners Lee the web would probably be the private property of Xerox and IBM."

And if bytemaster doesnt become more than 8 bits and doesnt become mega bytemaster then we are screwed.  We cant align ourselves being Libertarians we have to be like Stellar and be looked at as Utilitarians. (mostly the second definition)

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism
yo͞oˌtiləˈterēəˌnizəm/
noun
the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.


We cant just have our ins as college profs, we need to be business people who are pragmatic.  Mega bytemaster has proven hes pragmatic, he must not solidify his views.  He may outcast more people, but more people will come.  If you build it, they will come,

The real question is who would want to hold bitUSD at this point, you cant have leverage that is more than 30x like a futures contract, people wont trade for pennies, and you cant spend it yet at walmart.

We need to make the apps as easy as possible, Apple style.  The key to the iPod was only becomes it did not need drivers to sync into your computer, your computer automatically recognized it, it was also useful and easy friendly, but I want through 4 Apple iPod like devices (not iPods, other companies) because I hated Apple at the time for making the gay colored macs we had in highschool.  But once I came across the iPod, I was in heaven, it was just that easy, no driver needed.  This was back in 2004 I believe.

We need to find honest uses for bitshares and the bitassets.

As a note I would consider my ideology utilitarian not anything else.

Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Generating value for its equity holders is the principal goal of a company, but you know that already. In that perspective, homing on the steepest growth gradiant isn't lazy but effective.
Something is wrong with the economy; ever stop to wonder why? Greed is not Good.
Greed is human and will be there no matter what paradigm you shift to.
Look at the Bitcoin community. Is that the blueprint of the ideal society?

Unfortunately, the world is the way it is, and only things that take into account the reality of our world and come up with realistic solutions can have an actual impact on it. Had Ripple been following libertarian ideals, it wouldn't have seized the oppotunity to partner with banks, and it's about another firm we would be discussing instead.
That is lazy. "the world is the way it is", so we just have to play along, rather than ever consider it could be bettered!
It's not lazy but realistic. It doesn't mean you have to give up trying to make it better. But you can't turn it on its head overnight and pretend that going forward the world is just going to be that fantasy place you would like it to be. Making the world a better place starts by looking at it with objective eyes, the beautiful things and the ugly things, be able to tell what is in human nature and what can get better, and think realistically about what you can try to change, where you can get the most impact for the least cost, and how you can avoid hurting people in the process.

The whole point of blockchain technology is to distribute power and wealth. That's a fundamental concept that Ripple seems to want to bypass. Such attitude is at the root of why there is an economic crisis. It's irresponsible.
No, the whole point of blockchain technology is to allow trustless resolution of concurrent access to a distributed databased structured as a chained list of records. Practically speaking, the main effect is to desintermediate the trustees in all sorts of automated transactions that require such concurrent use of a database. But that's pretty much it. Anything more you will slap on top is just your interpretation of the implication of the technology mixed up together with your political leaning and subjective view of the world.
By the way, be careful with how you wield the "redistribution of wealth" rethoric as it just makes Bitshares look like communism, as evidenced by the long trollish thread on Bitcointalk where Bitshares is painted as USSR.

It's not like the world has to choose a project exclusively among libertarian cryptocurrencies, and adapt itself to the project and its philosophical ideals. It doesn't work like that.
"The way it works is that" .. "the practical reality of the world in its current paradigm"
Give over.. that's just fallacy, chatter as faux academic authority, doesn't make truth and is not persuasive.
Oh ok, so you mean the world actually has to chose exclusively among libertarian cryptocurrencies and adapt itself to the project and its philosophical ideals? Glad to hear that, it will make things so much easier indeed.

The point of my post is down to earth: Ripple has smelt an opportunity with the banking sector, has managed to gain a strong foothold in the place and is creating some in-draft for other complementary projects. Bitshares is a good candidate to jump on the bandwagon.
You sound like you're trying to exploit BitShares because it has what Ripple lacks. I can understand Ripple would want a partner like BitShares but understand that BitShares is the stronger partner.
I just see a strong synergy potential between the two projects. Both have got top talents and distinctive advantages that are almost entirely complementary. It's also saden me that such a potent technology as Bitshares is having so little visibility. If you want to give a negative twist to it and antagonize the Ripple community for showing interest in BitShares it's your choice. I hope other BitShares people are a bit more open minded.

Ripple has a corrupted sense of what blockchain technology can do; it opted for the trivial near old banking remittance use of XRP as water but it needs to do what BitShares already can in order to survive; the reality of others like BitShares doing remittances without the wasted wealth value in XRP, will be too much to bare.
I don't get what you mean by "corrupted sense of blochain technology" or "XRP as water" or "wasted wealth value".
As far as I can tell, Ripple seem to be doing just fine these days. Not sure what you think is threatening its survival.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unrealistic; others have noted that solving today's problems is often better than perpetually chasing perfection - Counterparty dev suggested that a while back too.
If Ripple could offer BitShares access to real markets, then I'd be all for that. You need to understand though that what makes BitShares and others effective, is what has Ripple compromised.
At the pace Ripple is expanding, it's only a matter of time before some real world exchange starts using Ripple as backend.

Open Source works for a reason and you cannot just "clone the latest crypto" if you do not have the skills to do that. There are too many examples of closed source vulnerabilities; so, don't mistake closed source as an option to hide incompetence.
I'm not trying to start a debate about closed source vs open source. I'm just stating that given the fact I don't see the state and finance industry dying of a stroke any time soon, I much rather have opensource and public networks like Ripple and Bitshares seize the opportunities and put a foot in the place than let the old gard catchup and position themselves in the cryptospace with their own closed source and private networks. It won't be an instant utopia, but it's a first step in the right direction that will open the gates for further change and help clearing the massive communication fsck up that has led to the demonization of cryptocurrencies.

Ripple may have strengths and partnering with BitShares could be useful but be realistic about why; and do not see everything as an opportunity to exploit others!
That's petty accusations. I'll pass on it.

Gifting ye old banksters another monopoly, is not going to solve any problem but their own. The world is progressing and Ripple cannot just sit by and do what old banking has done.
You don't get it: banksters have already the monopoly of money and the power to outlaw crypto. Crypto hasn't always been legal, its liberalization is fairly recent and David Cameron's latest blunder is proof that the idea of a general ban of crypto is floating in the air and that we can't consider it for granted in the current climate. We are litterally walking on eggs and it would take as little as allegations that terrorist are using blockchain technology (false flag or not) to tip the balance. Show proactively that crypto and blockchain technology are positive inventions that can propel our economies into a new era of growth and progress and we will prevail but it will take some time. On the other hand if we act like a fanatical and uncompromising bunch of revolutionaries and rock the boat too much, we'll just give a good excuse to the state to defend itself and make sure that these "subversive" technologies can't endanger the global economy. Look at what we got out of the reckless way filesharing was started... the DMCA. I really don't think that it was a wining move.

Again, I'm not saying that I approve the state. I do perceive it as a violent, corrupt and self-serving aberration, and want its demise as strongly as you do, but I also understand that it's extremely powerful and basically holding the world together, and that trying to replace it altogether in one go is just not realistic or even desirable given the price to pay for that. If we are right in our analysis that we have reached the technological level to spawn a new fairer world order, we need to understand that this has to be done with the utmost mindfulness and wisdom and that a long term strategy is more likely than not needed to perfom what essentially amounts to a cerebral spine transplant. We also should not forget that the state is still composed of very normal people like you and me who are caught in the system, don't approve it but have to follow the rules, and would equally want to change it to something better, and that whatever we do with the law and the way it's being intepreted, we will still need these people to run the economy. So no need to needlessly antogonize everybody. That doesn't serve our objectives.

One element of your posts that I agree with is that I expect there may come a point where there is a split between those who are unrealistic and those who want to get something done. However, that is a balance that works both ways. You can do too little too!
I agree with that but if your last sentence is referring to Ripple, I don't think it's a really fair to decide arbitrarily that they are doing too little. They have a strategy that is sound, clear and consistant, and so far they have executed it greatly. That may not send us directly where we really want to go but that gets us closer and still counts as a point scored by our camp. At least Ripple is doing something, and not trolling all day long and partaking in vain internal rivalry like the Bitcoin community has been doing most of last year.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 07:08:24 pm by klosure »

Offline bytemaster

Can we combine experience of ripple and our innovation?
We can solve the international money transfer as one step. Once we solve this, we will achieve massive number of users, and of course it is easier for people to accept bit-assets. This may be a possible way to promote. 
People may deposit bitCNY to an account via exchanges or ATM using fiat. And in minutes people in America can withdraw USD via another exchange or ATM.

My question is this:

If BitShares were to partner in some way with Ripple or Stellar.  And those chains worked to form a layer that is more loved by the "elite" psychopaths and their Agenda 21 brethren, could bitshares-based exchanges serve as counterpoints that sufficiently neutralize the toxic collaboration that XRP has with the current system? 

I think it would be more likely that Ripple would side with "regulation" and BitShares-based DACs would be forced to either go along to get along or face strict regulation and media campaigns/false flags that make liberty-loving BitShares promoters out to be "Terrorist-Sympathizers".  But I am up for dissenting opinions.

BitShares is supporting everything to comply with all regulation with User Issued Assets and thus could be adopted by the banks just like Ripple. 

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile

Yeah i am also thinking what bitshares want to provide to the world.
Stellar is founded by who founded Ripple. Though it is not that decentralized, it is good solution to the real world.  it is easy for average people to understand what they are doing. They just want to do things like "send USD and receive JPY in any place of the world in seconds" .  It is so easy to understand and attract millions of people join to establish that organization.
Stellar announce they have 3 million users and the number are fast natural growing.   
The goal is described in words that average people can understand, so easy to spread. And the tool is usable. It cost nothing to realize dream for ordinary people.
What is the bitshares goal in one sentence?

To find free market solutions to secure life, liberty, and property.   
Good long term goal.
We want to encourage people hold bit-assets. We firstly have to make bit-assets useful.  So i suggest we may solve some real problems firstly to make people use it.
International money transfer is a good one. If we can solve this problem, we will achieve massive number of users.
Imagine if it is very easy to send CNY in china and receive USD in america, we will win these kind of user. And if there is another good gateway in japan. We will win users of CNY/JPY, CNY/USD,  USD/JPY. When the number of gateway grow, we win massive number of users.

Offline fuzzy

Can we combine experience of ripple and our innovation?
We can solve the international money transfer as one step. Once we solve this, we will achieve massive number of users, and of course it is easier for people to accept bit-assets. This may be a possible way to promote. 
People may deposit bitCNY to an account via exchanges or ATM using fiat. And in minutes people in America can withdraw USD via another exchange or ATM.

My question is this:

If BitShares were to partner in some way with Ripple or Stellar.  And those chains worked to form a layer that is more loved by the "elite" psychopaths and their Agenda 21 brethren, could bitshares-based exchanges serve as counterpoints that sufficiently neutralize the toxic collaboration that XRP has with the current system? 

I think it would be more likely that Ripple would side with "regulation" and BitShares-based DACs would be forced to either go along to get along or face strict regulation and media campaigns/false flags that make liberty-loving BitShares promoters out to be "Terrorist-Sympathizers".  But I am up for dissenting opinions. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
Can we combine experience of ripple and our innovation?
We can solve the international money transfer as one step. Once we solve this, we will achieve massive number of users, and of course it is easier for people to accept bit-assets. This may be a possible way to promote. 
People may deposit bitCNY to an account via exchanges or ATM using fiat. And in minutes people in America can withdraw USD via another exchange or ATM.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 05:14:55 pm by xiahui135 »

TurkeyLeg

  • Guest


"Are we changing the paradigm? Or are we Upgrading it?" 

It's a huge opportunity provided that Bitshares holder are able to step back and look at the big picture objectively and realistically and understand that the state and financial industry aren't going away anyway.

You're wrong. They are going away. Because they aren't suited to the new paradigm that is emerging. And we are.

It wasn't the bunny rabbits that killed off the dinosaurs.

They aren't going away in our life time. Changing the world is a nice dream (and I hope it comes true) but I'll settle for getting rich in the old paradigm. I'm okay with being self interested for me and my family.,

The only problem is that getting rich in the old paradigm actually isn't the same as being self-interested for yourself and your family.



Yes - from a very idealistic perspective, you are correct. And one of the reasons why I'm playing around with BitShares is because in part, I share your ideals and optimism.

But our lenses are all shaded by our life experience. Maybe mine aren't quite as rose colored as others - doesn't make me wrong.

Offline davidpbrown

I have no interest in 'we'. If delegates continue to perform tasks that help grow my personal vision, I will vote for them. If delegates go against my financial and social interests, I will campaign against them. Not everyone needs to drink the same Koolade for this project to be successful.

That's true but then in reality you do not have 101 developers. The core of BitShares needs to be considered and stay on target.

I guess that also raises a question about the prospect of Ripple just buying their way into BitShares and voting alongside everyone else, which I guess we couldn't argue with.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc