BitAssets ... aren't a killer feature

[Thom]

When you put money to the bank you actually lend it to the bank. If bank fail to repay you then, you took the risk and lent money into risky bank, so who is suppose to take a hit? We love free market, don't we?

[rant on]
I've looked at banking from this perspective since my early twenties. That was decades ago and it still holds true now. I've gone through periods of no bank accounts, no credit cards, paying bills with money orders, trade, barter etc. It is an unfortunate fact of life today that you give up many opportunities with such active rebellion to the established economic status quo, and FINALLY people have found a way to push back by coming up with an alternative: blockchain technology.

But we're at war on several fronts, and they all won't be won in a single moment. The fight for financial freedom will not be won overnight, but it is worthy of our energies if nothing else, than to free posterity from the insanity of our greed in the here and now. We're eating our future! Think big picture, think virtue! take this work seriously and really pour yourself into helping I3 and this community to succeed.
[rant off]

[Riverhead]

When you put money to the bank you actually lend it to the bank. If bank fail to repay you then, you took the risk and lent money into risky bank, so who is suppose to take a hit? We love free market, don't we?

Your description of the business model and the risks are quite correct. However, it is not marketed this way to the public. They market themselves as a trusted vault rather than a lending broker between private parties (where they keep almost 100% of the profit).

[aaaxn]

I just read about bail-in because I had never heard the term before. Holy crap .

If bank is doing well customers get 0% or 0.1% interest and the shareholders get rich. If the bank starts to fail the customers are forced to buy the nearly worthless shares at market value and the very people that caused the failure get the cash.

I suppose this saves the bankers the hassle of physically robbing their own bank with ski masks and guns.

When you put money to the bank you actually lend it to the bank. If bank fail to repay you then, you took the risk and lent money into risky bank, so who is suppose to take a hit? We love free market, don't we?

[Riverhead]

I just read about bail-in because I had never heard the term before. Holy crap .

If bank is doing well customers get 0% or 0.1% interest and the shareholders get rich. If the bank starts to fail the customers are forced to buy the nearly worthless shares at market value and the very people that caused the failure get the cash.

I suppose this saves the bankers the hassle of physically robbing their own bank with ski masks and guns.

[fuzzy]

E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..

Ha!  I'm not a newbie.  And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did.  Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years).  When is the last time a big US bank failed and lost all its clients funds?  Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use perfectly).  Even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...

Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization.  Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.

But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation?  I don't know.

All across the world legislation is being passed and very real discussions being had with specific regard to "Bail-Ins".  I'll tell you right now that as soon as investment "banks" start backing legislation to legalize this theft, the demographic to which decentralized currencies and services appeal grow far larger than "libertarian cryptonerds" and the occasional "tin-foil-hat" crowd. 

  BitAsset Catalyst incoming

(Though I feel sorry for the people that will lose very much in the bail-ins.)

A Vault that protects you from all this...yeh.  Killer app. 

Or we could, perhaps, go with a different Killer app called  "Follow My Vote"--where humanity can, for the first time in recorded history, vote in a completely transparent, granular and auditable way.  Direct Democracy = Killer App.

As far as risk...of course there is risk.  We are literally at the bleeding edge.  The entire internet was once in this stage and people said email would never catch on.  It didn't serve any real function beyond that which prior services could handle.  I mean doesn't the post office do well enough?  Who needs their messages in less than 15 seconds?

I look at bitshares as an ecosystem much like facebook...only with an entire DAC economy being built into it.  Oh...and that isn't to mention Invictus inherently understands the concept of privacy whereas Facebook syphons value from their "customers".  Killer apps...galore...

[Empirical1.1]

E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..

Ha!  I'm not a newbie.  And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did.  Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years).  When is the last time a big US bank failed and lost all its clients funds?  Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use perfectly).  Even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...

Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization.  Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.

But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation?  I don't know.

All across the world legislation is being passed and very real discussions being had with specific regard to "Bail-Ins".  I'll tell you right now that as soon as investment "banks" start backing legislation to legalize this theft, the demographic to which decentralized currencies and services appeal grow far larger than "libertarian cryptonerds" and the occasional "tin-foil-hat" crowd. 

  BitAsset Catalyst incoming

(Though I feel sorry for the people that will lose very much in the bail-ins.)

[fuzzy]

E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..

Ha!  I'm not a newbie.  And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did.  Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years).  When is the last time a big US bank failed and lost all its clients funds?  Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use perfectly).  Even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...

Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization.  Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.

But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation?  I don't know.

All across the world legislation is being passed and very real discussions being had with specific regard to "Bail-Ins".  I'll tell you right now that as soon as investment "banks" start backing legislation to legalize this theft, the demographic to which decentralized currencies and services appeal grow far larger than "libertarian cryptonerds" and the occasional "tin-foil-hat" crowd. 

It's kind of like when you see an alternate, federal "homeland security" force built up to rival the military, start purchasing billions of Hollow Point rounds (that are specifically against LOAC).  Then its like listening to them saying that these ammunition, which cost on average multiples of target rounds per round, are only for target practice while at the very same time running "news" (opinion pieces) calling Oath Keepers potential domestic terrorists...

Or it's like spending Trillions of dollars to fight a "war on terrorism" that is designed to be self-perpetuating, yet represents less of a threat to the average world citizen than slipping and dying in the shower or honey bee stings.  Two competing threats that receive nowhere near the funding...

Some people prefer to live in bizarro world in the belief that if they look at outliers as "nuts", then their normalcy is validated.  But they fail to recognize that in bizarro world...being an outlier makes you more likely the normal one. 

Of course, network effects exist in bizarro world too...

[fussyhands]

Stocks and the like have an advantage being centralized since they can pay dividends anyway. The "killer app" feature of bitAssets is bitUSD. It's cryptocurrency without the volatility downside and it is secure in a verifiable way (and not a ponzi like nubits). BitAssets also provide an incredibly convenient way for local cryptocurrency trade, localbitcoins style (spread/fee will be a lot more transparent for even a noob user)

The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept. The reason Bitcoin became so massive is because we all see a financial shitstorm brewing on the horizon. When that happens, crypto will be there to step in and take over.

Nonsense.  There are plenty of things crypto does better than any other system, for now.  Fast, inexpensive, fraud resistant, international, semi-anonymous, programmable transactions to anyone without rules.  That is what crypto means to me.  That is the innovation and the revolution.  Decentralization as in spreading the power *is* important because it allows for reliable provision of the above attributes, but you ideologues take it too far.  The way I see decentralization as a plus is that an Apple coin or an Amazon coin would probably ultimately be abused.  Similarly the world is wary of USD even as it depends on it.  A single currency that the whole world could use and know will not be abused by the issuer is revolutionary.

That is Bitcoin.

But does decentralization mean that nobody will ever park their money at a company for safe keeping?  That's just libertarian cryptonerd masturbation.

I'm not arguing against crypto coins.  I'm merely arguing that BitUSD is not a killer app.  BitShares is a technically superior system compared to Bitcoin, but it needs a killer app to make it stand out.  BitUSD isn't it.

In the mean time, we still have massive utility for BitUSD.

• Interest on BitUSD
• Blackmarket
• Remittances
• Money laundering

Anything Bitcoin can do, BitUSD can do better.

Interesting.  BitUSD for *blackmarket*!!  There is a place it might actually be useful.  It takes time to deliver drugs and launder your cryptocoin so having it denominated in dollars during the weeks it is unavailable could be very useful.  On the other hand, I think the Silk Road offered a USD pegging service... but decentralized versions of the Silk Road such as Open Bazaar (which seem like the future of internet black market trade) may not be able to offer that, so if it could be built into the currency itself...

Ah hah!  Perhaps this could be BitShares killer application.  If OpenBazaar was perfected it could end up replacing most street level drug trade over the course of a decade.  We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars... the extremely slow velocity of money for internet drug trading would mean HUGE coin price.  With BitUSD, BitShares should have a lock on the decentralized black market compared to Bitcoin.  Unfortunately I doubt anyone is working on an OpenBazaar equivalent using BitShares.

Note that OpenBazaar is a TOTALLY different situation compared to legitimate transactions where payment processing companies like BitPay and Coinbase can instantly and freely transform the bitcoin you receive into USD, so you aren't expose to any volatility.  Black market internet drug dealers have to deal with *weeks* of volatility so the BitUSD might actually be useful.  And if the black market is really moving towards decentralized solutions they won't be able to depend on a centralized service to insure against the volatility...

I found BitShares killer app!  The black market.  Now someone needs to make it happen.

[fussyhands]

E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..

Ha!  I'm not a newbie.  And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did.  Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years).  When is the last time a big US bank lost all its clients funds?  Bear Stearns depositors (as distinguished from equity holders) got all their money back and even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...  Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use cryptocurrency safely perfectly, even with cold storage). 

Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization.  Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.

But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation?  I don't know.

[Thom]

None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.

That's the 1 time out of 10 I guess 

[carpet ride]

You cannot arb yield difference.  That is like claiming the interest rate at two banks will be arb away.

You can arbitrage yield. You have money and face with two possibilities. You can park it in bank or in bitusd. If bank and bitusd have same risk you choose bitusd as long as it gives better yield. Every time such decision is made bitusd supply is increased until yields are equal. Better yet, you can actually borrow new usd and park it bitusd and bank yield difference.

Of course this is unlikely that bitusd risk would be treated equal to usd in bank, but you get the idea.
Any extra yield earned by bitusd will be compensation for additional risk of holding bitusd over usd.

You should take trader and usage funds to parked funds ratio into account since transactions over total supply determines total yield


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Method-X]

Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.

None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.

I hear you. Spoken with a truly rational tongue. MeTHoDx,  I find your posts to be excellent. I don't have many marketing skills, but I find myself agreeing with your posts 9 times out of 10.

Thank you! I may have been wrong about the debit card program though. My understanding of it may have been flawed.

[Shentist]

the real beauty will be revealed in a time off a crisis. just ask the cypres people how they felt as they couldn't take out their money and
in the press you could read 10% haircut on each account are neccesary!

for the next crisis
- we need easy access ramps like the debit card etc. to be a really alternative for the money to stored

- would also be good to can use this money already to buy needed stuff

[aaaxn]

You cannot arb yield difference.  That is like claiming the interest rate at two banks will be arb away.

You can arbitrage yield. You have money and face with two possibilities. You can park it in bank or in bitusd. If bank and bitusd have same risk you choose bitusd as long as it gives better yield. Every time such decision is made bitusd supply is increased until yields are equal. Better yet, you can actually borrow new usd and park it bitusd and bank yield difference.

Of course this is unlikely that bitusd risk would be treated equal to usd in bank, but you get the idea.
Any extra yield earned by bitusd will be compensation for additional risk of holding bitusd over usd.

[roadscape]

I hear you. Spoken with a truly rational tongue. MeTHoDx,  I find your posts to be excellent. I don't have many marketing skills, but I find myself agreeing with your posts 9 times out of 10.

[Thom]

Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.

None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.

I hear you. Spoken with a truly rational tongue. MeTHoDx,  I find your posts to be excellent. I don't have many marketing skills, but I find myself agreeing with your posts 9 times out of 10.

[Method-X]

Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.

None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.

[svk]

The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept.

Yes this.

Fiat currencies are an easy to use, centralized system.  If that is what you want, no need for crypto at all, of any form.

Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.

If we build a quality system that solves real problems based on sound principles of freedom and free trade people WILL come DESPITE what the establishment decrees. Granted, we want to capitalize on where the herd is stampeding but let's not forsake long term financial freedom for short term gains. If I start seeing that attitude become more widespread I'll go somewhere else.

I don't think that's gonna happen as long as Larimer has a voice. So far he's not only been steadfast in his "decentralization is our prime directive" montra, but he is also one top notch programmer and spokesman.

 

[Thom]

The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept.

Yes this.

Fiat currencies are an easy to use, centralized system.  If that is what you want, no need for crypto at all, of any form.

Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.

If we build a quality system that solves real problems based on sound principles of freedom and free trade people WILL come DESPITE what the establishment decrees. Granted, we want to capitalize on where the herd is stampeding but let's not forsake long term financial freedom for short term gains. If I start seeing that attitude become more widespread I'll go somewhere else.

I don't think that's gonna happen as long as Larimer has a voice. So far he's not only been steadfast in his "decentralization is our prime directive" montra, but he is also one top notch programmer and spokesman.

[oldman]

Bitshares 'killer apps':

- Yield

- Transaction cost

- Transaction time

- Privacy

- Security

- Global accessibility

My thoughts, as an investor.

[Ander]

The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept.

Yes this.

Fiat currencies are an easy to use, centralized system.  If that is what you want, no need for crypto at all, of any form.

[Method-X]

Stocks and the like have an advantage being centralized since they can pay dividends anyway. The "killer app" feature of bitAssets is bitUSD. It's cryptocurrency without the volatility downside and it is secure in a verifiable way (and not a ponzi like nubits). BitAssets also provide an incredibly convenient way for local cryptocurrency trade, localbitcoins style (spread/fee will be a lot more transparent for even a noob user)

The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept. The reason Bitcoin became so massive is because we all see a financial shitstorm brewing on the horizon. When that happens, crypto will be there to step in and take over.

In the mean time, we still have massive utility for BitUSD.

• Interest on BitUSD
• Blackmarket
• Remittances
• Money laundering

Anything Bitcoin can do, BitUSD can do better.

[Rune]

Stocks and the like have an advantage being centralized since they can pay dividends anyway. The "killer app" feature of bitAssets is bitUSD. It's cryptocurrency without the volatility downside and it is secure in a verifiable way (and not a ponzi like nubits). BitAssets also provide an incredibly convenient way for local cryptocurrency trade, localbitcoins style (spread/fee will be a lot more transparent for even a noob user)

[davidpbrown]

everything said in this threads just translate to: costumers are different and depending on their use-case need to be marketed differently.

or am I wrong here? What's the contribution here?

The arguement I'm putting, is about inevitability and how systems fail.. decentralisation necessarily wins in the long run. If you acknowledge why a product is stronger or a competitor might have an advantage, then there is an option to adapt or reenforce that. Perhaps here then the contribution is that the message of decentralised services is not lost on the market, where OP is suggesting it will be.

[xeroc]

everything said in this threads just translate to: costumers are different and depending on their use-case need to be marketed differently.

or am I wrong here? What's the contribution here?

[davidpbrown]

In the broader market people think, care, and understand less about the problems caused by centralization.

They do until something fails and then they do worry about centralisation.. systemic banking failure because of central risk, is not a problem that people do not get. Doing away with the third party, dealing direct person to person without liability from that third party, is very attractive and only likely to become more so.

Especially for any big players, who have time to consider what they want relative to any burn from traditional options they have experienced before, might well see decentralisation as necessary factor.. but those options have to exist and be viable for them to jump; so, intermediate steps might be useful for that.

[CoinHoarder]

Please "up vote" my comment on the Coindesk article. 

http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-gives-traders-blue-chip-stock-exposure-bitcoin/

Most countries allow REGULATED trading.of derivatives. This service will last until the day it doesn't. That day will be the day that whatever jurisdiction is applicable to this website shuts it down and likely confiscates/ties up the funds in a lengthy court process. Also.. there is counterparty risk involved with trusted third parties in that you need to trust this service to not steal your money or misuse customer funds (for instance commingling them with operating funds or some sort of quasi ponzi scheme.)

BitsharesX is a better solution for derivatives as each derivative is collateralized by 300% of the derivatives value by the BTSX token. Furthermore, it is a decentralized autonomous company so you do not have to worry about trusting a third party and the counterparty risk that comes with that, nor do you have to worry about a government shutting it down as it exists fully on a peer to peer network powered by a block chain and a decentralized exchange.

[santaclause102]

I hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized.  They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience.

It is right that people don't care as long as it works but:
 
There are two valuable attributes of blockchain technology:

a) Holding the private keys (you can do this with USD on Ripple (or am I wrong here?)) = funds can't be seized even with a centralized issuer except if they are seized for all (lack of collateral or state intervention).

b) No (direct) counterparty risk. This can not be done with ripple or any other system where a centralized issuer is backing the value of the token. And this is where the value of BitUSD comes from. Having a counterparty risk is highly costly: Any institution that holds funds for customers has high regulatory costs. Centralized solutions are therefore not per se cheaper for the customer.

I guess that customers would either trust a relatively young and unkown company that does audits (costly) and has a 100% reserve or big known banks that offer this service. The latter case it would likely be backed by a fractional reserve which is unlikely to be sustainable either individually (for a specific bank) or systemically.

So BitUSD has unique characteristics and will be very useful besides these centralized options.

you and davepbrown have good points regarding decentralization and I agree with you.  However, my point is that to be successful BTSX needs to attract the broader market, not just elements of the crypto-market.  In the broader market people think, care, and understand less about the problems caused by centralization.  Maybe just 1% of the market cares (I'm thinking the US market. In places like Argentina maybe more)..  To them centralization is a given.  They have no idea about its drawbacks and don't care about alternatives.   They will only be educated when the looming crisis finally hits the preverbal brick will. Currently, they do not care.   Therefore my argument is that this feature can not be listed as one that will give us much a leg up on the competitors like the one mentioned above.  At least not in the current environment.    That said, I'm sure that with the current crypto crowd this feature is indispensable, but the way I see it we are seeking to expand that demographic considerably.

I agree with everything you said except this

Therefore my argument is that this feature can not be listed as one that will give us much a leg up on the competitors like the one mentioned above.

The structural difference in products will have significant effects if marketing is done right.

Two things to add: Marketing has not even begun. And I would say that the average dude will get aware of counterparty risks and such if the financial crisis effects everyone.

[James212]

I hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized.  They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience.

It is right that people don't care as long as it works but:
 
There are two valuable attributes of blockchain technology:

a) Holding the private keys (you can do this with USD on Ripple (or am I wrong here?)) = funds can't be seized even with a centralized issuer except if they are seized for all (lack of collateral or state intervention).

b) No (direct) counterparty risk. This can not be done with ripple or any other system where a centralized issuer is backing the value of the token. And this is where the value of BitUSD comes from. Having a counterparty risk is highly costly: Any institution that holds funds for customers has high regulatory costs. Centralized solutions are therefore not per se cheaper for the customer.

I guess that customers would either trust a relatively young and unkown company that does audits (costly) and has a 100% reserve or big known banks that offer this service. The latter case it would likely be backed by a fractional reserve which is unlikely to be sustainable either individually (for a specific bank) or systemically.

So BitUSD has unique characteristics and will be very useful besides these centralized options.

you and davepbrown have good points regarding decentralization and I agree with you.  However, my point is that to be successful BTSX needs to attract the broader market, not just elements of the crypto-market.  In the broader market people think, care, and understand less about the problems caused by centralization.  Maybe just 1% of the market cares (I'm thinking the US market. In places like Argentina maybe more)..  To them centralization is a given.  They have no idea about its drawbacks and don't care about alternatives.   They will only be educated when the looming crisis finally hits the preverbal brick will. Currently, they do not care.   Therefore my argument is that this feature can not be listed as one that will give us much a leg up on the competitors like the one mentioned above.  At least not in the current environment.    That said, I'm sure that with the current crypto crowd this feature is indispensable, but the way I see it we are seeking to expand that demographic considerably.   

[xeroc]

E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..

[luckybit]

Take a look at this news:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-gives-traders-blue-chip-stock-exposure-bitcoin/

As I've said in previous threads:  BitAssets are just not a killer feature of BitShares.

Centralized versions, like the one in the article above, will be just as easy to use, and the truth is that the vast majority of people do not care about their accounts being decentralized.  That's only really important to libertarian cryptonerds, who are a tiny fraction of the population.

To make progress Bitshares needs a killer app.  BitAssets are not it.  They are a massive distraction.

E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

[liondani]

Take a look at this news:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-gives-traders-blue-chip-stock-exposure-bitcoin/

As I've said in previous threads:  BitAssets are just not a killer feature of BitShares.

Centralized versions, like the one in the article above, will be just as easy to use, and the truth is that the vast majority of people do not care about their accounts being decentralized.  That's only really important to libertarian cryptonerds, who are a tiny fraction of the population.

To make progress Bitshares needs a killer app.  BitAssets are not it.  They are a massive distraction.

[bytemaster]

I don't think you're considering the 5 to 15% returns that BitAssets get in a mature system?

There is no way that asset will yield this much if btsx matures. For example if bitUSD is mature and one can freely convert USD<>bitUSD any yield difference between USD and bitUSD will be arbitraged away.

You cannot arb yield difference.  That is like claiming the interest rate at two banks will be arb away.

[davidpbrown]

I hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized.  They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience.   

The market's opinion is one factor but perhaps is short sighted and matters less in the long run.. in the longer term it's more whether the option is properly robust. Decentralized services have an advantage because they are decentralized; not simply because people like decentralized. Equally first mover advantage is a systemic reality.

Obviously, it is important to consider opinion of market and also whether we are making the most and pushing every opportunity but the systemic aspects are distinct from that. Some options make the mistake of only being fullproof and forget the market but then come good.. MasterCoin springs to mind.. other's are foolproof and attract a good following.. BitShares is impressive for doing both well and diversity in solid offerings that attract different audiences - peertracks is especially exciting for this.

[santaclause102]

I hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized.  They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience.

It is right that people don't care as long as it works but:
 
There are two valuable attributes of blockchain technology:

a) Holding the private keys (you can do this with USD on Ripple (or am I wrong here?)) = funds can't be seized even with a centralized issuer except if they are seized for all (lack of collateral or state intervention).

b) No (direct) counterparty risk. This can not be done with ripple or any other system where a centralized issuer is backing the value of the token. And this is where the value of BitUSD comes from. Having a counterparty risk is highly costly: Any institution that holds funds for customers has high regulatory costs. Centralized solutions are therefore not per se cheaper for the customer.

I guess that customers would either trust a relatively young and unkown company that does audits (costly) and has a 100% reserve or big known banks that offer this service. The latter case it would likely be backed by a fractional reserve which is unlikely to be sustainable either individually (for a specific bank) or systemically.

So BitUSD has unique characteristics and will be very useful besides these centralized options. 

[carpet ride]

I don't think you're considering the 5 to 15% returns that BitAssets get in a mature system?

There is no way that asset will yield this much if btsx matures. For example if bitUSD is mature and one can freely convert USD<>bitUSD any yield difference between USD and bitUSD will be arbitraged away.

I'm pretty sure the yield is why most of us are here........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aaaxn]

I don't think you're considering the 5 to 15% returns that BitAssets get in a mature system?

There is no way that asset will yield this much if btsx matures. For example if bitUSD is mature and one can freely convert USD<>bitUSD any yield difference between USD and bitUSD will be arbitraged away.

[James212]

,
[\quote] decentralised is one step forward from centralized services

I hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized.  They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience.

,

BitShares has a good foot forward where others haven't even woken up to the opportunity

.

Agreed.  But I think Fussy's question/point is: Are we making proper use of this first mover advantage?  It will not last forever. 

   

[santaclause102]

IOUs != bitAssets .. period!

≠ = !=
wasnt aware of that convenstion

[xeroc]

IOUs != bitAssets .. period!

[davidpbrown]

There's room enough for multiple players and it's to be expected the more robust of those will do well. Noone likes monopolies; competition is useful motivation to keep on top and remember that others could always do equally well or better. However, if I was to place a bet, decentralised is one step forward from centralized services. Also, at this stage anything that draws players in to the market is to be welcomed. Equally, there's no point in knocking BTC at this stage.. get people in and then let the best offerings resolve themselves over time. BitShares has a good foot forward where others haven't even woken up to the opportunity.

[carpet ride]

I don't think you're considering the 5 to 15% returns that BitAssets get in a mature system?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fussyhands]

Take a look at this news:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-gives-traders-blue-chip-stock-exposure-bitcoin/

As I've said in previous threads:  BitAssets are just not a killer feature of BitShares.

Centralized versions, like the one in the article above, will be just as easy to use, and the truth is that the vast majority of people do not care about their accounts being decentralized.  That's only really important to libertarian cryptonerds, who are a tiny fraction of the population.

To make progress Bitshares needs a killer app.  BitAssets are not it.  They are a massive distraction.