346
General Discussion / Re: BitShares + Bitcoin
« on: July 03, 2015, 06:41:14 pm »Please elaborateEncryption?This is what I'm worried about.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Please elaborateEncryption?This is what I'm worried about.
Some may be attempting a separation of real ID and bts accounts.Recently I have produced professional and top-quality MS-paint renditions of BitShares analogies.
That's awesome and worth at least 100 Bytemaster Points!
btw, why don't a lot of you oldtimers have your BTSID's listed or registered? It makes it hard to determine if the forum account is actually tied to the BTSID and you're missing out on some BP's (cuz, we tried to give some of you some last night and found this out).
6. Finally my self and a team of 4 advanced IT programmers are in the process of building high frequency bots and other exciting things for trading BTS and bring some liquidity in the system.
Can BitShares offer Vaultoro decentralized banking services?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16724.msg214074.htmlQuotehttp://www.vaultoro.com/
Allow trading of gold bullion stored in insured, audited Swiss vaults against bitcoin.
They do not have any fiat banking services due to the added regulatory burden and the increased fees that would result.
I'm sure they could attract even more customers they could integrate bitFiat and bitGold as they could allow a 3rd asset for their users to hedge against eachother. Vaultoro would be insulated from regulatory burden and could collect fees on any UIA's they issue.
I think BitShares should establish a relationship with them as among other things such a partnership provides bts with a physical gold:bitGold and bitFiat:Physical Gold market to tighten the peg and increases liquidity.
Yet more opportunities to tighten the peg of bitAssets.
Which met with positive response, @Joshua Scigala from vaultoro:QuoteHi Guys,
Joshua Scigala here from Vaultoro
Thanks for reaching out. Jeff replied to the support tickets but I wanted to come here to discuss the legalities because technologically it's fine.
The advice that we have received is that tokenizing gold would throw us down a regulatory nightmare because we would then fall under regulations that cover financial instruments.
Has the bitshares community dealt with regulations around UIA's?
===============================================
Later, after explainations in the post:
Thanks for the warm welcome guys and girls!
@xeroc Thanks for your detailed response.
I will have to run all this past our legal and regulatory specialists but it does look very cool.
@Permie Thanks for the info.
Why I think BitShares will succeed. Do competitors have all our features?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16467.0.html
TL;DR - I like BitShares because of the message of freedom, Optional regulatory compliance, Bitcoin exchanges issuing UIA to attract bts users, Development is funded by the blockchain and voted for by the shareholders, At least 101 distributed block producing witnessing nodes, Core development is funded by the blockchain and voted for by the shareholders, Workers are paid by contracts voted for by the shareholders, Delegates are elected officials that act as the human element of the DAC, Blockchain Human Resources, Marketers profit from referrals, All aspects of the DAC are subject to change by a shareholder vote. Hard forks by shareholder vote only, 1 second transaction confirmations, Fast scanning of and reconnection to the network.
This is a great post and hits on so many points.
I would say that success depends on more than just having the best technology, it depends upon having the best community and being easiest to use.
I think we are growing as a community and working on our weak spots.
Step by step BitShares Sales Pitch. (Pre 2.0)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17105.0
TL;DR: There is a market niche for a global unbounded organization that efficiently adapts and morphs to the needs of the market and the desires of it's members.
I believe BitShares is that organization.
The upper limit of this organization is bound only by the size of the global economy. The current main use for trading tokens of value are financial derivatives purchased by large institutions and well educated individuals who reside in geographical locations favoured by financially powerful nations who have capital to risk.
A system that can drop the barriers to entry and allow everyone in the world access to the global economy will rapidly expand the total value of the economy.
BitShares will not only rapidly grow to meet the existing market, it will rapidly grow the size of the market itself.
Currently this potential is valued at around $20M.
Effective way to delegate useful work while generating network transaction fees.More foresight from
We all know that if BitShares becomes the industry standard, then Dan will ensure that these Larimers, DanCoins, or BPTS will definitely have value. This is Dan's "Artist Coin" for Dan's fans. This is Dan's personal sharedrop target when he is rewarded with monster crypto industry swag.
Look at Dan, he's building and monetizing his reputation using a smartchain tool. Satoshi-math guarantees that the high market cap for BPTS means that many people trust him. Anyone can monetize their reputation thanks to smartchain tech.
BitShares - monetizing your integrity since 2015
Will BPTS will be reimbursable for backstage VIP passes during his next Vegas keynote afterparty? Just be the first person to send 1,000,000 BPTS to the following address, and we'll see you in the green room...
To quote Stan "think bigger pinky!".I agreewith monsterer, if you are able to offer betting, there is very lucrative blockchain based gambling market potentially much larger than just game leagues especially if you get to be one of the first movers in this area on BTS 2.0
I will be very interested to see where you guys take this. Good Luck
So much larger than just one product - imagine taking a 50% cut of every single blockchain based gambling product on your platform?
We should talk.
Skype maybe ?
would vote
but i already did that weeks ago
I see BitShares as the mycelium (mushrooms) spreading throughout the financial-earth, connecting ecosystems together and exchanging resources and information.
Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.
I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).
A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.
People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?
If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.
However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told". If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.
How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.
Coexistence in our case simply means that we can, with some restrictions, trade against assets that otherwise would never be issued on our chain."I'd love to issue my ACME-IOU-USD on BitShares, but our compliance officer says we can't."
We say, give them the tools that they need to play in our sandbox. Then, anyone who wants to use that asset can decide if meeting its regulatory requirements is worth it.
The same options are out there right now - BitShares just connects them on one interoperable backbone.
The health (integrity of core principals) of our Bitshares constitution by code is contingent upon several factors;
The code being open
New code being continually peer reviewed
The implementation of changes being approved by majority consensus
Effective means of education & communication with the electorate
The composition of the electorate - knowledge, activity
Effective reputation system
Suitable means for delegation of responsibilities along with accountability
The ability to fork the code & sharedrop
Other factors...
We rely upon the assumption that individuals in a free system will act in their own interest and those interests will generally align with the interests of others. This represents the power of the people, the power of direct consensus. Everyone who participates within the Bitshares network knows the rules and that everyone must adhere to the same rules. Changing the rules is where the most risk to integrity comes so we must do everything we can to ensure those changes continue to be vetted at every level.
Riders are only possible currently because there is a lack of transparency and no direct accountability. Choice is again the most important factor. If the government is capable of compelling code changes, then we've failed at being decentralized. Having workers from multiple jurisdictions will help. The adoption of regulation compliance features is a choice, using those features is a choice, removal of those features would continue to be a choice.
BTS was built on the idea that we could create a currency-like token that can make profits for owners instead of losses. As such, BTS self-identities as both a currency-like store of value and a profit-generating share. This dichotomy of purpose makes it hard for the external market to evaluate.This is my view too
For a currency, constraints on supply are all-important as a store of value. For a share, all that matters is profitability and return, and the shares themselves can be far more mutable. Who is asking questions about how many shares Apple or Google will have in 10 years' time? It's only about profit and growth.
So what is BTS? I worry that trying to be both risks failure on both fronts. You limit dilution to look like a currency, and ultimately you can't compete against more agile businesses on funding and growth, and resulting profitability and dominance of the target space. You make changes to dilution, burn, and reserves to solve the business economics, and you lose any sense of a stable and secure currency.
I keep thinking that bitShares will ultimately need to offer multiple tokens built specifically to achieve different ends, even if we keep BTS as is.
I would guess it's because there are only a few thousand active bts members and they live all over the world.After 14 days the BitShares Camping closes officially. It was a good time here. Unfortunately no members came but I told some people about it.
I will be there for another day.
What went wrong here? Why did nobody come?
BitLicense, obviously.
Chemical, biological, nuclear.. natural disasters.. I got it covered.
Now, if you just had regulatory disasters covered...
BitShares - not all blockchains are immutable
BitShares - the worlds first and only independent third party auditing smartchain
Rothbard interprets the physical extent to which a homesteading act establishes ownership in terms of the relevant "technological unit", which is the minimal amount necessary for the practical use of the resource. He writes:
If A uses a certain amount of a resource, how much of that resource is to accrue to his ownership? Our answer is that he owns the technological unit of the resource. The size of that unit depends on the type of good or resource in question, and must be determined by judges, juries, or arbitrators who are expert in the particular resource or industry in question
Praxeology rests fundamentally on the assumption that individuals' actionsBrilliant. Thank you! I've been trying to come up with such a succinct way to describe why I believe human nature is inherently (? Maybe wrong word) anarchist and capitalist - ancap.
are driven by conscious decisions to achieve certain ends – in contrast to purely reflexive behavior.
Such goals are based on values that are entirely subjective and therefore can not be quantified.
Therefore math as a means of describing human action and theories thereof is inappropriate.
QuoteI hope it is purely considered positively, as I basically do this because I care, not because I feel I have to
Your involvement here is extremely appreciated!
I received my nanocard the other day and I can't wait to activate it once possible via your exchange and definitely use it once it implements bitassets..
I am concerned with what appears to be a discussion descending into a strawman discussion with real world understand vs. General ideas of how distribution or decentralized can or should operate... I agree that diversity is good and thus why I have planned for it.. but the paranoid undertones to where this is going is entering tinfoil hat space and to some looking on make it appear as though we are fighting an active threat of shutdown when real it is a strawman.It may very well be zero.
I don't know.. but how many bitcoin nodes were taken down by governments corporations or the illuminati?
What we have today is the physical (did you mean online?) equivalent of having a cop following you all the time, recording where you are, what you say, what you read, what you think, who do you talk to, how often you do, and about what.Sounds scary. Because it is.