Show Posts
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.
So for a long term I think I scoredfixed it for you .. can thank me lateranfour aces
Thanks pc!Delegates are currently being paid to do all sorts of things including their primary role of block production. Delegates are paid with a % of tx fees up to 100%. The delegate voting system is being used not only to fund block production, but also other critically important activities like development.
Bm's proposal is to enable the seperation of block production (delegates) and other important activities (workers.)
Where does the daily pool of worker/project funding come from?
Delegates are being paid with a percentage of tx fees plus dilution of max 50 BTS/block. BM's proposal separates the funding of delegates and other workers by paying delegates from tx fees, and other workers from dilution at a rate of max 50 BTS/block.
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...
I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see. And I want privacy for individuals. If we get that, I think we win. It's pretty simple in my mind.
That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.
Thoughts?
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.
Bytemaster and I pretty much agree. We should focus on making a self regulating blockchain as much as possible while preserving liberty for our base.
Institutional adoption requires an appeal to security and regulation features. People dealing with large amounts of money (millions, billions, and trillions) are most concerned with keeping their money safe, and keeping their legal risks low. Bitshares will have to develop features which make it safer than traditional means of securing wealth. At the same time it will need to develop features so that it's able to self regulate to the extent that external regulators don't have any excuse to mess with our community, the developers, or the technology.
The people who wish to use Bitshares in regulated mode should be able to use the same blockchain as the people who wish to use it in unregulated mode. I don't agree with the recent push by governments to outlaw cash but I am guessing that is coming about specifically because the liberty crowd behind technologies like Darkcoin and Slur have pushed things a bit too far.
My opinion is we should protect liberty as much as possible without sacrificing security or mainstream adoption. Very tough because mainstream adoption wants security primarily and then liberty while early adopters want liberty primarily and then security. The holy grail is to have both on the same chain and I think with Turing complete scripting you can do it on a single chain.
http://qz.com/399531/denmark-hopes-to-boost-its-economy-by-eliminating-cash/
