Quote from: Bitcoinfan on January 21, 2014, 12:11:40 am

Can I offer a suggestion?  Its not a biggy, but can we tone down the phrase "The Government is unable to access centralized servers to spy on you."  to something more like "Corporations and Federal-Sponsored Bureaucracies are unable to access centralized servers to spy on you."  or even "Corporations and Public-Sponsored Agents are unable to access centralized servers to spy on you." 

Just a shade less radical imo.  Any direct memo in opposition to governments could be misconstrued by the media, especially when we know things become mainstream.  Also people always hate corporations so we should throw that in there.

How about generalizing it to Orwell's "Big Brother"? 
Is that a more timeless, internationally well-recognized, and less radical term?   

BitShares    - Reimagine Everything
Keyhotee    - Own your Identity
PTS            - Trade future BitShares
AGS           - Build future BitShares
BitShares X - Save & Exchange Anything

Another Idea:
BitShares X - Earn 5% or MORE on ANYTHING

BitShares are any blockchain-based business and are what we would like to be the official 'brand name' to replace the technical term DAC.  All DACs have bitshares and thus all DACs produced by Invictus are BitShares.    BitShares X is the generic concept for all BitShares exchanges originally described by our white paper.   X is symbolic of eXchange and also the variable x which indicates that there may be many different kinds of exchanges such as DOW, S&P, COMEX, FOREX, etc and these will be branded by the people who launch them.   BitShares X is the brand of the system and generic open source software WE are producing.   As BitShares X is an abstract class with no instantiations it has no 3 letter currency such as BEX, TEX, DMS, PTS, AGS, etc... these 3-letter extensions will be reserved for the specific instances.

The X will be styled after the arm of the 'b' and the tickmark on the 'i' in the BitShares logo. 

As always we are rapidly working to refine our brand and doing so early, often, and publicly.  We just wanted to share our latest thinking as I think we are converging on something that will be much easier for Brian to market.  Feedback is appreciated.

Quote from: Liberty on January 11, 2014, 08:05:38 pm

Quote from: Pocket Sand on January 11, 2014, 06:40:39 pm

Compliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant.  Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.

Any smart company or individual would act to avert legal harm and would not claim to be above a law. You are correct in that you do not know my familiarity with these companies. There was delight in the furthering of technologies that are beyond regulation. That is not to say that the companies ever acted to willfully violate any law. The draw to decentralized autonomous corporations is that they are decentralized autonomous corporations that can avoid oppressive regulations as necessary. I3 began with some lofty ideals too.

I3 is a company that is creating both technologies and companies. Traditional companies (like I3 itself) are easily forced to comply. The technologies can be forced to comply to the extent that they are managed by an entity that can be controlled. I3 sold an ideal that is disruptive to the notion of how companies may be formed and regulated, but is implementing what is practical within the rules it must comply with. Rules get modified as necessary to change what disruption to established interests is practical. I3 is not beyond the law but can act where laws do not yet restrict.

Everyone would agree that it is beneficial to have businesses that can act in compliance with laws. The question here is if the creator of the technology should be the one financing compliance for users of the technology. I doubt it is possible to spend enough to accomplish that without also sacrificing ideals.

We are not sacrificing the ideals of Privacy and Decentralization of the entire ecosystem, for the advantages of being compliant to the law and legally operating.

Think of us like this: We are currently building an entry to a cave. Our entry is easily accessible, visible and can be used by everyone. If our entry collapses and the passage is completely blocked the cave will still be accessible through other smaller but harder to access entries.
If this project will be shut down by the government, for whatever reason, the DAC's and the ideology behind them will still live on. If Coinbase is shut down, Bitcoin will move on.

Legal services are definitely not essential for this newly created space - but they are crucial add-ons to the crypto world that allow for a much faster adoption rate. They speed-up the process and give non-techies the chance to join a new and revolutionary project without the necessary requirements. Basically, they allow for ideas to spread and adopted at a much faster pace and they do a fair amount of educating of the userbase.


The ideal solution would obviously be an anonymous, decentralized trading platform that gives everyone the chance to invest in new DAC's. We are not quite there yet and we need to work on a centralized solution that will help us accomplish that goal in the future. A decentralized and anonymous trading platform can and will be built on top of the proposed trading platform and we will definitely work on that.

We will be using the BitShares earned in the Angel Address to fund development of the ecosystem.