BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: testz on April 14, 2015, 07:01:11 pm
-
Finita la comedia (anonymity)?
https://xrptalk.org/topic/6121-what-is-with-the-identification-lately
Later this year, Ripple Labs will enhance identity requirements for Ripple Trade wallets by establishing additional account creation and verification procedures in support of a compliant Ripple network. This will include the collection of additional identifiable information. An ecosystem that supports regulatory compliance builds confidence and encourages new participants to use Ripple and contribute volume to the network.
To learn more about how Ripple Labs is developing an identity solution for Ripple Trade and the overall ecosystem, read our previous communication. We will be in touch with more information soon.
Thank you for using Ripple Trade, and please don’t hesitate to email support@ripple.com with any questions or concerns.
-
blablabla .. we want to do .. blabla .. soon to be .. blabla
where are the hard facts? compliant to what?
Seems BitShares is on the right track .. and guess what .. It took our devs a couple of months to figure out that track while ripple needs .. wait .. how many months are they online now?
//edit: I need stop making useless posts that late in the evening :)
-
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.
I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?
-
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.
I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?
And they want to kill anonymity, so good luck to them :)
-
Just to note that Ripple is a different class to BitShares. KYC; AML; etc, are appropriate for them, they are more like traditional money transport than digital currency.
BitShares pegged assets as digital tokens which have a value by consensus are very different and there is no need for Government to intervene or regulate such digital tokens in the way they need to for Ripple. Also, it is not for the Government to suggest the value of a digital token and the possession of items of value is a private concern.
Perhaps worth noting beyond both, Government can be useful setting up consumer protection for another class where digital tokens are truely linked to real world assets - confirming the bridge between the internet and the real world but I haven't seen BitShares looking at that class of asset.
What will be more directly relevant is the BoE resolving whether it wants and is even able to issue it's own digital currency. I think pegged assets are a better and safer option, than a fixed digital token that is formerly issued. If they do decide instead to just let the market find its way, then BitShares will be well placed to blow its own trumpet then and point out how well developed its capability to provide bitGBP is already. Question then is can we make issuing bitGBP practical in the quantity that might be wanted? Creation of bitAssets is a little beyond my understanding.. I don't know if the option to short them into existence is open ended or needs to come into being in parallel with the market buy/sell... but that's off topic too.
-
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.
I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?
And they want to kill anonymity, so good luck to them :)
http://bitcoinscientist.com/ripple-labs-names-former-obama-advisor-board-directors/
One has to wonder about this^ in the context of the bolded portion above...
-
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
-
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
Does Ripple have a decentralized exchange?
-
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
Does Ripple have a decentralized exchange?
Yes, that's pretty much the point of ripple. Though no bitAssets. They also have synthetic combined order books and the nodes do the cross-order boo routing. That's probably their biggest innovation so far.
I hope the Bitshares will be able to deliver that too in the not so distant future, could bring in a damn lot of fees for Bitshares holders as the less efficient the market, the larger the spreads, and the more Bitshares could be burned.
-
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
Isn't there a way to ensure anonymity AND unique identifiability?
I'd imagine it would utilize a hash of information as opposed to the real information.
Though I understand the necessity of whitelisting for mainstream adoption, most people tend to forget that by simply pushing forward with whitelisting, we are indirectly creating a "blacklist" as well.
This means that it will be very difficult over time for users to remain anonymous on the web because if they do not "take the mark" they will not be able to transact in the new paradigm.
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I sometimes (and perhaps naively) hold out hope that BitShares has the potential to help people see that privacy and anonymity are actually keystones to liberty and freedom, and that there are solutions that align far better with voluntarism and non-violence. I hope I'm not wrong :/
-
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.
Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??
-
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.
Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??
Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.
This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.
However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.
-
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.
Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??
Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.
This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.
However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.
Rather than have mafia-style contract enforcement (I'd argue that most Governments of today use a thinly veiled version of this too), can't companies and users have trust levels that are logged in the blockchain along with a unique identifier (that is not connected with real world identity)?
Then there would naturally be a market for trust. So people who are well known and well trusted would receive incentives in the form of discounts (for instance in the case of someone buying from a Amazon, for instance) on purchases because the company itself recognizes that this account has always paid appropriately for the services rendered.
In this way we bring it to more of a voluntaristic model where trust is not needed, but rewarded nonetheless.
-
It comes to the word 'legal'.
Legal = with permission from authority.
-
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.
Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??
Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.
This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.
However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.
Rather than have mafia-style contract enforcement (I'd argue that most Governments of today use a thinly veiled version of this too), can't companies and users have trust levels that are logged in the blockchain along with a unique identifier (that is not connected with real world identity)?
Then there would naturally be a market for trust. So people who are well known and well trusted would receive incentives in the form of discounts (for instance in the case of someone buying from a Amazon, for instance) on purchases because the company itself recognizes that this account has always paid appropriately for the services rendered.
In this way we bring it to more of a voluntaristic model where trust is not needed, but rewarded nonetheless.
That is possible, as it would effectively lower the information asymmetry among contractors. The questions remains how do you create those trust scores.
In Pactum we are solving that through prediction markets, but not for people but rather for state machines (could be other blockchains, servers, companies, governments, etc). Creating strong enough trust scores for individuals might be too granular and in my opinion not practical. The counterparty risk of individuals is simply always much greater than that of a large, and heterogeneous pool of people. That's why the bigger the insurance pool, the lower your insurance contribution (at least in theory).
-
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
Isn't there a way to ensure anonymity AND unique identifiability?
I can only think of SNARKS but that is way above my head. http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/507.pdf
TBH I don't know anybody who understands it really, but it could be really cool.
-
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.
Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.
I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
-
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.
Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.
I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
moderate the moderator.....
I don't mind seeing opinions - but I agree we don't need strong political opinions tied to bts
-
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.
Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.
I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
Not many tin foil hats here. Mostly lots of open minds. The testimony from American Architects and Engineers regarding the impossibility of the official 911 story is overwhelming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pI
Be that as it may, I hope you joined our forum today to discuss or learn about BitShares.
Welcome.
p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.
-
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.
Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.
I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
Not many tin foil hats here. Mostly lots of open minds. The testimony from American Architects and Engineers regarding the impossibility of the official 911 story is overwhelming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pI
Be that as it may, I hope you joined our forum today to discuss or learn about BitShares.
Welcome.
p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.
I have been lurking here for ages.
I am not looking to argue about building 7 or anything of the like. It's just a very controversial topic that is going to alienate some people needlessly.
Convincing me that 9/11 was a false flag isn't going to remove the requirement for kyc.
-
p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.
Ok, true. And if the politics angle brings in more users than not, more power to it. However, tinfoil hats is a small market.
-
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.
Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.
I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
Interesting points.
But then again record shorts were taken out against the airlines just prior to 9/11 attacks. There was a lot of made on these risky bets by:
Deutsche Bank
Merrill Lynch/HSBC
Morgan Stanley
Bank of America
Raytheon
Lehman Brothers
General Motors
...
FBI Director John P O'Neil quit his job when his investigation of Osama Bin Ladin was blocked.
Top Pentagon officials even cancelled travel due to s"security" concerns.
If you are interested in crypto, I urge you to ask why. Are we here just to make money and be the next power arm of the system of debt slavery we currently have? Or are we here to change the world's monetary control structures to fundamentally uplift and empower others?
As for being a moderator. I only have mod privs over the beyond bitcoin subthread. As for politics...you can't get politics out of building a new future...unless, of course, there is a supreme leader who cannot be opposed in thst future.
I do not expect people to agree with me (though countless facts point to the truth), but I don't expect them to tell me I cannot speak my mind...indeed the beyond bitcoin platform is based on letting people speak their minds.
P.S. what we build here today is going to be impossible for any man or even team of men to defeat. I prefer a "tin foil hat" point of view over one of willful naivety.
-
P.S. what we build here today is going to be impossible for any man or even team of men to defeat.
+5% the final political frontier
also, it reminds me of terminator... and robots
-
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.
Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.
I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
Not many tin foil hats here. Mostly lots of open minds. The testimony from American Architects and Engineers regarding the impossibility of the official 911 story is overwhelming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pI
Be that as it may, I hope you joined our forum today to discuss or learn about BitShares.
Welcome.
p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.
I have been lurking here for ages.
I am not looking to argue about building 7 or anything of the like. It's just a very controversial topic that is going to alienate some people needlessly.
Convincing me that 9/11 was a false flag isn't going to remove the requirement for kyc.
On your first point...I tend to agree. But then again who better to have these conversations than those who are literally supporting the construction of this new system.
Secondly...I have no clue why everyone seems to think we absolutely need to conform with the messed up system we currently have as opposed to building something creatively destructive that will give power back to the sovereigns who, I think Noone here can argue, have been largely disempowered by the current system. Do blacklists and whitelists not sound d a hell of a lot to "the mark of the beast" to you guys?
-
P.S. what we build here today is going to be impossible for any man or even team of men to defeat.
+5% the final political frontier
also, it reminds me of terminator... and robots
Thanks. My point still remains though...
It does us a GREAT disservice to dismiss the obvious corruption that brought us all to crypto in the first place as "tinfoil hat" stuff. We should not be afraid to EVER consider even the most unpopular ideas. In fact it is the unpopular ones that should probably be reasoned out to the largest extent.
If we are afraid to confront the realities of the world in the process of building the new one, we should question whether or not we should be the ones helping build it...imho.
(And yes...that even means people who disagree with me!) :P
-
You missed American Airlines and the other airline involved.
James Rickards claims that an insider(s) knew about the attack and shorted some stocks, people saw the movement and figured somebody knew something they didn't, so they jumped on the bandwagon. I don't see the proof of false flag there.
There is very little to gain from arguing about 9/11 being a false flag, I feel. It's like arguing religion. Not really helping to get your point across, you're not going to change anyone's mind, and chances are you are going to alienate some people.
Personally, I'm an agnostic on 9/11.
Yes I think whitelists are a mark of the beast. It's like we've come full circle right back to where satoshi started - though I always figured it was where we would end up.
-
You missed American Airlines and the other airline involved.
James Rickards claims that an insider(s) knew about the attack and shorted some stocks, people saw the movement and figured somebody knew something they didn't, so they jumped on the bandwagon. I don't see the proof of false flag there.
There is very little to gain from arguing about 9/11 being a false flag, I feel. It's like arguing religion. Not really helping to get your point across, you're not going to change anyone's mind, and chances are you are going to alienate some people.
Personally, I'm an agnostic on 9/11.
Yes I think whitelists are a mark of the beast. It's like we've come full circle right back to where satoshi started - though I always figured it was where we would end up.
Now we are talking. I actually agree with you on the potential downsides...but then again there are real downsides to shutting down free interaction based on the fear of alienating people. Politically correct is dangerous too...especially when it pressures others to self-sensor. Instead, let's find the stuff we agree on...and there is plenty I'm sure.
As for your second point, I tend to (sadly) kind of agree. It just seems like too many prefer to be temporarily "safe" over indefinitely free...
If only there was a way to show people how powerful they really are. ..
-
I feel like this community is like an idealistic hippy from the 60's. All "fuck the man" and the like but now we are starting to grow up and have kids and houses and bills that need to be paid so we'll just work for the man for a bit till we get ahead...
-
It does us a GREAT disservice to dismiss the obvious corruption that brought us all to crypto in the first place as "tinfoil hat" stuff.
I am playing devil's advocate more than anything. I am a capitalist and want to see BitShares succeed, and I have grown extremely fond of the pursuit of life liberty and property for all. I also think the pursuit of truth is neccesary and valuable to the project.
However, what actually brought me into Crypto.. I was 13 years old and I wanted to buy some things without my parents knowing. .. Well, I couldn't do it because of KYC on cash cards, no access to a cash paying job, and lack of understanding of how all the payment system / money hocus pocus worked. I must have suppressed that desire to be free with my money, but it absolutely erupted when I discovered Bitcoin and BitShares 10 years later in 2013.
You could lump that in as discovering the corruption and wag the finger at big gov't, but it seems to me technology was never available to act as an economically optimal or peaceful state transition machine. That said I am fascinated by how the technology supports libertarianism now more than ever and I suspect we are on the forefront of a peaceful revolution.
-
Change is a choice.
I personally feel so blessed to have found a project like bitshares..but then again I did alot of looking.
I'm very glad to have had the chance to meet both of you in discussion as well :)
And as for leeroy...what an epic name from an epic game...
UBRS baby!
-
That said I am fascinated by how the technology supports libertarianism now more than ever and I suspect we are on the forefront of a peaceful revolution.
It feels that way now but it seems to me like that could end in an instant.
2 people get killed and it's justification for c-51? Could you imagine if Zehaf-Bibeau had even $0.10 of bitUSD? There's no free speech laws in Canada to protect open source software, and judging from initial poll numbers on c-51, we're a people who tend to over react in the greatest of fashions.
-
Sorry, but after reading this thread (as with many others here) it makes me wonder. Did the American forefathers have these types of discussions when crafting and constructing the Constitution?? Lol
Apply that thought to today, it's like us trying to craft and build the Constitution 2.0 of today's time.
Trying to break free from tyrannical government suppression...breaking free from stripped rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Breaking free from burdensome taxation and a centralized monetary rule.
To bad. I Didn't smoke a joint to think of this lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That said I am fascinated by how the technology supports libertarianism now more than ever and I suspect we are on the forefront of a peaceful revolution.
It feels that way now but it seems to me like that could end in an instant.
2 people get killed and it's justification for c-51? Could you imagine if Zehaf-Bibeau had even $0.10 of bitUSD? There's no free speech laws in Canada to protect open source software, and judging from initial poll numbers on c-51, we're a people who tend to over react in the greatest of fashions.
Such deep and telling points...
And what if most of the population knows nothing of technology but still relies on the television to tell them what to fear?
And what if the "terrorists" attack the technology that most people rely on but do not understand and people like us are caught in the crosshairs in making decisions to "keep everyone safe" ...or, like George Bush Jr said "you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? Which side do we choose when confronted by temporary wealth and power...or true freedom for all and Guantanamo? <---if incentives rule the world, these carrots and sticks are hard to beat...
I wish I could say this is a choice we will never have to make. Something in my gut tells me otherwise....
-
Such deep and telling points...
And what if most of the population knows nothing of technology but still relies on the television to tell them what to fear?
And what if the "terrorists" attack the technology that most people rely on but do not understand and people like us are caught in the crosshairs in making decisions to "keep everyone safe" ...or, like George Bush Jr said "you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? Which side do we choose when confronted by temporary wealth and power...or true freedom for all and Guantanamo?
I wish I could say this is a choice we will never have to make. Something in my gut tells me otherwise....
Are you saying that bitshares has the power to shut down Guantanamo?
-
Such deep and telling points...
And what if most of the population knows nothing of technology but still relies on the television to tell them what to fear?
And what if the "terrorists" attack the technology that most people rely on but do not understand and people like us are caught in the crosshairs in making decisions to "keep everyone safe" ...or, like George Bush Jr said "you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? Which side do we choose when confronted by temporary wealth and power...or true freedom for all and Guantanamo?
I wish I could say this is a choice we will never have to make. Something in my gut tells me otherwise....
Are you saying that bitshares has the power to shut down Guantanamo?
Nope. I'm saying we have more of this to look forward to in the crypto world:
Ross Ulbricht. Silk Road = Truly Free Market = Terrorism = Prison
(http://i.imgur.com/Zyqpoix.jpg)
Aaron Swartz
(http://i.imgur.com/38MSbto.png)
Bradley Manning
(http://i.imgur.com/3eyT8DP.jpg)
And so many more...
-
If history tells us anything is that all "radical / highly disrupting" ideas, have always been spinned against it by the controlling powers (read companies interests, not proper goverments) using the media. BitShares has the potential to decentralized many aspects of our lives hopefully for the best (if truly decentralised). Regulation is always going to be necessary, like taxes are necessary to provide the services we need.
Branding is important, together with the message. An example OpenBaazar vs DarkMarket, both will do potentially the same thing, but the message is different with a much bigger user base.
-
If history tells us anything is that all "radical / highly disrupting" ideas, have always been spinned against it by the controlling powers (read companies interests, not proper goverments) using the media. BitShares has the potential to decentralized many aspects of our lives hopefully for the best (if truly decentralised). Regulation is always going to be necessary, like taxes are necessary to provide the services we need.
Branding is important, together with the message. An example OpenBaazar vs DarkMarket, both will do potentially the same thing, but the message is different with a much bigger user base.
+5%
-
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
Something like this?
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Delegate/PublicData
-
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
Something like this?
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Delegate/PublicData
Moonstone. Building the tools for monetary surveillance.
-
Moonstone. Building the tools for monetary surveillance.
1) I wrote that wiki article
2) no one can force you to publish your data
3) the current concept from moonstone is to hand out a certificate that ties your account with a authority
4) in order to comply with regulations for stocks you need to be able to 'survey' shareholders of your company
5) no one will force you to either issue or buy any stock in bitshares
-
Moonstone. Building the tools for monetary surveillance.
1) I wrote that wiki article
2) no one can force you to publish your data
3) the current concept from moonstone is to hand out a certificate that ties your account with a authority
4) in order to comply with regulations for stocks you need to be able to 'survey' shareholders of your company
5) no one will force you to either issue or buy any stock in bitshares
1) A known known. For delegates.
2) As social systems grow in importance, individuals are very much forced to participate as dictated - in order to survive.
3) Moonstone. Tying your account with a authority.
4) Bitshares. A new way to issue stocks, exactly like the old way.
5) see 2)
-
1) A known known. For delegates.
2) As social systems grow in importance, individuals are very much forced to participate as dictated - in order to survive.
3) Moonstone. Tying your account with a authority.
4) Bitshares. A new way to issue stocks, exactly like the old way.
5) see 2)
2) .. unproven claim
3) nop. moonstone will tie a arbitrary account to your name .. no need to use ONLY that account .. that account will be able to use legal stocks .. you can still register any number of additional accounts
4) again wrong and you should already know the differences between 'traditional stock' and stock on the blockchain!
5) see 2)
-
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
Something like this?
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Delegate/PublicData
Thanks for pointing me to that. That, combined with a standardized PGP signature from the certificate issuer, or a special relation through the bitshares Object Graph would work.